Bible Interpretation

A common sticking point with some non-believers is that you can't trust the Bible because everyone interprets it differently. First, this is a logical fallacy. Unstable people can misinterpret federal laws, but that doesn't mean that the laws are too vague to comprehend. Having read both the Bible and a fair amount of United States law, I can attest to the fact that the Bible is easier to interpret than the law. Second, the Bible was written to communicate truth to men. If it is hopeless to try to understand it then it has completely failed at its whole purpose. Third, much ancient writing (eg The Illiad and the Odessey) is quite easy to understand, provided one understands the cultural context and one has a decent translation. You don't see a lot of disagreement over meaning on such material. Why the Bible would be treated in a different manner can be explained by 1) ignorance, 2) supersition, and/or 3) dishonesty. Ignorance of the Bible or of the context in which it was originally delivered is probably the biggest cause of problems. Other people take a supersitious approach where they apply some sort of mystical characteristics to the Bible that means they have to interpret it in some illogical way. Dishonesty is practiced by those who want to dismiss what it says and will grasp at any misinterpretation as an excuse to dismiss it.

The subject of Bible interpreation is called "hermeneutics". There are bad hermeneutical approaches (ie bad interpretation practices) and there are good approaches. There is some disagreement on what constitutes good vs bad hermeneutics. I recommend Dr. Ramm's book "Protestant Bible Interpretation" which gives a brief history of the various interpretive approaches that have been taken throughout history. Over many years I developed my own hermeneutical rules based on the clear mistakes I had seen others make and the ones I had made. Interestingly, I'm in almost complete agreement with Dr. Ramm's recommended rules. I could have saved myself the effort if I had read his book when I was first saved! Obviously, then, I consider his book to be the most logical approach to proper interpretation. I only disagree in that he thinks apocalyptic passages (parts of Daniel, and most of Revelation, for instance) should be treated differently; I believe that the same general rules of interpretation that I follow apply to all passages of the Bible.

Before I address the rules I follow, it must be noted that all hermeneutical systems are based on some assumptions about the nature of the Bible. Wildly different assumptions lead to wildly different rules, which lead to wildly different interpretations. For instance, the Catholic assumption seems to be that any given passage of the Bible may be symbolic or literal, but it doesn't really matter so long as you can draw some sort of lesson from it. These interpretations are then set in stone by decree of church officials (especially the Pope) and that is what is taught to the lay people. The Catholics are not alone in this, of course, and a many other traditions have their own doctrines that are passed on to the lay people as inviolate truths. But I believe that everyone is responsible to compare any claim of truth against what the Bible actually says rather than just accept what they are told. Luke commends the Bereans for doing just that in regard to Paul's teachings¹. And that is the real measure of humility and honesty: does the one claiming to speak truth encourage others to verify their claims through the scripture?

Assumptions
Here are the givens that I hold to in regard to the Bible.
1) The Bible is Divinely inspired. The contents of the Bible were either written from direct revelation from God, or else guided by God such that what was written down and preserved was effectively directly from Him. If you don't believe this, then I don't see how you can view the Bible as anything other than a collection of fables mixed with propagandist history. In such a case, you might believe that some of it is true, but that leaves it up to you to decide what to believe and what to dismiss. The self-deluded human tendency is to pick and choose what is comfortable and ignore that which would require change and opposition to our flesh. "Inspired" is probably not the best word to describe it, since it implies that the inspiration and end-result may have little relation to each other. "Divinely guided and restrained" might be a better way of putting it. The scripture may have been written down by men, but its origin is with God. Men essentially took dictation, even if they didn't realize it at the time.²

2) The Bible is inerrant. Since the Bible is Divinely inspired, it contains no errors or contradictions. God doesn't make mistakes. That doesn't mean that the Bible is always clear, of course. Some passages are difficult, some may present a dichotomy, and a few might be beyond our current understanding. Some may require faith, but that doesn't mean that the Bible is untrue. After decades of study, I have found no true contraditions, though I've heard uncounted claims of such. In fact, nearly all of the supposed contraditions I've heard are so easily dismissed that the only explanation as to why they gain any traction in people's minds is widespread Biblical illiteracy. Many of them are absolutely laughable to anyone with even minimal Biblical understanding.

3) The Canon is closed and complete. Why the Bible and not other ancient Hebrew literature? This is a big topic, but let me summarize. Over the years, various Christian traditions have met to decide which books should be considered part of the "official" Bible. The selected collection of books became the canon. "Canon" means that which is accepted as true. Some traditions include different books in their canon, but there are 66 books of the Bible that are accepted by all Christian traditions, and have been for over 1,000 years (since the fourth century for the New Testament - earlier for the Old Testament). There is no question that these books, at least, are canon - whether one is Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox. In the case of the Old Testament, the books held in common as canon are also the books held as canon by Orthodox Jews as well.

God still reveals Himself to people today (divine revelation), so when we say that the canon is closed, it doesn't mean that God is still not speaking to people, perhaps even inspiring them to write things down. But it does mean that anything new is not considered canon and, thus, equal in weight to the Bible as delivered to us.

Understand it this way: since all parts of canon are considered Divinely inspired, all parts are thus true and non-contradictory. Any apparent contradictions are due to improper interpretation. However, anything outside of scripture that contradicts it is false. Writings that help us understand scripture are useful, but anything that subtracts from (dismisses), or adds to, or "reinterprets" the Bible is not to be trusted.

4) The Bible is the ultimate measure of truth. Given the proceeding, we know that though the Bible is not the only source of truth, it is the measure against which all claims of truth must be measured. Anything which contradicts the (properly interpreted) teachings of the Bible is not truth.

5) The Bible is a theological treatise. It is not a "scientific" one. Nor is it merely history or philosophy. It contains accurate history, and true science will not contradict the Bible. History and science can illuminate scripture which is otherwise open to interpretation. However, if history or science appears to contradict scripture, that history or science is wrong. But is also important to realize that the point is the Bible is not to teach us history or science or math or technology. It is to reveal God to man. It informs us as to the underlying reasons why things are they way they are. And Christ is the principal theme of the Bible.

6) The Bible must be interpreted by someone who is spiritually alive. The Holy Spirit must lead us into all truth. Without the enablement of the Spirit, the Bible cannot be properly understood. It is spiritual in nature and it is spiritually discerned.

7) The Bible must be approached as open-mindedly as possible, with humility, patience, and diligent study. We must avoid the tendency to read into the Bible things that are not there. It is hard not to interpret it (and everything else) through a mental model that we've built over the years, but we should endeavor to view it as objectively as we possibly can.

8) The purpose of reading the Bible is to convict the sinner and edify the believer, making him more like Jesus. It is not there to satisfy our curiosity about everything or to titilate us. Nor should we use it to feed our flesh. Remember that knowledge has a tendancy to make us prideful, so we must be careful not to study the Bible merely to gain knowledge.

9) The Bible is practical. Essentials are clearly revealed. The basic message of the Bible is accessible to even the most simple-minded people.

Rules
Now that we've addressed the assumptions, here are the rules to follow in order to properly interpret the Bible.

1) Interpret in context of the culture, geography, history, idioms, and perspective of the original hearers of the scripture. Although the Bible is meant for all people of all times, it was written to a people of a specific time and culture. Therefore to understand its meaning, we have to understand what it would have meant to those who originally heard it. Sometimes it states things as if from a human perspective. For instance, like today, when the Bible talks about the sun rising, it does not mean that the sun literally rises or orbits the earth. But it uses language understandable to the original readers. Also, some commands are given to specific individuals or groups. One must identify who is spoken to, and why, before interpreting it as a command for all people of all times.

2) Interpretations must be in context with the rest of scripture. Since scripture is inerrant, the Bible is the best commentary on itself. Where there is apparent contradiction, it must be recognized that either there is an improper interpretation of one (or both) passages, or the "contradiction" indicates two facets of a greater truth. It is common for one passage to cast light upon other passages. The worst possible means of interpretation is when a passage is taken out of the context of the passages that immediate proceed and follow said passage. Especially note when the words "therefore" or "however" are used. The words that follow are directly related to the proceeding passage and must be interpreted in light of that. One cannot take a random verse or passage out of context and take that as direction from God.

3) Remember that the Bible is an accommodation of divine truth to the human mind. God is infinite, but no writing or human mind can be. Therefore, the Bible does not contain everything that could be known. Rather, it contains that which is of greatest import stated in a way that we humans can grasp.

4) We must distinguish between what the Bible records, and what it approves. It records murders, adultery, and theft, but that does not mean that it approves those behaviors, even where it doesn't immediately state that God was displeased.

5) Realize that the Old Testament is a general revelation of shadows, types, and parables. The New Testament is a specific revelation of Jesus, the fullfillment and sharpening of the Old Testament revelation.

6) Read the Bible critically. Give a justification for any interpretation - and if there is none to be had, reject it. Allegorical interpretation is fine for devotional purposes but must never be the fundamental way to read the Bible.

7) Statements should very rarely be interpreted as having more than one meaning.

8) Give preference to the clearest and most evident interpretation of the passage. This will be the literal, common-sense, interpretation except when there is a compelling reason to believe otherwise. The temptation is to interpret some things as symbolic although they are plainly literal. It is almost always the case that symbolic meanings are clearly explained as such. In the absence of such clarifications in scripture, it should be taken literally. However, one must also take note of who is speaking. If a human is recorded as speaking, they may be stating things as they see it (which may be wrong), or in a hyperbolic fashion. If the devil is speaking, there is always some deceit involved. If God, or an angel, or a prophet is speaking, then it should be taken literally unless it is specifically explained as symbolic. God does not deceive or exaggerate.

9) Interpretation is one, but application is many. There are many ways to apply a passage, but there is only one proper interpretation.

10) Obscure passages must not override clear passages. Nor should one build a theology off of a single verse, or a couple verses in different parts of the Bible. What is important and true is very clear.

11) Use the Old Testament to interpret the New Testament. Be sure to use like genres (eg prophetic, apocalyptic, or historical). Don't forget the nature of Hebrew literature that we discusssed in the previous article.

12) Check interpretations against the great interpretive efforts of the past and do not diverge from them without good reason. Some people seem to want to come up with some new interpretation of scripture, as if people in the past were blind to what the Bible actually says. It may be possible that prophecies can be understood more clearly as time passes, but to assume that everyone since Jesus has got something wrong is a conceit - and a lie from the enemy.

13) If an interpretation appears to go against history or science, it is probably because history or science is wrong. But if there is room for interpretation due to unclear meaning, history and/or science might provide help in how to interpret it.

Every bad interpretation I've ever heard (or made) is due to a violation of one the above rules or a faulty assumption about the nature of scripture.

1 Acts 17:11
2 2 Tim 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21