Interpreting the Bible

A Practical Guide for English Bible Users

By Ian Thomason

Introduction

As Christians it behoves each one of us to ensure that we interpret Scripture responsibly, accurately and properly. It is, after all, the very Word of God that we approach each and every time we open the covers of our English Bibles. Whilst the task itself is fundamentally important, too few believers ever receive training within their churches in the methodologies necessary to “…rightly divide the Word of Truth.” All too frequently, Christians are left to their own devices, to attempt to do the best that they can in spite of not knowing just how to set about the task. The results that many often derive from their biblical studies, then, are often haphazard and parochial, if not altogether misleading.

This small essay is designed specifically for those who have not had the opportunity to undertake formal theological preparation, yet who firmly believe that Scripture ought to be approached as a ‘hearer’, and not as a ‘speaker’. The essay seeks to complement two others that appear at this site: “How to Study the Word of God: A Practical guide for Believers”, and “How to Apply the Bible in Sermon Preparation”. A measure of philosophical preparation might be achieved through consulting an essay, which addresses the unsuitable approach adopted by the various Revivalist organisations, Biblical Interpretation. The four papers unashamedly champion the inductive method of addressing Scripture. The current article, however, limits itself to the steps that need be followed in order to accurately interpret the information that is contained within the Bible, in order to properly apply its teachings in one’s life. The overarching thesis being that the primary goal of all biblical interpretation remains the application of biblical truth to one’s own life and walk. This point cannot be stress enough - exegesis both begins and ends in spirituality.

Necessarily, the essay is not intended to function as a comprehensive textbook in the exegetical process. It is simply not possible to condense all the information that would be required into just a few thousand words. Rather the more realistic aim is to stimulate one to consider the issues involved in interpreting the Word of God, and by doing so to remind one not to (a) dismiss the process altogether, and (b) to ensure that one approaches biblical interpretation in anything but a naive and simplistic fashion.

Interpretation, then, should not be viewed as an end in itself. Rather it remains one means to achieving what should be the desired end – the ongoing spiritual transformation of the believer, so that he or she conforms to the image of Christ.

Why Interpret?

The Bible is an ancient book. In fact, it is a very ancient book. For this reason, it is imperative that one understands the meaning encapsulated in the Bible before one seeks to appreciate its message for today. Or, put another way, one must understand its sense then, before one can appreciate its significance now. One fundamental goal of responsible interpretation, then, is to identify the gap that often exists between an existential faith (what one actually believes), and an orthodox faith (what one should believe).

Realistically, given the intrinsic nature of the Bible itself, and of revelation generally, five principle ‘gaps’ need to be bridged if one is to derive full benefit from one’s inductive study. These are: (1) a time gap [chronological], (2) a space gap [geographical], (3) the customs gap [cultural], (4) a language gap [linguistic], and (5) a writing gap [literary]. Using an established and methodical process that addresses each of these ‘gaps’ in turn, will better enable an interpreter to reduce the difficulties to communication, to a manageable level.

The Art and Science of Hermeneutics

The term hermeneutics is derived from the Greek word for ‘interpretation’, and describes the methodology that is applied to derive meaning from a text. In secular philosophy, the expression has imported a decidedly existential flavour. Nowadays ‘hermeneutics’ is commonly used to describe the result of one’s reading of a text, how the reader reacts or feels when confronted by what he or she has read. However, the discipline of theology prefers to apply the term in its historical and original context, to describe the overall process involved in the deriving of meaning from the written word. When used in a specifically Christian context, hermeneutics describes and delimits the ‘rules’ that are applied to the process of interpretation.

Exegesis, another Greek word, involves the actual task of drawing-out the original meaning intended by an author, from his or her written work. Put simply, exegesis is the application of the rules of hermeneutics in an attempt to make plain a writer’s thoughts, concepts and ideas. Opposed to the practice of exegesis is the error of eisegesis - the reading into a text the meaning that one expects, or hopes, to find. The former task ‘hears’ what the author has to say, the latter, however, attempts to ‘speak’ to him.

Hermeneutics, properly speaking, can be rightly described as both an art and a science. It is art inasmuch as it deals with the complexities of human communication, feelings and situations, and does so in a way that can best be grasped empathetically, or subjectively. However, it is also a science given that established and controlled processes are applied to matters of history, culture, language structure and so forth. In this way, quantifiable results can be derived which are, strictly speaking, objective in nature. Importantly, neither hermeneutics nor exegesis is narrowly a religious endeavour. The processes and principles are applied to classical as well as to modern literature, from Homer to Shakespeare, and in fact, to any and all written communication where circumstances disallow the consulting of the author directly. Biblical hermeneutics, as applied by believers, remains distinct in one major respect – believers approach the Bible wishing, and expecting, to hear directly from God. For Christians, then, hermeneutics is primarily an act of reverential worship, and is certainly not a dry or formal academic activity.

Christian Methods

Broadly speaking, there are principally three hermeneutical methods employed within a Christian context, to Christian Scripture, today. They are: (1) the critical-historical method, (2) the grammatical-historical method, and (3) the allegorical method.

The first form, the critical-historical method, is that favoured within the University, being an approach that seeks to determine meaning (insofar as such can be established) separate from faith. Consequently, this methodology has frequently been associated with ‘liberal’ Christian scholarship. It is important at this point, though, to distinguish between the method itself, which is not doubtful, and the critical presuppositions maintained by many who employ the method, which often are.

Both Protestant and Roman Catholic exegetes alike also make use of the second form, the grammatical-historical method. This approach seeks to derive meaning from a close investigation of both grammatical (language-based) and historical factors, as the name immediately suggests. The strength of the grammatical-historical method, then, is that it seeks to allow the original writer to ‘speak’ on his or her own terms. Meaning is established through authorial intent, rather than through reader response.

The final methodology, the allegorical, is and always has been, favoured by the Eastern Orthodox Church, and is one that seeks to establish meaning separate to the meaning outwardly implied by the written words themselves. To consider this in another way, the implied meaning, although valid, serves primarily to direct the reader to a non-implied meaning, to one that is knowable only by the truly enlightened. Naturally, this method is, at best, extraordinarily subjective, given that no two exegetes generally derive the same non-implied meanings from the same passages. In many ways, the allegorical method is reminiscent of the fanciful speculations engaged in by the early Gnostic heretics, and is rightly (in the author’s opinion) a disreputable and discredited process.

Given the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the three methods briefly reviewed above, the process that is outlined in this essay remains, primarily, an amalgam of the grammatical-historical and critical-historical methodologies.

Getting Started

The following principles have guided, in large measure, the actual ordering of the exegetical steps that are offered below:

1. Priority is given, first and foremost, to the spiritual dimension. Once the text of the passage under review has been established, prayerful meditation should always be the first act.

2. The principle of analogy is applied – in other words, proceeding from the clear to the unclear.

3. Similarly, the process is to proceed from text (what is said) to context (the factors that have a bearing on what is said).

4. Given that there are various contexts for reading, the next guideline is to proceed from those that are strictly literary in nature, to those that are cultural. In other words, the aim is to read literarily before reading literally.

5. Finally, the aim is to proceed from the ‘forest’ to the ‘trees’ (inductively), rather than from the ‘trees’ to the ‘forest’ (deductively).

It is necessary, at this point, to emphasise that no interpreter, or exegete, should seek to proceed through these steps in a purely linear fashion (that is, attempting to finish one step before moving on to another). The right aim is to proceed more in a spiral fashion (revisiting information in light of discoveries that have surfaced). In this way, not only is the reader interpreting Scripture, as Scripture is (ultimately) allowed to interpret (and shape) the reader. Again, the focus is towards ‘hearing’ rather than ‘speaking’.

The abbreviated (for English use) process that is recommended, is as follows:

1.Delimiting a passage. Read the verses that you would like to focus on, and those immediately surrounding them, thereby establishing the literary context of the passage under review. The first aim is to seek to identify those literary ‘markers’ that set the passage - which is normally a paragraph, being the basic unit of written thought - from the others.

2. Establishing the text. Given that one is working from the English Bible, rather than from the critical Hebrew and Greek editions, it is necessary at this stage to review the passage in several English versions. The aim is to note where the various translations differ in the content of what is said, rather than in the way it is said [see Study Books].

3. Meditation. Biblical meditation involves focussing outwards, rather than inwards, God wards rather than man wards. Hence this step involves the reading of the passage aloud, and prayerfully. The focus is towards the content of the message more so than the medium of the message.

4. Literary Analysis. Such an analysis involves a very ‘close-reading’ of the passage under review, with one’s attention focussed on the passage’s final form, and in (relative) isolation from its context. The principal aim should be to ‘unpack’ meaning.

(a) Theme. Formulate a preliminary thematic statement of the passage under review.

(b) Structure. Trace the train of thought and the plot development from verse to verse, noting also any emotive movement. It may be helpful at this stage to make an outline or diagram, which distinguishes principal clauses from subordinate clauses.

(c) Genre/social setting. Identify the genre (narrative, poetry, discourse, apocalyptic, etc), as well as the actual setting of the passage.

(d) Point of view, style, mood and selectivity. Identify the author’s point of view, his literary style, and his mood. Also, consider the selectivity of the material that he has employed, and the overall development of the plot.

(e) Grammar and word analysis. This step in the process will, due to the limitations of working with an English translation, necessarily be considerably more haphazard than it would be if using the Hebrew or Greek.

(i) Grammar. Be clear on the grammatical construction of the sentences, noting connectives, principle/main and subordinate clauses, subjects (divine, human), objects, verbs (declarative, imperative, etc), and modifiers such as adjectives and adverbs. Consulting with a good English reference grammar would provide immeasurable assistance and benefit.

(ii) Figures of speech. Note whether words are meant to be read literally or figuratively, and identify the particular figures of speech that were employed (e.g. hyperbole, alliteration, etc).

(iii) Word studies. Using a concordance, do limited (!) word studies to clarify only the meanings of terms that are important, and/or vague. It is vital to appreciate that a Strong’s or Young’s concordance is not well suited to completing this task.

5. Context. The aim is now to consider the contextual issues in quite some detail.

(a) Literary and generic. Discover what light is shed by the immediate and broader context outlined within the biblical book. This takes into account the fact that every book of the Bible is occasional in nature – each was written to address a particular circumstance or need. Also, it is beneficial to compare other passages of the same genre, noting both similarities as well as areas of marked uniqueness.

(b) Historical and sociological. Using both biblical and extra-biblical materials (dictionaries, encyclopaedia, surveys and atlases, etc.), describe the historical backgrounds of both the events recorded, and of the literary document itself. Then consider the sociological background, noting particularly the social circles that are represented (priests, Pharisees, gentiles etc).

(d) Inter-textual/canonical. Determine whether the passage under review echoes and clarifies any earlier passages. Then determine whether it is echoed in any later passages. Establish what the passage means within the context of the entire biblical canon.

(e) Biblical/theological. The task at this point is to determine the theology, spirituality and world-view that is reflected in the passage. Consideration is given to comparing the above with other views that the Bible presents, and with one’s own world-view and beliefs.

(f) Extra-biblical and cultural. Seek out and determine what parallels exist in other literatures derived from a similar historical period, and then attempt to discern what relationship (if any) they share.

6. Compositional history. The question to be asked is ‘…what light does the reshaping of the passage shed on its possible reapplication in other contexts?’

(a) Oral transmission. Much of the material in the Bible was composed and transmitted orally before being committed to writing. The aim at this stage is to determine how this process shaped the material’s development to the final form that is available today.

(b) Literary sources and redaction. If the passage was composed from earlier written sources, one must seek to determine what were their origins and functions? How did the redactor (the editor) shape his material? And, for what purpose? Was it theological? Or practical?

7. Theological implications and application. The preceding steps sought to emphasise what the text meant in its original context. This step focuses on bridging contexts, or on what it means (its significance) for today. The interpreter should now seek to isolate the general principles that can rightly be derived from the passage, as it is these that will form the basis of any responsible application. The process is to apply the passage to the modern context, with the aim of determining the points of contact and the points of dissimilarity between the two. The aim is to identify those issues that are culturally relative, from those that are theologically binding.

8. Secondary literature. At this point, one is wise to consult with a wide range of secondary literature in order to (a) test one’s own findings against the understanding of others, and (b) ensure that one has not missed any points of significance.

(a) Current interpretation. Consult with leading commentators (via the use of published commentaries), reference works (biblical encyclopaedia, biblical dictionaries, etc), and, where possible, journal articles. This will provide a synchronic (in this case, a contemporary) overview of understanding within the community of believers.

(b) History of interpretation. Deliberately consult with older as well as ancient interpretations, both Jewish and Christian. In this way one will establish a diachronic perspective of the meaning of the passage within the community of believers.

Conclusion

Protestant Bible scholars often refer to the perspicuity – or clarity – of Scripture. Some would reason that if the Bible is clear, then why the need for rules of interpretation, or why the need for teachers, commentaries and other such helps? Others seek to suggest that it is actually impossible to understand the Bible. These people will often conclude that if the scholars can’t agree on the meaning of a particular passage, then what chance have they?

It is true that some passages within Scripture are difficult to understand. And yet the basic message of the Bible is simple enough for any person to comprehend it. The Scripture, then, is not obscure in itself. The Bible’s teachings should not be viewed as if they were inaccessible to the average person, given that the Bible was not written as a book of riddles or as some sort of cosmic puzzle. The fact yet remains that the Bible was written to be understood, so that its teachings could be applied.

One cannot escape the reality that there are very real hindrances to communication. What was perfectly clear to the writer (and to his original audience) may not be immediately clear to the believing reader today. Similarly, every modern believer approaches the Bible with a host of assumptions and presuppositions that he or she has collected during his or her life’s experiences, and that inadvertently (or otherwise) flavours his or her understanding of what the text teaches. It is for these and similar reasons that consistent, objective and exhaustive processes for interpreting Scripture are necessary, and are needed by everyone.

At the end of the day, any believer who sincerely desires a transformational encounter with the Living God, through his Word, should willingly embrace a process that better enables him or her to ‘hear’ what God has to say. Sadly, however, many believers are too busy ‘speaking’ when engaged in Bible study to stop, reflect and, ultimately, ‘listen’. It is for this reason, perhaps more than any other, that some Revivalist leaders consistently denigrate methodological biblical interpretation with the unfounded charge that it is an overly ‘academic’ approach to understanding God’s Word. The clear implication being, that such an approach is somehow ‘un-spiritual’. Ignorance, unfortunately, breeds yet further ignorance. One wonders whether a realisation of one’s own inadequacies truly lies at the root of such unfounded polemic.

“…Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”

- 2 Timothy 2:15