Much has been written about this, but essentially I believe that
prayerful Bible reading of itself will open up the meaning to us.
The following are just a few practical hints how to interpret the
Bible:
- Make notes in your Bible. Don't worry about using fancy colours
or only writing when you have the right kind of pen or pencil.
The actual process of note taking is what is important. Look at
a man's Bible, and it will probably tell you something about his
attitude to God's word. Our Bible becomes a kind of personal document
of our faith, a statement of our relationship between us and our
God. Always read or listen to the word with a pen or pencil in
hand; set out to be a Bible student, not just someone who goes
through the motion of daily Bible reading or attending a Bible
study in a ritualistic sense. God speaks to us in a personal way
through His word, He will open our eyes to see things there in
response to our prayers, and thereby He will personally guide
us in our walk to His Kingdom. This is why I recommend marking
your Bible for yourself, in your own way (and for this reason
alone I can't very strongly recommend the systems of organized
Bible marking which are available). The Kings of Israel (types
of us) were to copy out the Law for themselves, and read that
copy all their lives (Dt. 17:18,19). That book was a statement
of the covenant relationship between them and their God; and it
seems to me there was good psychological reason to insist that
they made their own personal copy of it, and read from it for
themselves.
- Harry Whittaker coined the term 'Bible television'; and it
is indeed a help in how to interpret the Bible. The idea is that
we imagine that the scene we have read is being presented on television;
we try to re-live the scene and see it from a birds-eye perspective.
This often enlarges our appreciation of the narrative, and livens
up our Bible reading. For example, play Bible television with
Exodus 7; the magicians of Egypt tried to replicate the miracles
of Moses, and apparently succeeded first of all. But when you
imagine it, the whole thing must have been almost comical. For
example, Moses made all the water in Egypt into blood, and then,
after this, while all the water was blood, the magicians claimed
to do the same (Ex. 7:22). We can imagine them running round,
desperately looking for water which hadn't turned to blood, perhaps
dyeing some of it white, and then turning it red and saying 'There
you are, my Lord, we can do just the same, there's nothing
this Moses can do which we can't'. We are left to imagine Pharaoh's
courtiers almost smiling, knowing that Moses' God was no match
for their religious nonsenses (cp. Ex. 10:7; 11:3). Dt. 7:19 even has God addressing those who had not been present at the Red
Sea and who hadn't seen the plagues on Egypt as if they had personally been
there. He speaks of these things "which thine eyes saw". The people
were to so feel themselves into God's word, into Biblical history, into their
membership in the people of God, that it was as if they had seen these things
with their own eyes. And in the context, God uses this as the basis to appeal
for their trust that He will likewise give them the victory over the Egyptians
and crises in their lives.
- Be aware that there are some things in Scripture which are
recorded in such a way as to promote meditation, and therefore
they will always be ambiguous in terms of the actual interpretation
which is sustainable. We can't always say " This
word means X, this phrase means Y, therefore this verse means
interpretation Z; and if you don't agree with that, you don't
really accept the Bible" . Because it is possible to say
that about the interpretation of basic doctrine doesn't mean that
we can adopt this attitude to the interpretation of every Bible
passage. The record of the crucifixion is a good example of this.
Or consider how it is recorded that some of those healed by the
Lord didn't afterwards do what He said: one preached
to his whole city rather than to his family (Lk. 8:39); another
didn't obey the Lord's plea to not tell anyone else (Mk. 1:45).
How are we to read these responses? Rank disobedience? Misguided
zeal? Zeal in doing over and above what they were asked? You may
have your ideas, and it is right that we should meditate upon
these things and discuss them. But I suggest that ultimately they
are left 'hanging' for the very purpose of promoting meditation
and personal application, rather than being statements which shout
for an obvious interpretation, like an equation 'A + 2 = 5, so
what is A?'. Latter day prophecies are, it seems to me (although
not to all brethren!) in the same category, of statements and
types which cannot have an exact interpretation dogmatically
attached to them (although we may grasp the general picture),
but rather are presented to us to promote meditation. Any who
have tried to construct a sequence of events for the last days
will have been forced to this conclusion.
- Look up the references in your margin. Generally, these are
a reflection of good Biblical scholarship.
- Use a concordance to guide you to other places where a theme
or personality occurs. But avoid one temptation: don't place too
much stress on the meanings of Hebrew and Greek words, unless
you absolutely have to. There is a type of Bible study which is
simply a list of alternative translations, placing great importance
on the root meanings of words (often questionably derived by Gesenius).
I am wary of expositions which depend on twisting the meaning
of the original. We don't know those languages, and the lexicon
is a crude way of analyzing them. Under inspiration (mind), the
New Testament writers did construct expositions which
hinged around the meaning or alternative meaning of a Hebrew word.
But this doesn't mean that we are wise to seek to do this as our
main method of Bible study. The best expositions are those which
rest on a clear, evident connection, either linguistically or
semantically, with other parts of Scripture. Such links are evident
in any translation, in any language. Most generations of the body
of Christ haven't been able to read, yet alone have access to
the concordances and lexicons which we have. These things enhance
our exposition, but they are only icing on the cake. Davidson
rightly observes: “Usage is the only safe guide; the concordance
is always a safer guide than the lexicon” (1). Online concordances
and various translations are all widely available on the internet
as freeware- e-sword would be a good example. Each word in Scripture
is given a number. You can then see what that word strictly means
in the Hebrew or Greek by looking up that number. Most usefully,
you can run searches for where such words occur together- e.g.
if you search for " lamb" and " God" , you
will find all references to the idea of God's lamb, with all the
meaning it has for Bible students eagerly searching for information
about the Lord Jesus as that lamb. And so beware of what has been
called the ‘root fallacy’. Easy access to Hebrew lexicons
lead many Bible students to look up a word, then look at it’s
root, and decide that the root is therefore the meaning- especially
if it fits in to their idea of what the passage under study should
mean! But this isn’t a true way of analyzing language. Words
with different meanings can have the same root. Take the words
‘unity’ and ‘uniformity’. Sadly, these
two words are confused all too often in Christian churches- e.g.,
‘To create unity in the church, everyone must come to the
breaking of bread meeting uniformly dressed, all wearing a certain
kind of clothing’. No, ‘unity’ and ‘uniformity’
are two quite different things; and yet they come from the same
root word, ‘uno’. The wider problems of the ‘root
fallacy’ have been discussed at great length elsewhere (2). But one noteworthy issue is that the root meaning fallacy arises from the false assumption that a word has a
"proper meaning", which can be reached by tracing it to its source.
But seeing that words change their meaning, the 'root' of a word isn't really
much of a guide to its meaning. Take the English word 'nice', i.e. pleasant.
In the eighteenth century this word meant 'precise' rather than 'pleasant';
and it actually derives from the Latin nescius, meaning 'ignorant'.
It's obviously wrong to read the word 'nice' in a contemporary book and think
that the word therefore means 'precise', or, even more accurately, 'ignorant'.
Context and usage is obviously the key. I'm constantly amazed at how respectable
lexicons like Liddell & Scott use the term "prop.", i.e. 'proper
meaning', with the evident understanding that the earliest use of a word is
somehow its real, 'proper' meaning. This is an utter fallacy. The meaning of the names of Jacob's children are parade examples. Reuben means 'behold a son', but the inspired narrator suggests a meaning of 'afflication' because the consonants with that word are vaguely similar to 'Reuben' (Gen. 29:31-35).
- Any serious study of a Bible passage requires us to look at
it in different translations and make some effort to understand
the real meaning of the original- for sometimes the sense of a
passage can completely change, depending on translation (especially
in Job). Thus in the AV of 2 Cor. 10:7, Paul is made to ask a
question: " Do ye look on things after the outward appearance?"
. In the RV, this becomes an affirmation: " Ye look at the
things that are before your face" . But in other versions,
it becomes a blunt demand from Paul that the Corinthians should
open their eyes to the true facts: " Look at things which
stare you in the face!" (J.B. Phillips).
- Watch out for quotations and allusions within Scripture; there
are connections not only between New and Old Testaments, but also
(e.g.) between Paul's letters; Peter alludes to Paul's writings,
Paul frequently alludes to the words of John the Baptist; Jeremiah
often refers to Job's words and experiences. Note the context
of the source quotation, because this often sheds light on the
passage in which it is quoted. Be aware that many NT passages
mix a number of OT passages in one 'quotation'; e.g. " The
deliverer will come from Zion" (Rom. 11:26) is a conflated
quotation of Ps. 14:7; 53:6 and Is. 59:20. And Heb. 13:5 combines
quotes from Gen. 28:15; Josh. 1:5 and Dt. 31:16. Heb. 13:5 doesn’t
quote any of them exactly, but mixes them together.
- When you look up one of these quotations, note the context.
Often (but not always) when the New Testament quotes the Old,
there is something in the context which is relevant, and which
explains why the NT writer quoted the verse he did. Beware of
the temptation to just use Bible passages on a surface level;
i.e., because the words as they stand in your translation seem
to suit what you want to prove, don't just use them, but check
if the context fits. It has been truly observed that the NT writers
" quoted not texts but contexts" ; and therefore we
should be wary of using Bible verses just as clichés.
- Attention must be paid to the context. Perhaps this
above all teaches us how to interpret the Bible accurately. The
more you study, the more this becomes apparent. Because a word
or phrase means something in one context doesn't mean it always
means this in any context. Thus " leaven" can
be a symbol of both the Gospel and also sin. And the eagle is
a symbol of several quite different enemies of Israel, as well
as of God Himself. Another simple example is in Dt. 3:20; the
land " beyond Jordan" refers to land on the West of
the river; but in Josh. 9:10 the same phrase refers to land on
the East. That same phrase " beyond Jordan" means something
different in different contexts. We can't always assume, therefore,
that the same phrase must refer to the same thing wherever
it occurs. Read the Gospels in the context of other Gospels; read
the prophets in the context of the historical records; read the
NT epistles in the context of Acts. Again, a quick example: Paul
said that he was going to Jerusalem, " Saying, After I have
been there, I must also see Rome" (Acts 19:21). But actually
he had written to the Romans that he would drop in to see them
on his way to Spain (Rom. 15;23). Spain was his real ambition,
to preach the Gospel in " the regions beyond" (2 Cor.
10:16 and context)- not Rome. But Acts 19:21 gives the impression
that Rome was the end of his vision.
- But be aware that when it comes to prophecy, in the
sense of foretelling future events, the New Testament sometimes
seems to quote the Old Testament without attention to
the context- at least, so far as human Bible scholarship can discern.
The early chapters of Matthew contain at least three examples
of quotations whose context just cannot fit the application
given: Mt. 2:14,15 cp. Hos. 11:1; Mt. 2:17,18 cp. Jer. 31:15;
Mt. 1:23 cp. Is. 7:14. Much Christian material about Israel shows
how they have returned to the land, rebuilt the ruined cities,
made the desert blossom etc., as fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies
in Jeremiah etc. The context of these prophecies often doesn’t
fit a return to the land by Jews in the 20th century; but on the
other hand, the correspondence between these prophecies and recent
history is so remarkable that it can’t be just coincidence. So
again we are led to conclude that a few words here and there within
a prophecy can sometimes have a fulfilment outside that which
the context seems to require.
- If you have (or can make) time, try to make a concentrated
study of a Bible book. James is a good one to begin with. Note
down what the verses are actually telling you in practice.
- Compare the parallel records when studying the Gospels. Be
aware that often the records are summarized and highly condensed.
Thus sometimes what is recorded as being actually said may be
only a summary of the real words (consider what the Canaanite
woman actually said: Mt. 15:27 cp. Mk. 7:28). Some wonderful things
come out of comparing the records. Thus the Luke record has the
Lord saying that two sparrows are sold for one farthing; Mark
records that He said that five sparrows were sold for two farthings.
So what did the Lord really say? I suggest something like this:
'As you know, two sparrows are sold for one farthing, they cost
half a farthing each; but often, as you know, five sparrows
are sold for two farthings, they'll throw one extra in
for free, they're worth so little'.
- Every word of God is inspired. Be aware of the huge impact
of brief, basic statements. Whoever isn't for me is against me.
You can't serve two masters. Love the Lord God with all your heart.
These basic statements should form our whole attitude to the world,
to our life decisions, to our very essential being. Whilst basic
doctrine is provable by many passages, don't be afraid of accepting
something from 'just' one passage that clearly speaks to you.
And, in this context, don't let anyone tell you that (e.g.) sisters
shouldn't wear head coverings 'Because the Bible only says it
once'. How many times does God have to tell us something before
we take Him and His words seriously?
- Be aware that the original writers didn't have quotation marks
or brackets (consider where Paul might have used them in 1 Cor.
15:45-47!). For example, throughout Corinthians Paul is quoting
phrases from their allegations and questions, but it is not always
exactly apparent. Consider 2 Cor. 12:16. Perhaps using quotation
marks we could translate: " Nevertheless, " being crafty"
, I " caught you with guile" " . The New Testament
so often seems to mix interpretation with Old Testament quotation;
here especially we need to imagine the use of quotation marks.
According to the Western text of Acts 18:4, Paul " inserted
the name of the Lord Jesus" at the appropriate points in
his public reading of the Old Testament prophecies. This was after
the pattern of some of the Jewish targums (commentaries) on the
prophets, which inserted the word " Messiah" at appropriate
points in Isaiah's prophecies of the suffering servant (e.g. the
Targum of Jonathan on the Prophets).
- Often a parenthesis is used to develop a digression, and then
the writer returns to the main theme. Perceiving this is a key
to how to interpret the Bible. Consider these examples:
1) Gal. 3:9-14. Verses 10-13 are a parenthesis concerning the
curse of the Law. If read without the parenthesis, the flow
of thought goes straight on: " They which be of faith are
blessed with faithful Abraham (v.9)...that the blessing of Abraham
might come on the Gentiles" (v.14).
2) Sometimes the artificial chapter breaks (which were added
by man) break up the parenthesis. Is. 24:23 speaks of how "
the Lord of Hosts shall reign in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem"
; the following first five verses of Is. 25 are a parenthesis;
and then Is. 25:6 continues: " in this mountain...he will
destroy..." . If we fail to realize the parenthesis, and
if we only started reading at chapter 25:1, we would be thinking:
" Which mountain?" . But if we realize the parenthesis,
and if we disregard the chapter division, all is plain: "
...in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem (24:23)...in this mountain...
(25:6)" . Whilst I strongly recommend the use of Bible
reading planners such as the Bible Companion, this
is one of the drawbacks of any system of reading a chapter per
day. Reading through a book, especially in just two or three
sittings, enables us to grasp the theme much better.
3) One of the most telling uses of parenthesis (and the most
misunderstood) is in the Olivet prophecy. We frequently struggle
to understand which verses apply to AD70 and which to the last
days. But if Mt. 24:8-22 are read as a parenthesis specifically
concerning the events of AD70, all becomes clear: the first
seven verses and Mt. 24:23 ff. refer to events of both the last
days and AD70. Try doing the same in Lk. 21. But I'll leave
you to work through this for yourself!
4) " We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto
ye do well that ye take heed (as unto a light that shineth in
a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise) in
your hearts" (2 Pet. 1:19). We must take heed to the word
in our hearts- this is the idea, rather than any suggestion
of a mystical coming of Christ in our hearts.
5) " Now the sojourning of the children of Israel (who
dwelt in Egypt) was four hundred and thirty years" (Ex.
12:40). This solves the chronological problem which this verse
otherwise creates.
- Not only are paragraph and chapter breaks sometimes misleading,
verse breaks can be too. Inserting punctuation into translation
of Hebrew and Greek texts is very difficult. Thus Eph. 1:4,5 in
the AV reads: “...that we should be holy and without blame before
him in love: having predestinated us”. Shift the colon and another
emphasis is apparent: “...that we should be holy and without blame
before him: in love having predestinated us”. When stuck with
a ‘difficult’ verse (and they all are in some ways!), don’t be
afraid to try re-jigging the punctuation a bit.
- Be aware that we are reading translations of the Bible, and that even within
the New Testament we have examples of Hebrew words being translated into Greek.
Yet hardly ever does a word in one language have an absolutely exact equivalent
in another. Take the English word 'spirit'. French esprit and German
geist convey the meaning, but neither of those words has any overlap
with the idea of alcohol, which is a shade of meaning carried by the English
'spirit'. And yet neither the English, French nor German words for 'spirit'
can really convey the ideas behind the Hebrew ruach, which can mean
spirit, breath and wind.
- Watch out for the use of figures of speech. How we interpret
the Bible accurately depends upon grasping these. Ellipsis and
metaphor are the most common. Ellipsis is where as it were a gap
is left in the sentence, and we have to fill in the intended sense.
Thus: " For as many as have sinned without law, shall perish
also without [being judged by] law" (Rom. 2:12).
- The Spirit often uses hyperbole, i.e. exaggerated language
to make a point. Thus the shepherd left the 99 to seek the one;
but the Lord never leaves us. The point is that His concern for
the lost is so great. Or consider Jer. 7:22,23: "
I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that
I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings
or sacrifices: but this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my
voice..." . God did command them to offer sacrifices.
But compared to His overwhelming desire for them to love His word
rather than feel obligated by specific, concrete commands, effectively
He didn't command them concerning sacrifices. Another
example would be when Ez. 16:51,52 says that the sin of Jerusalem
justified Samaria’s sin. Sin doesn’t justify sin; it’s a shocking,
arresting hyperbole.
- Sometimes, what appears to be hyperbole may in fact be irony.
Thus when Paul says that the least respected member should settle
disputes, he was not necessarily saying that this in fact was
what he was advocating (the NT teaching about eldership would
contradict this); he was surely using irony. Likewise in his teaching
about head coverings, Paul is surely using irony: 'If you throw
away your head covering, you may as well throw away your hair!'
is how I read 1 Cor. 11:5. " ...Seeing ye yourselves are
wise" is one of several more evident uses of irony in Corinthians.
- Appreciate that the Bible uses this device of irony quite extensively.
Realizing the use of irony and appreciating the point behind it
is directly related to our familiarity with Scripture. The more
we love it and are truly familiar with it, the more we will grasp
the use of irony. This is one example of how God has written the
Bible to progressively open itself up to those who truly love
it. The events associated with the trial and death of the Lord
Jesus seem to be more densely packed with irony than anywhere
else. This may be because the Lord's perception of the irony was
a strength to Him. Thus, and this is only one simply example,
He would have seen the irony of sinners crowning Him. He knew
that one day they really would, in their hearts.
- Try to see the historical events which occurred to Israel as
relevant to you personally. Israel's keeping of the Passover implied
that each subsequent Israelite had personally been redeemed that
night. All down the years, they were to treat the stranger fairly:
" for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers
in the land of Egypt" (Ex. 23:9). The body of believers,
the body of Christ, is not only world-wide geographically at this
point in time; it stretches back over time as well as distance,
to include all those who have truly believed. This is why David
found such inspiration from the history of Israel in his own crises
(e.g. Ps. 77).
- Try to memorize Scripture, run through verses as you go about
life, play tapes of Bible studies or Bible reading in the background
(instead of the mindless radio). Much of Scripture was probably
memorized by various contemporary believers. " This book
of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth" (Josh. 1:8)
presumably means that Joshua was commanded to keep reciting it
to himself in daily life, so that he would be obedient to it.
The way Jeremiah consciously and unconsciously quotes and alludes
to Job would suggest that he had memorized that book. And many
of the Psalms are written in such a way (in Hebrew) as to be easily
memorized. David memorized God's law and meditated upon it (hardly
the easiest part of Scripture to memorize, at least to Western
eyes; Ps. 119:16). He recited it to himself in the night seasons.
- Watch out for the danger of over interpretation. George Orwell,
better known for his novels Animal Farm and 1984,
was a literary critic of great perception. He observed that all
sort of literature, "from Dickens to seaside postcards",
can be analyzed in order to yield information and conclusions
which it was never intended to provide (3). The Bible is more
than literature, as it's inspired by God; but it is also literature,
and in this sense it is just as prone to this kind of mistreatment
as any other literature. And because human beings so want God
to as it were be on their side, there's no book like it which
has been so forced into giving support for human ideas. We have
to be careful we don't do the same. We must be led to truth by
the Bible, and not over interpret it. And I would suggest, as
a rule of thumb, that over-interpretation occurs when someone
comes to the Bible seeking support for their preconceived ideas.
Prov. 2:4,5 exhorts us to seek for wisdom as men seek for wealth in secular
life. And yet how many blame their lack of Bible study on having no time, due
to the pursuit of wealth! Long hours, demanding jobs that demand our very soul,
the worries that come with wealth... these are the very things which sap our
ability to seek the wisdom of God's word. Yet it is only if we seek for that
wisdom above those things, with the same constant insistency with which the
worldling seeks wealth, that "then shalt thou understand...".
Understanding of God's word doesn't therefore come from academic application,
from sitting down once in the week to do some quick Bible study... it comes
above all from an attitude. That desire to know God is what will lead us to
correct understanding. Time and again we are taught that it is our attitude
to God's word which is so crucial. The parable of the sower can be interpreted
as fulfilling every time we hear the word sown in us. Thus some seed is "choked
with cares" (Lk. 8:14)- exactly the same words used about Martha being
"cumbered" with her domestic duties so that she didn't hear the Lord's
word at that time (Lk. 10:40). We bring various attitudes of mind- stony, receptive,
cumbered etc.- to the word each time we hear it. And it is our attitude to it
which determines our response to it.
Bible study is vital for every believer. How to interpret the Bible
is indeed an essential skill to grasp. God is His word. Our attitude
to His word is our attitude to Him. If we love Him, we will love
His word. We will meditate upon it, we will catch the spirit of
the faithful Israelite, who wrote the word upon his doorposts, talked
about it over his meals... Yet we must live in this world. We can't
have our nose in a Bible all day (although we could all snatch a
verse or so for meditation during the daily round). I can only suggest
the 'umbrella' answer: If we know our mother has cancer and will
receive the outcome of tests in a week; if we are in love; somehow
we will do our daily tasks, but with a sense of something else hanging
over us, permeating the atmosphere in which we live. And so it can
be with God's word. One can sense how much Paul loved the
word, and how much he had meditated upon it. Thus he speaks of how
" Esaias is very bold, and saith...Esaias also crieth
concerning Israel..." (Rom. 9:27; 10:20). Paul had meditated
deeply upon Isaiah's words, even to the point of considering the
tone of voice in which he first spoke them. It was because the rulers
of Israel “knew not...the voices of the prophets which
are read every sabbath day” (Acts 13:27) that they crucified the
Lord. He speaks of their “voices” rather than merely their words.
They had heard the words, but not felt and perceived that these
were the actual voices of men who being dead yet speak. They didn’t
feel the wonder of inspiration in their attitude to Bible
study- even though they would have devoutly upheld the position
that the Bible texts were inspired. And here we have a lesson for
ourselves.
(1) A.B. Davidson, The Theology Of The Old Testament (New
York: Scribners, 1906).
email the author
BACK
HOME