Properly Interpreting Scripture

Introduction

One of the responsibilities that we have as a Christian community is to read the Bible responsibly. We need to read the Bible as it was intended to be read. The fact is that the Bible is literature. It is literature that was inspired to be written by God, but it is still literature. As such, there are certain principles that we can apply to our reading of Scripture to ensure that we are properly interpreting what it means. What follows is a brief description of nine principles that, if followed, will greatly assist us in digging out the proper interpretation of Scripture. There are certainly other areas that could be considered, but these are the main areas that tend to be ignored or misapplied.

Does the interpretation consider the context?

If the context is not taken into consideration, then the Bible interpretation is probably a poor one. For instance, I recently saw a television prosperity gospel preacher who said that in John 4:37-38, Jesus was establishing an economic principle for those that followed Him. The preacher completely ignored the fact that this statement was in the context of evangelism. He completely missed the point of Jesus’ words. The fact is that most of what Jesus said was in a specific time and place and spoken specifically to the Jews whom He was addressing. We must understand what He was saying to His original audience and then determine what this means for us. Another example of this would be Matthew 7:13-14 and Luke 13:22-30 in which Jesus tells His hears that the way to the Kingdom of God is “narrow” and “only a few find it.” A careful look at the context (which is a bit clearer in Luke) will show that Jesus was speaking to Jews warning them that they were about to be cut off as God’s covenant people. Not many of them would find the road into the Kingdom. This was in no way spoken to the church of future ages. We are in fact called kings and priests (Revelation 1:6, 5:10) who are to overcome (1 John 2:13-14; 5:4-5; Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; 21:7). As we read Scripture, we cannot read Jesus’ words as though He spoke them directly to us. To do so is to take them out of context and leads to great misunderstanding. This may seem like a difficult thing to do, but it really is not. We just need to stop for a minute when reading the passage and think about the point of view of the speaker, the audience, the time frame in which the words are spoken and the place where the conversation is taking place. This rarely requires any special knowledge or information.


Does the Interpretation take biblical symbols and figures of speech into account?

Not understanding when a biblical writer is using a biblical term or a figure of speech can lead to great misunderstandings in interpretation. Consider Matthew 21:21-22, in which Jesus says that “if you have faith . . . you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done.” Despite what some preachers have taught, this is not some cosmic guarantee that whatever Christians ask for we will get. We must consider the symbols as well as the context to understand this passage. This phrase is part of a series of parables and talks about the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt. 20-25). After cursing a fig tree as a symbol of judgment on Jerusalem, the disciples asked how this happened so quickly. Jesus responded, “if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer” (Matt. 21:21-22). Jesus was not literally telling his followers that they could pray mountains into the sea, nor was He curiously changing the subject, He was instructing them to pray for the destruction of the apostate mountain of God. The Old Testament makes it quite clear that the mountain was symbolic language for Jerusalem (Psalm 43:3; 48:1; 87:1; 99:9; Isaiah. 11:9; 56:7, Exodus 15:17). Being thrown into the sea is biblical symbolic language for being destroyed (Rev. 8:8). Admittedly, this one takes a little more work. To be able to do this well does require that we know our Bibles, particularly the Old Testament, quite well. It will usually take a little digging and research. When you come across a figure of speech in the Bible, and they are usually pretty obvious, don’t assume that you know what it means. Do a little digging.

Is the interpretation consistent with the rest of Scripture?

A passage may seem to make sense on the surface but if the interpretation is not consistent with all of Scripture then it must be rejected. James 2:19 says that the demons believe in God. Can we couple that with John 3:16 and surmise that demons will be going to heaven? Obviously, we cannot. When this verse is considered in the context of all the Scriptures, we see that this interpretation is not possible. Applying this principle will also insulate from many of the prosperity gospel teachings that are so popular today. When taken in consistent context with the entire message of the Old and New Testaments, we can see that the life of luxury and comfort is not the life to which a Christian is called.

Does the interpretation remain consistent with God’s nature?

Not only does a passage need to be consistent with all of Scripture but it must also be consistent with God’s nature. It is necessary that one begins to have a basic understanding of theology in order to do this. In Revelation 6:2 we read, “I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest.” The passage goes on to describe that along with the rider on the white horse come three judgments symbolized by three other horse and riders. The subsequent riders remove the conditions that are providing peace on the earth, economic hardship, and death. This is all in the context of John’s prophecy of the soon coming destruction of Jerusalem. God’s covenant has been broken and He is about to pour out his judgment on apostate Israel. Many biblical commentators, in discussing the rider on the white horse, have said that although this rider appears to be Jesus (there are many reasons including the fact that Jesus is seen later in Revelation 19 riding on his white horse; God is the one in Scripture that holds the bow in judgment - Habakkuk 3:9, and the one that is given the crown of dominion – Revelation 14:14; 19:11-13), it cannot be. The simple reason they offer is that God does not bring this kind of judgment, death, and destruction. With this idea of God they then create fanciful interpretations that include the so-called anti-Christ. The fact is, however, that God is love, but God is also righteous and holy. God does inflict judgment on the rebellious, apostate, and disobedient. Deuteronomy 28:15-68 clearly lays out the types of curses that will beset Israel if they break the Covenant. Christ, pictured in Revelation 6 on the white horse, will come soon, says John (indeed He did come in 70 AD) to fulfill these curses on apostate Israel. The actions of this rider on the white horse are completely consistent with God’s nature as a righteous judge. The discerning biblical reader will realize that, and will not incorrectly interpret Scripture based on an erroneous conception of who they want God to be rather than who He is.

Does the interpretation consider the differences between the Old Testament (physical) and the New Testament (Spiritual)?

Most of the laws, battles, enemies, blessings, curses, sacrifices, etc. of the Old Testament are of the physical variety. Even the people of God are the physical nation of Israel. In the New Testament, however, these things are of a spiritual nature. Our enemy is a spiritual enemy (Ephesians 6:12). Our battles are spiritual. For us the way we are to interpret the law of God is spiritual (Matthew 5:21-30). The blessings and curses of the New Covenant are of the spiritual variety. Good Bible interpretation must take that fact into account, especially when applying Old Testament interpretations to the modern reader. This is where many in our day and age get confused. They look at the things promised to Abraham and the people of Israel in the Old Testament, combine that with Galatians 3:29 that we are the heirs of Abraham, and conclude that these physical blessings are a promise for us today. The Christian, however, is to focus on spiritual blessings and store up treasures in heaven (Matthew 6:20).

Does the interpretation differentiate the principle given by the author from the cultural expressions of that principle?

In 1 Timothy 2:9, Paul gives a principle of dressing modestly for women to follow. He then lists some examples from his own culture of how to follow that principle. These include avoiding braided hair and gold or pearls. Dressing modestly is the principle to be taken from this passage not the belief that a woman in our culture cannot braid her hair. Good interpretations will consider the principle, and appreciate the cultural expressions of that principle, without feeling bound by those expressions. Paul often gives a binding biblical principle and then gives at least one cultural expression of that principle. We are bound by the principle but not necessarily the cultural expression of the principle.

Does the interpretation consider the genre of literature of the passage?

Good interpretations will take into consideration the type of passage being interpreted. Whether a passage is poetic, wisdom literature, narrative, apocalyptic, etc. make a huge difference in interpreting a passage. The interpreter of Revelation 20:2-4, for instance can have problems with understanding 1,000 years to be literal if he does not comprehend the Old Testament tendency to use numbers as representing a period of time, rather than literal lengths of time (This applies to Revelation as it is written with a very “Old Testament” wording). Just as we would not read a poem in the same way that we would read a newspaper, we must be sure to read the different types of Scripture in the way that they were intended to be read. Narrative passages need to be read as narratives. Symbolic prophecy like much of Ezekiel and Revelation must be read in the symbolic language of prophecy and the Old Testament. The wisdom literature of books like Proverbs cannot be read as direct promises from God. They are observations of God’s universe that generally prove to be true. They cannot be read and held up as ironclad promises because they were not intended to be so. The list could go on, but the point is to read the work in the style that the author intended.

Does the interpretation consider who is speaking, who is being spoken to, and the circumstances of the conversation?

In Mark 10:18, Jesus says that “No one is good – except God alone.” If one were to misunderstand the circumstances of the conversation and who Jesus was speaking to, they might come to some very wrong conclusions about this passage. Jesus was responding to someone who called him merely a teacher, but also said that He was good. Jesus, rather than trying to teach all theological truth at once, met the man where he was at in his understanding and took him one step farther. Jesus explained to the man that if He was nothing more than a teacher then He could not be good, because only God is good.

Is the interpretation consistent with the author’s intent? Does it consider whether a passage is descriptive or prescriptive?

There are many passages in the Bible that are merely descriptive of a situation without calling for us to go and do likewise. Sometimes confusing prescriptive and descriptive can bind us to a principle that may be a good idea but not a binding principle. For instance, Acts describes the early church as meeting in one another’s homes primarily (Acts 2:46). This may be a nice thing to emulate if it works within our culture or for our church, but it is not a binding prescriptive practice. It would not be taking into account the fact that the early Christians had little other choice than to meet in the homes of the believers. Confusing the concepts of prescriptive and descriptive can, however, be very dangerous when taken to extremes. 2 Kings 4:34, describes a scene in which Elisha laid on a young boy to bring him to life. A few years ago, a preacher in Milwaukee saw this as a prescriptive passage, and lied on a seven year old boy to cure him of the “demons of his autism.” The result was that the boy was asphyxiated by the weight of this preacher as he was held down by other members of the church.