A Comprehensive Study on Interpreting Scripture
By Franklyn T. Johnson

Canon, Textual and Historical and Literary Criticism

The presuppositions that many people have of the Biblical text have lead to many misunderstandings of the scriptures. These misunderstandings have caused much criticism throughout history. The textual variations in quotations become an important clue to discover not only the writer’s interpretation but also his prospective on both Old and New Testament passages. A variety of forms combine two or more passages in a commentary pattern similar to that found in the Qumran scrolls. Such combinations are usually formed in conjunction with catchwords that are important for the theme. Some of these may have circulated during the apostolic period. The “testimonies” most likely presuppose an understanding in Christology that particular passages were worked out and are not just randomly selected proof texts. During the passage of time the various translations of the scriptures have in some ways diluted the meanings of the original text. This has created the assumption that the Scriptures contradict themselves, when if fact they support each other in a way that reaffirms the Biblical text based on the tense in which the text is used.

As attested to by the Gospels, debates with the scribes about the meaning of Scripture were an important part of Jesus’ public ministry. In any case, the rabbis used a literary form often used by the Gospel translators. Jerome spoke Hebrew and when he translated the Latin Vulgate Bible, he did it from the original Hebrew texts in order to get the proper understanding of the text. This resulted in an accurate interpretation and selection of the books contained in the canon of Scripture. This also explained the differences between literal and allegory language in Scripture and answers the textual integrity question of whether the Scriptures mean what they say.

The historical views are critical for interpretation. However the modern historical-critical method is deficient because even though it can show some interpretations to be wrong. This method fails to support any biblical passage that is substantive agreed upon. It is instrumentally limited in its perspective and presuppositions with which the interpreter reads the text. The advantage of the historical view of hermeneutical study is that events, ideas, and people are shown in a way that illuminates both contributions and flaws. This keeps the engendered passions that occurred in these situations more difficult to dismiss.

Textual criticism was used to determine the dating, authorship, and the quality of the texts. They usually emphasized literal interpretation as the primary means of finding the essential meaning and translated the Bible directly and developed a tradition of private judgment.

Sometimes the New Testament writers interpreted the Old based in part on the contemporary Jewish views and in part from the teaching of Jesus and the reality of his resurrection. It appears that four factors are the primary focus: a particular understanding of the history, of man, of Israel and the Scriptures. The early Christian teachers and prophets explain the Old Testament by what is known as charismatic exegesis. However, this method does not preclude the use of logic or hermeneutical rules and methods. The lives of the men and women who so greatly impacted our culture with the exegesis of the Scriptures sat in classrooms, wrote often times by candlelight or oil lamps, asked difficult questions and often lay awake thinking through the possible answers to those questions.

Hermeneutical Clues to the Old Testament

Following the close of the Book of Malachi there were approximately four hundred years known as the silent years. During this span of time The Lord did not speak through another prophet until John the Baptist appeared proclaiming the beginning of the kingdom of God.

In fact the New Testament refers to, quotes or alludes to the Old Testament on many occasions. Jesus even quoted passages from it. What inevitably shapes the kind of truth that is sought depends on the questions you ask of it. Christians read the Bible as a record of God’s revelation and the history of man. Many read to recover the history of these events and this approach; others would ask what it teaches about God, mankind, the world, sin, salvation, ethics and numerous of other topics. In order to properly apply these teachings, we must also pay attention to what the New Testament teaches on these subjects.

The Old Testament itself gives us many sources that were used in its compilation. These include the records of the various kings, records ascribed to the prophets and books used by the biblical writers of the historical books and the appropriated material from earlier text.

Second, some passages present the beginning of a monarchy, major events that had not occurred, and warnings beyond human knowledge that changed nations. and other facets of the text act as doublets that reaffirm the major events. If we analyze these ancient texts in a clear and precise way by allowing them to describe the history of Israel and the development of the Old Testament we will come to understand and be able to explain how the differences in literary style, narratives, repetitions and doublets refute the so-called inconsistencies in the Scriptures.

Third, archaeologists have learned through recent discoveries that the events and places spoken of in the Bible fit the picture found in the first five books of the Bible, known as the Pentateuch. Texts recovered from various sites that have been unearthed prove that the personal names, the customs and the political context of which the Bible speaks are correct.

The interpretation of the Bible, whether historically or contemporarily, cannot truly be comprehended without first giving reference to sociological considerations and philosophical literature because biblical interpretation is closely related to understanding the cultural, as well as the philosophical climate of both ancient and modern times. The literal surface meaning of a text during the first five centuries was seen as too crude or vulgar to represent the true meaning. Therefore, a second and even a third meaning were assumed to be beneath the letter of the text and could be universally found by allegorical interpretation. These allegorists attempted to contextually associate the Gospel message in their new missionary environment. Yet, the Bible contains a great deal of metaphorical and figurative language. When the figurative language is taken literally, the literal sense is the figurative sense. The literal sense is thereby enriched by more then could be derived just by reading the text without regard to the nature of the language.

Many groups during the past and even today have referred to the Scriptures in a variety of ways and have attempted to read them from their points of view. The Scriptures have been read with a political definite or ethical agenda. The most prominent ideologists are said to be libertarian theologians, feminist scholars and Afro-American theologians. The texts are read with a view of what is perceived to be the primary needs of the contemporary society.

In order to properly interpret the text we must not take control of the meaning of the text; the proper stance is one of subordination. That is, we should seek to serve the text by letting its claims dominate our thinking so that a valid interpretation and application can be applied to the issues set forth therein. We cannot pin down the meaning of a passage of the text as to apply it to only one situation, just as the parables cannot be reduced to one point.

The parable renew our imagination, force us to view the world and its workings in a new light and compel us to make choices between doing things the same old way or changing to a new way. The parables are not paradigmatic for all biblical literature. Yet, help us to identify sympathetically with the categories of different cultures and demonstrate that it is possible to transcend one’s own culture irrespective of the various perspectives from which we may be viewing them. We must understand that a particular person’s understanding of the context is not the deciding factor. We must seek, determine, and support the divinely inspired author’s intended meaning as the basis for beginning biblical interpretation.

The inspiration and authority of Scripture has been an issue that has been debated and generated much discussion during the last few decades. We cannot minimize the importance placed on these issues for they play a primary role in shaping our hermeneutical method of theology. The inspiration and authority indeed, play a major role in defining our view of the Scriptures. We must understand three important things; they include, who revealed the information, know how it was revealed and then have the ability to understand what has been revealed.

Revelation, Inspiration, and Illumination

We must understand the three important areas in order to make a proper distinction between them. They are the revelation, inspiration and illumination of Scripture. The first area, revelation, deals with the unveiling of that which is hidden. God can only do this through his condescension and transcendence; he chose to do that personally through Jesus Christ. Thus, in the fullest sense revelation was made both prepositional and personal. It provided not only the opportunity to know about God, but to know him personally. Propositional truth is conveyed in order to provide accurate information about God, while personal truth is conveyed because it institutes a personal relationship with God. A great injustice is done when either of these aspects of truth is neglected. This is true because to have a personal knowledge without the prepositional truth may be experienced as merely subjective or opinionated. The opposite is true if we only have a prepositional truth. That is, we may grasp the information on an intellectual plane yet fail to make a personal commitment. Therefore, God provided essential information about himself and also the opportunity for us to have a personal relationship with him.

Secondly, inspiration is the process that God chose to communicate his message through his written Word. The influence of the Holy Spirit upon the persons who penned the writings rendered their writings as an accurate record of the revelation of God and resulted in being the actual “Word of God”. The biblical word being divinely inspired was canonized. In other words, it is the standard by which we measure and evaluate all other things. There is no other greater authority than the canon of Scripture. The Bible, being the inspired Word of God, is the normative guide for the Christian faith in that it is definitive and authoritative and no other claim to revelation can equal or supersede it

The third area we now consider is illumination. Illumination is the process by which the experience of spiritual discernment of the Scripture is provided by the Holy Spirit. He opens the human minds to perceive and comprehend the truth that has already been made known by revelation and recorded in the Scripture through inspiration. It provides discernment of the inspired canon, by it never supplements or supersedes it.

Diversity is prevalent among many of those who hold illumination views on inspiration. Some place the Bible writers in the same category of other great secular writers. They tend to equate inspiration with illumination and others claim that only that portion of the scriptural text is inspired; that portion being that which could not have been known naturally.

Their emphasis on the human element accounts for the diversity and the apparent contradictions of Scripture. Human fallibility accounts for the apparent inconsistencies, and so-called contradictions as well as pre-scientific worldviews. Different human perspectives from various cultures and individuals tend to be more readily accepted by naturalistically minded people who view supernatural inspiration as offensive to their reasoning.

The weaknesses of illumination views of inspiration are reliant upon their depiction of Scripture as internally inconsistent. This would be the case if in fact God had not inspired the Scriptures. The scriptures of all the world religions and non-religious literature are similar according to this view. Yet, none of these views of illumination adequately account for the supernatural, authoritative nature of the biblical text. Let us therefore examine some perspectives of the Scriptures.

Various Perspectives of Scripture

The dictation perspective of the Word of God views humans only as the stenographers through whom God spoke his divine message. Thus, it is perfect and without error because there is no human element in the inspiration of the text. The dictation view promotes consistent authority and simplified hermeneutics. Those who adhere to these standards have no doubt about divine authorship. Therefore, if God authored every word of Scripture, then the historical, cultural and literary backgrounds of the human writer are irrelevant.

Some opponents would describe the dictation view as being somewhat docetic because it de-emphasizes the human element. The dictation view also offers other challenges, such as those of repetition and harmonization. The question is, “Is it necessary for God to reveal a perfect record with so much repetition?” The answer could be that man has a need to have information repeated before he can truly understand what is being said. Maybe that is why there are four Gospels and duplicate accounts in the books of Samuel, Chronicles, and Kings.

Then there is the dynamic view. This perspective of Scripture is described as the ‘kernel’ of the Word of God as being contained in the ‘husk’ of human perception. It focuses more on the writer than on the words they recorded. However, it is recorded in (2 Peter 1:20-21): “Knowing this first, that no prophesy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophesy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

Two primary strengths of the dynamic view are that it parallels the pattern of the incarnation and that it adequately accounts for the apparent contradictions. The threat of inconsistent authority concerns some critics because if only certain portions of Scripture are inspired, then in order to properly understand and distinguish between the timeless truth and time-bound teachings an unusual hermeneutical prowess is required. This argument asserts that if we cannot have confidence in all of Scripture, how can we have it in any portion thereof?

We must also consider the plenary perspective. This view describes the Scripture as being the very Word of God. It emphasizes that inspiration extends to the very words themselves; therefore, every word of the Bible is inspired. This view is observed in (2 Timothy 3:16-17) “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” Each biblical statement from this perspective can be read as a true proposition to be affirmed.

As students of God’s Word, we must learn to properly interpret biblical prophecy. The prophetic writings of the Old Testament originally addressed the concerns of God’s people from the eighth to the fifth century before the birth of Christ. Therefore, we must be committed to interpret and preach the prophetic texts accurately. The primary role of the prophet is focused on proclamation, and then it is logical that prophecy is the forth telling of God’s revelation. Therefore, a working definition for a prophet is one is called by God to be committed to his will and to communicate his Word.

Only understanding prophecy in its own historical and literal context, and applying the message to the modern context can do this. To determine the proper interpretation of the text the beginning and ending of the text must be identified. Then the interpreter must examine the significant words in the text as well as how they relate to one another. In both steps the theology of the larger, more immediate contexts help us to understand the text. A good commentary can help with the grammatical interpretation in a more literal translation of the text. It can also help us take note of the theological themes in a particular book from which we are teaching and preaching.

More specifically, in moving from the ancient specificity of the text to the specificity of the modern situation, we should derive a general principle that reflects the ancient settings that also speak to a modern audience, while being aware of the theological context found in the larger canonical context in which the text is found. We must also remember not to make shallow comparisons between the modern context and the ancient context thereby being able to recognize the similarities and the dissimilarities of our context and the ancient context. Now let us consider the New Testament and how these perspectives and aspects are related in purpose.

The New Testament

Besides the ministry purpose, there are also the often-neglected social settings in which the Bible originated. Due to these settings, most if not the entire Bible was read aloud to a group of hearers. This method was employed because the literacy rate was perhaps as low as two percent and an n individual reading of the texts was simply not possible most of the people. This was an oral culture and stories were passed down from generations especially well.

The Gospels and the Book of Acts emphasize those aspects that best underscored the major themes and teaching that God led them to communicate to their audiences. The Gospels are vehicles of truth used as teaching tools and not used to primarily illustrate an abstract truth. Since the Gospels form the basis of our faith, care should be taken to interpret these books as accurately as possible.

Lives can be and are transformed by a sound interpretation and hearing of the Gospels. Their major purpose is to explain the life of Jesus, that he is the Christ, and his unjust death, so that we might believe and have life through his name (John 20:31). Each of the Gospel writers delivered this message in a way that was contingent upon the ministry needs of their respective recipients.

The Gospels are more than just a history of the life of Jesus. They communicate history while pursuing the larger purpose of discipleship. Therefore, sound interpretation must take into account the twofold nature so the texts speak to their primary purpose of discipleship. The Gospels should be interpreted following general guidelines with helps that include the ministry purpose, oral culture, historical setting, synoptic comparison studies, holistic reading, teaching sections, and miracle and pronouncement stories.

Contextual Reading

Simply put, the church’s contextual understanding of Christian theology interprets the church’s historical faith today. The contention here is that faith stimulates the openness of theological inquiry. The church is challenged to think critically in the process of interpretation not only to understand the relevance and context of faith, but also the basis for a transforming praxis. The undoubted theological goal of hermeneutics is the need to know and adequately understand our faith.

We must have a self-critical stance toward our tendencies to impose our own agenda upon the exposition of the Scriptures. The biblical writers called this to our attention through their language about the capacity of the human heart to be deceitful and wicked. Therefore, we need also to be mindful of the possibility of fallibility in our own interpretation of Scripture.

Today there is a desperate and unending desire for a prophetic voice. Often we confuse or associate a prophetic voice with personal charm, charisma and/or popular appeal and a passionate delivery during the presentation of the message. In many cases the prophetic voice has been silenced because there has been a failure to probe, understand and expound the revelation of God.

Preaching and Teaching

Bible Interpretation has been a mystery for most laymen for a many years. This is so even though there are many good books available on the subject. I think there are several reasons for this situation. Through the years a professional church mentality has tended to leave the understanding of the Bible up to those who are seen as professional teachers. The seminaries and Bible schools cater to those whose life calling is teaching and preaching the Bible (and so they should). There also seems to be the mentality among some “professionals” that they are the only ones who should be trained in Scripture interpretation. I beg to differ. It is obvious to me that a biblically astute laity is needed if there are to be godly homes and spiritual churches. Godly men and women grow spiritually as they learn to feed on the Scriptures. It is my prayer that many who have been mystified by much of what the Bible says will read the words in this essay, and be invigorated to study the Bible anew, and will be equipped to do it with a great degree of satisfaction.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we should remember Isaiah 28:9-10, “Whom shall he teach knowledge? And whom shall he make to understand doctrine?; them that are weaned from milk, and drawn from the breast. For precept must be upon precept; precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little and there a little.”

Whether reading the Scriptures from a philosophical, narrative, structural, reader-response, liberation, feminist, or deconstruction approach, we must disregard preconceived ideas concerning them and allow the Holy Spirit to interpret and illuminate the Scriptures for us. This can only be done as we read or study prayerfully and in faith.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Franklyn_T._Johnson
http://EzineArticles.com/?A-Comprehensive-Study-on-Interpreting-Scripture&id=2878363