Her Sermon Helps

Hermeneutics For the Rest of Us!

By following a few important principles when reading even the hardest of passages, we can usually get a more accurate picture of what God is saying through the inspired writers than by just taking the text at "face value". While entire seminary courses are taught on proper interpretation, we don't need a degree in systematic theology to read the Bible with clarity. However, there are principles we can consider when reading to help us understand the passage in its proper context. While there are several more literary principles Bible scholars consider, I would like to touch on the five most important ones we folks in the pews can use as tools to help us rightly divide the Word.

There are thousands of such nuggets in Scripture, where although the intended meaning is self-evident from the passage, an added insight into the historical significance sheds additional light. Note, for instance, the detail given to inheritance rights in the Pentateuch. This indicates how closely guarded property was in clan-based agrarian society, and how codified the law needed to be (especially where there was no male heir, as in the case of Zelophehad's daughters in Numbers 27 and 36). Even without knowledge of ancient Near Eastern property laws, we may still appreciate the passage for the care and concern God evidences for His children and His desire for justice in all personal matters. At the same time, considering that the Bible covers 4,000 years of history and mentions many cultures, learning to apply the Historical Principle will help us gain additional understanding of the text.

Knowing something about original word choice can sometimes illuminate passages where nuance is not readily apparent, as well. Several years ago, I was quite surprised to learn that Jesus and Peter were using two different words for "love" in the post-Resurrection beach scene recorded in John 21. When the Lord asked, "Simon....do you truly love me more than these?", the first two times the verb "agapaos" is used. From the noun "agape", this speaks of God's love and is best described as an all-consuming, commitment love with no thought of personal gain or reciprocation on the part of the giver. Jesus here is asking about Peter's complete and total allegiance - not an emotion-based affection or mere friendship. Peter, memories of his denial of Christ still fresh in his mind, responds with the Greek term "phileo"; best translated as a friendship love. A second time Christ asks, "Do you agapaos [have a committed and enduring, selfless and loyal love for] Me?" and Peter (in essence) responds, "Lord, You know that You are my dear Friend." The third time He asks, however, Jesus also uses the term phileos - He most likely realizes that in his humanity, it was the best Peter could offer at that time. This key to understanding the exchange - the difference between (limited) human love and the love God expects from His Spirit-indwelt disciples - is completely missed in the English rendering, as we only have one word for all types of love. In Greek, there are four words, and they all have different meanings.

Commentaries, such as those found on Blueletterbible.com, can be very helpful in digging into terminology and grammatical structure, especially in cases of verses that have been interpreted in more than one way by theologians. Most study Bibles footnote key terms in the original languages where meaning is significant.

Most of us would grasp by what we call 'common sense' that Mark 16:18 is not encouraging us to go out and pick up deadly snakes or drink strychnine: "they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." First, by applying the Literal Principal, we can take the Lord's statement at face value. It does not appear metaphorical or a case of hyperbole from context. Next, the Historical Principal doesn't lend us any new information - poison in the first century was still deadly; vipers still bit people and they died. Also, the same principle must be applied evenly throughout the whole passage - which also talks about laying hands on the sick for their recovery. While we are certainly to pray for the sick, Christians still sicken and die.

Grammatically, the Lord is speaking futuristically - He is prophecying that certain miraculous signs (which are for the benefit of unbelievers, 1 Cor. 14:22); would follow believers in the Early Church. Now we come to the Synthetic Principle - is there any other passage in Scripture that would seem to advocate picking up snakes or drinking poison? No. The verse stands as a literal and true statement, (we know of one instance, from Acts 28:5, where Paul was spared by God when a viper attached itself to his hand), but nowhere does the Bible indicate that this is normative in the lives of all believers. There is no harmony with other passages; no new doctrine can be formed or inferred from Scripture about the Christian's immunity to poisonous snakes. One common mistake in interpreting such 'odd sounding' passages is to attempt to allegorize them, but this is dangerous as it detracts from the Bible's literal meaning. The continuationist (charismatic) position on certain verses is often the result of misapplying the Synthetic Principle.

Where the Bible seems to have contradictions, it is because either we are interpreting the passage incorrectly, or we are not looking at it in context. A general rule for understanding the context of a given reference is to look at the verses immediately preceding and following it. Usually, cross-references are given in the margins of Bibles, which may refer the reader either to individual words or to similar teachings and statements elsewhere in the Bible.

One "contradiction" to which many skeptics point in an attempt to discredit the Bible is the apparent dichotomy between Jesus' teaching to "Love thy neighbor as thyself", given in all three Synoptic Gospels, and the Levitical penal code that demanded "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" (Exodus 21:24; Lev. 24:20). The claim is that Christ represented a more 'evolved', kinder, gentler religion than the so-called "God of the Old Testament". In reality, this is a false dichotomy. First, we know that the Triune God is immutable (unchanging) and He describes Himself as all-loving, compassionate, forgiving and gracious throughout the Old Testament. Second, Christ was actually quoting Leviticus 19:18 when He admonished His followers to love their neighbors as themselves. This was the entire spirit of the law from God's Sinai covenant with the Israelites. Third, the "eye for eye and tooth for tooth" expression was a measure to prevent excesses in retributive justice. The context was judicial - penalty was to be appropriate to the nature of the crime; it was never intended as a rationale for personal vengeance. Studying out difficult passages keeping the Synthetic Principle in mind will help us see how they complement each other, even if at first glance they seem at odds.

1 "How to Enjoy Bible Study", Grace to You, 2006 http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/2429