RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD

Everyone who studies and teaches the Bible has a responsibility to accurately interpret and communicate Gods message. There is a notion among many Christians that anyone can interpret the Bible in any manner or the Bible can have many interpretations. They think that interpretation is a man-made system and the Bible is absolutely silent on how a passage/verse/idea should be understood. Since the Bible was given to reveal truth, and not to obscure it, God surely intends that we understand it.

Paul commanded Timothy to rightly divide the Word (2 Tim.2:15). This reminds us of the responsibility of right interpretation and straightforward exegesis. Paul is warning against wrong interpretation in teaching the Word of God. Guide the word along a straight path - what a solemn responsibility!

​

Methods of Interpretation

It is generally agreed that biblical hermeneutics began at the time of the return of Israel from the Babylonian exile under Ezra (Neh.8:1-8). And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people for he was standing above all the people; and when he opened it, all the people stood up And they read from the book, from the Law of God, translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading (Neh.8:5,8). Interpretation of the Law was necessary because the Mosaic Law was forgotten and neglected for a long time. Ezra explained the forgotten and unintelligible Scriptures to the people. Hermeneutics was the means through which the Gospel reached the African continent. Philip the evangelist had to interpret the book of Isaiah for the Ethiopian, a court official of Candace, Queen of Ethiopia (Acts 8:26-40). And beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures(Luke 24:27). Jesus explained or interpreted (RSV) to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

 

At least thirteen different methods of interpretation can be traced in church history. Some of these methods are:

1. The Literal method (the grammatical-historical-contextual hermeneutics)

2. Allegorical (spiritualizing) method

3. Rationalistic method

4. Mythological method

5. Isolated text method

6. Typological Method

7. Cross-Reference method

8. The New Hermeneutics method

 

There are various theological systems depending on the hermeneutical method they adopt. The stand one takes on the method of interpretation certainly will reflect in his theological/doctrinal position and conclusions. This is very clearly seen in the study of Bible prophecies and Eschatology (the doctrine of last things) in particular. No question facing the student of Eschatology is more important than the question of the method to be employed in the interpretation of the prophetic Scriptures. The adoption of different methods of interpretation has produced the variant eschatological positions and accounts for the divergent views within a system that confront the student of prophecy. The basic differences between the premillennial and amillennial schools and between the pretribulation and posttribulation rapturists are hermeneutical, arising from the adoption of divergent and irreconcilable methods of interpretation(J. Dwight Pentecost, Things To Come, 1).

In general, evangelical Christians have adopted two methods - the Allegorical and the Literal methods of interpretation. The Scripture does not specifically tell us as to how the text should be understood or interpreted. But one can easily observe from the Scriptures how Ezra in the OT and Philip the evangelist, Jesus Christ, Paul and others in the NT interpreted the Scriptures. The way in which the Old Testament is interpreted in the New Testament is probably the best clue for a proper method of Bible interpretation. The guidelines for interpretation are obvious for the most part in the Scriptures.

 

The Allegorical Method of Interpretation

The roots of the allegorical method can be traced back to Hellenism. The Greeks always tried to spiritualize their religious literature, because it contained, imaginary, fanciful and even immoral elements. In order to make their religious thoughts appealing to philosophers and thinkers, they allegorized or spiritualized their religious teachings. They allegorized the religious stories, looking for hidden spiritual meaning underneath the literal writings. Philo (20 B.C.-A.D.54) is the best known Alexandrian Jewish allegorizer. This method of interpretation influenced the Alexandrian Jews and later many Christians also followed this method among whom the church father Origen (A.D. 185-254) was prominent. The Jews who embraced Plato’s philosophy struggled to reconcile the Old Testament and Greek philosophy. They found an easy solution in allegorizing the Old Testament. Allegorizing the Old Testament was a way of accepting it along with Greek philosophy. It was also a means of apologetics, a way to defend the Old Testament to the Greeks.

​

In Origens allegorizing he taught that Noah’s ark pictured the church and Noah represented Christ. Rebekah’s drawing water at the well means we must daily come to the Scriptures to meet Christ. In Jesus’ triumphal entry the donkey represented the Old Testament, its colt depicted the New Testament and the two apostles pictured the moral and mystic sense of Scripture!! As one writer stated, his interpretation was fantasy unlimited! Not only Origen, but many others who followed the allegorical method also ended up with equally fanciful ideas.

The allegorical method considers the literal sense as the vehicle for a secondary more spiritual sense. The primary emphasis of the meaning of a text is placed entirely on a secondary/spiritual sense which is considered to be a profound sense. It sees what is not in the text. Allegorization and spiritualization open the door to subjectivism and uncontrolled speculation. It gives emphasis to the hidden, secret and imported meaning. Through allegorical method anyone can prove any argument in any way, because there is no objective control for the interpreter. He is seeking after the hidden and spiritual meaning of the text. It reduces the Scripture to what seems reasonable to the interpreter.. One is left without any objective means by which the conclusions of the interpreter may be tested.

​

Zuck sums it all well: Allegorizing is searching for a hidden or secret meaning underlying but remote from and unrelated in reality to the more obvious meaning of a text. In other words the literal reading is a sort of code, which needs to be deciphered to determine the more significant and hidden meaning. In this approach the literal is superficial; the allegory is the true meaning (Roy B.Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, 29).

Several strands of biblical interpretation have been present in various periods of church history. Allegorizing had a stronghold on the church for centuries. Although many church fathers were influenced by it, the Reformers strongly denounced the allegorical approach. The Reformers emphasized the Christological-historical-literal-contextual interpretation of the Bible. As Ramm points out, Reformation was basically a hermeneutical reformation before it was an ecclesiastical reformation (Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 52).

A consistent literal method of interpretation is the most legitimate method if interpreting the Bible. Various methods of interpretation are not applied in the Bible. Christ, apostles and the NT writers all followed the plain, literal, normal meaning of words. That was their normative methodology. It should be ours too. We will defend the literal hermeneutics in our next study.

​

A DEFENSE OF THE LITERAL METHOD OF INTERPRETATION

The goal of interpretation is to determine the meaning of the text. This is accomplished through proper exegesis (the application of the hermeneutical principles to a biblical text). The primary concern of exegesis is in understanding a text and determining its meaning in its historical and literary context. In this process, literal interpretation is a necessity to determine the meaning of the Scripture in its context. Unless we accept the normal or plain sense of Scripture, we have no objective control in our approach to the Bible. It gives us a basic authority by which interpretations may be tested.

​

The literal hermeneutics is sometimes called the grammatical-historical method of interpretation, because the meaning of words is determined by both grammatical and historical considerations. Finding the literal sense of a writing is the normal approach to all literature. Whenever we read a book, an essay or a poem we presume the literal sense in the document until the nature of the literature may force us to another level. This is the only conceivable method of beginning or commencing to understand literature of all kinds (Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 123). As the old proverb goes, when the plain sense makes good sense, seek no other sense, for that is common sense.

​

The literal meaning of a word is the basic, customary designation of that word. To interpret literally means nothing more than interpreting a word in terms of its normal, usual designation. It exercises a control over subjective interpretation and spiritualizing trends. This method is the only safe check on the imaginations of man. The literal method grounds interpretation in fact. It is extremely important for us to know that the greater part of the Bible makes adequate sense when interpreted literally. Only on such a basis can the average individual understand or interpret the Scriptures for himself.

​

Literal Interpretation Contrasted With Allegorical Interpretation

The allegorical method sees hidden meanings behind the text. The emphasis is placed on a secondary sense or spiritual sense so that the original words have no or little literal sense. It always seeks a deeper or more spiritual meaning. The historical sense of a passage is abandoned. It is basically a subjective approach to Scripture and the result is the obscuration of the Word. Spiritualizing opens the door to subjectivism and uncontrolled speculation. The literal method is the control in interpretation. The allegorical method gives emphasis to the hidden, secret and imported meaning while the literal method gives to each word its basic meaning in normal usage. In the allegorical method of interpretation, the basic authority ceases to be the Scriptures, but the mind of the interpreter.

​

It is true that Scripture uses allegories. The use of allegories (Galatians 4:21-31) is not a justification for the allegorical method of interpretation. Allegories, types, symbols, parables, and figures of speech are legitimate means for the communication of thought. These are colorful vehicles for presenting literal truth. It is not antithetical to literal interpretation. When read in context, there is usually a plain and ordinary sense to figurative and symbolic language. In many cases, the Bible even immediately explains its own symbolism. In Gala.4, Paul is not using an allegorical method of interpretation. He was only explaining an allegory. The example of the interpretation of an allegory would not justify the application of the allegorical method of interpretation to the Scripture.

​

Literal hermeneutics takes into account different literary genre. The Bible contains narratives, biographies, letters, poetry, symbols, allegories, parables, types, satire and dialogue. God has stated things both literally and symbolically. Different literary techniques are used as a means of revealing literal truth more vividly and colorfully. Literal truth is to be learned through the symbols. We use word pictures in everyday conversation, not to hide our ideas but to express them. One must also make a distinction between what is spiritual and what is spiritualized.

 

Literal Interpretation and Theology

There are many theological systems depending on the method of hermeneutics they adopt. The position one takes on the method of interpretation certainly will reflect in his theological conclusions. The basic differences between the premillennial (the belief that Christ will return before the millennium - 1000 year reign of Christ on earth and will establish His kingdom) and amillennial (the view that denies the literal reign of Christ on earth) schools and between the pretribulation (the church will be raptured before the tribulation period) and posttribulation (the church will pass through the tribulation) rapturists are hermeneutical.

​

The use of literal (historical-grammatical) method of interpretation helps to give interpretive conclusions in theology. For example, Israel in the Bible refers to the nation (ethnic) Israel and not to the church. Unless one spiritualizes the text, one cannot replace Israel with the Church. There are similarities but the differences are crucial. The Church will not be substituted for Israel if the grammatical-historical system of interpretation is consistently used, because there are no indicators in the text that such is the case. Therefore, one must bring an idea from outside the text by saying that the passage really means something that it does not actually say. This kind of replacement approach is a mild form of spiritualized, or allegorical interpretation (Thomas D.Ice, Issues in Dispensationalism, 32).

​

The Church is not fulfilling Israel’s promises. The maintaining of a distinction between Israel and the Church is built upon consistent literal hermeneutics. Amillennialism spiritualizes the covenants and prophecies in relation to Israel, to find its fulfillment in the Church. This approach has led to the equation (or merging) of God’s program for Israel and the Church.

​

The literal interpretation is also relevant in understanding Bible prophecies. Just as the prophecies of Christ’s first coming were fulfilled literally, the prophecies of His second coming will also be fulfilled literally. If prophecies have been fulfilled in the literal sense in the past, prophecies in the future will also be fulfilled literally. In the same way, the covenant promises to Abraham of the land and seed will find literal fulfillment. The earthly reign of Christ predicted in numerous Old Testament prophecies will be fulfilled literally as we find in Rev.20.

Literal interpretation relies upon reason, common sense, and the normal, plain, customary meaning of texts subject to the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit. Basic Reformation claims of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) and Sola Fide (Faith Alone) were based upon a system of literal interpretation. Practicing the principles of plain-literal interpretation will lead to sound doctrinal conclusions. Literal is basically a commitment to understanding that the Bible’s authority is embedded in the meanings expressed in the words of the text. The literal method of interpretation emphasizes the fundamental principle that the words are meant to be understood and used in their primary, normal sense unless the context indicates otherwise.

​

How Did Jesus Interpret the Scriptures?

Christ’s view of the Old Testament and His method of interpreting is normative for everyone. He viewed Himself as the sum and substance of the Old Testament. In the volume of the book it is written of Me (Psa.40:7; Heb.10:7). The Old Testament prefigured Christ and He is the subject of it. He interpreted the truth of the Word of God to His disciples and to the people in a simple manner. He did not attach any hidden meaning to the text. He was very specific, simple and clear in His communication and interpretation of truth.

Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures (Lk.24:27). Cleopas and his companion on the Emmaus Road had the inestimable privilege of hearing the incarnate word, Christ the risen Lord, expound the written word, the Holy Scriptures. In doing so, the Lord Jesus gave them the great key to the understanding of Scriptures “ that He himself is its subject and that in Him the entire book finds its unity(The New Scofield Reference Bible, 1121).

​

Christ had understood the literal meaning of the Old Testament and this is how He interpreted and expounded it. Most of the orthodox Jewish sects during the time of Jesus used extreme-literal method of interpretation which degenerated into letterism (hyperliteralism) than literalism. They adopted this strategy to interpret the Law to suit their legalism. They followed the letters of Scripture rather than the sense of Scriptures. It is important to note that although these letters were always on a confrontational course with Christ, He consistently maintained a literal interpretation of the Old Testament.

​

For example, Son of Man is the favorite name Christ used for Himself more than any other. It is used 83 times in the Gospels. It was a Messianic title (Dan.7:13-14). He interpreted it literally (Messianically) and thereby proved to the Jews that He was their promised Messiah. When Jesus referred to some of the highly disputed passages (the Flood of Noah’s time and Jonah and the great fish) and events in critical scholarship today, he affirmed them as historically true (Matt.12:40; 24:37-38). He took a very literal approach in reference to these personalities and events. Jesus also affirmed the veracity of the creation event and considered the Genesis record of creation to be literally true (Matt.19:4-5; Mk.13:19). Christ quoted extensively from the Old Testament and claimed that the Messianic prophecies were fulfilled in Him. For Jesus, the key to understanding the Old Testament was located in his own life and work, for everything pointed to Himself. The New Testament writers, following the pattern of Jesus, interpreted the Old Testament as a whole and in its parts as a witness to Christ (David S. Dockery, Biblical Interpretation Then and Now, 25).

​

Christ was neither influenced by the allegorical school of interpretation nor the hyperliteral method of interpretation of many of His contemporaries. Though He did not teach or advocate a method of interpretation, the basic principles of interpretation can be learned from how He understood, interpreted and applied the Scriptures. The principles of interpretation are not invented or learned but are part of the very nature of man. The basic principles of interpretation are simply the descriptions of the way people think and read when they understand the meaning of any writing. This principle is well illustrated in the way Christ interpreted the Scriptures.

 

Literal Hermeneutics - The Method of the New Testament Writers

One of the strongest evidences for the literal method is the use the New Testament makes of the Old Testament. When the Old is used in the New, it is used only in a literal sense. Matthew, in His Gospel, has used numerous Old Testament quotations. All these passages are interpreted Messianically (Christologically) as literally referring to the life, ministry and death of Christ. Almost one tenth of the New Testament consists of Old Testament quotations. The prophecies which were fulfilled in the first coming of Christ were fulfilled literally. The apostles used the Old Testament extensively in their Gospel sermons. They were not trying to find allegorical, hidden, spiritual, or secondary meanings in the Old Testament texts. They simply brought out the plain meaning of the texts and applied it literally to Christ and His redemptive work.

Though Paul uses types, his typology does not eliminate literality. Though he used allegory by way of passing illustration, he was not using an allegorical method of interpretation. While interpreting Isaiah 53, Peter uses a literal method (1Peter 2.22-25). The writer to the epistle to the Hebrews used a prolific use of the Old Testament in a literal sense, applying it to the person and work of Christ. All the New Testament writers gave their readers the plain primary sense of the text. They used and interpreted the Old Testament in its historical, grammatical and literal contexts.

​

The following quotation from a Bible scholar from the early part of the previous century beautifully summarizes it all: We are brought to the conclusion that there was one uniform method commonly adopted by all the New Testament writers in interpreting and applying the Hebrew Scriptures. It is as if they had all been to one school and had studied under one master. But was it to the Rabbinical school to which they had been? Was it to Gamaliel, or to Hillel, or to any other Rabbinical leader that they were indebted? All attainable knowledge of the mode of teaching current in that time gives the negative to the suggestion. The Lord Jesus Christ, and no other, was the original source of the method. In this sense, as in many others, He had come as a light into the world (R. E. Girdlestone, The Grammar of Prophecy, 86).

​

It is surprising that the various prevalent methods of interpretations were never used by Christ or the apostles. How Jesus Christ interpreted the Scriptures, and how the New Testament views and interprets the Old, is indeed, a normative methodology for us to follow. Since Jesus is God incarnate, whatever He affirms has divine authority. Hence whatever He taught about the Bible is the last word on the topic.