Private interpretation without overseers, teachers can lead to radical subjectivism. There are means available to us to check the tendency to read into Scripture what we want to find. "That's your opinion." This statement possibly means: "That’s your interpretation, and that’s fine for you. I don’t agree with it, but my interpretation is equally valid. thought our interpretations are contrary and contradictory, they both can be true. Whatever you like is true for you and whatever I like is true for me." This is subjectivism which means a person distorts the objective meaning to suit their opinion or interests. It takes place when the truth of a statement is not merely expanded or applied to the subject, but when it is absolutely determined by the subject.

In seeking an objective understanding of Scripture, we don’t reduce Scripture to something cold, abstract, and lifeless. What we are doing is seeking to understand what the word says in its context before we go about the equally necessary task of applying it to ourselves. A particular statement in Scripture may have numerous possible applications, but it can have only one correct meaning. Alternate interpretations which are contradictory and mutually exclusive cannot both be true unless God speaks with a forked tongue.

First goal of sound biblical interpretation is to arrive at the objective meaning of Scripture and avoid pitfalls of distortion caused by letting interpretations be governed by subjectivism.

Exegesis: "to guide out of." To exegete Scripture is to get out of the words the meaning that is there, no more or no less.

Eisogesis: eis means "into." Reading into the text something that isn’t there.

Subjectivism then produces distortion, error, and breeds arrogance. Private study and interpretation must be balanced by the collective wisdom of the teachers.

Hermeneutics: Science of Interpretation

purpose is to establish guidelines and rules for interpretation.

U.S. Constitution interpreted by the Supreme Court.

originally used grammatico-historical method which was to study the words of the document in light of what those words meant when they were originally used when document was written.

Oliver Wendell Holmes influenced a change in interpretation moving more toward interpretation in light of modern attitudes.

Reformers established basic principles of interpretation when they broke with Rome.

Primary rule called "analogy of faith."

Scripture is to interpret Scripture ("Sacred Scripture is its own interpreter.") No part of Scripture can be interpreted in such a way as to render it in conflict with what is clearly taught elsewhere in Scripture.

This principle rests on confidence in Bible as inspired Word of God, so it is consistent and coherent. Since God would never contradict Himself, it is thought slanderous to Holy Spirit to choose alternate interpretations that would unnecessarily bring the Bible in conflict with itself.

Interpreting the Bible literally.

"of course." What is the real meaning of literal interpretation?

Second rule of herumeutics: The Bible is to be interpreted according to its literal sense. The term ‘literal’ comes from Latin litera meaning letter. Interpreting something literally is to pay attention to the letters and words being used. The Bible then is to be interpreted as ‘literature’ which means interpretation is to be according to normal rules of grammar, speech, syntax, and content. Under ‘inspiration,’ a noun is a noun, a verb a verb. So, interpretation must know rules of grammar, and above all, carefully involved in what is called "genre analysis."

Genre means ‘kind,’ ‘sort,’ ‘species.’ Genre analysis involves the study of such things as literary forms, figures of speech and style. Literary analysis is critical to accurate interpretation. Literary analysis cannot decide philosophical questions (for example, whether Jonah was swallowed by a fish.)

Another example of problems related to literary conflicts is the use of hyperbole in Scripture. Hyperbole means "over shooting," or "a statement exaggerated fancifully, as for effect." An example in Scripture may be Matthew 9:35 where our Lord went about all the cities and the villages. Does this mean everyone? Does Matthew want us to know that every single village was visited? Perhaps, but not likely.

Literary analysis can also untangle some confusion resulting from personification, a poetic device where inanimate objects (non living) or animals are given human characteristics. Hills dancing and clapping their hands or Balaam’s talking donkey, or the serpent talking in Genesis or the trees of life and knowledge of good and evil. These examples are characteristics of a kind of symbolism found in apocalyptic literature such as the book of Revelation.

A metaphor is a figure of speech where a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them. In John 10:9, our Lord said He was the door, where He uses the form of the verb to be in a metaphorical way. And what did He mean when He said, "This is My body, "? (Luke 22:19) Though Scripture has a unified meaning, its application can be rich and varied.

Grammatico-Historical Method of Interpretation

Closely related to analogy of faith and literal sense of Scripture. Focus is an grammatical constructions and historical contents in addition to literary forms: certain types of literature has certain forms - poetry, business letters, legal documents. Focus is our original meaning of text to help prevent reading into Scripture one’s own ideas.

Grammatical structure determines whether words are to be taken as questions (interrogative), commands (imperative), or declarative (indicative).

Historical analysis involves seeking a knowledge of the setting and situation in which the books of the Bible were written. This is a requisite for understanding what the Bible meant in its historical context. Questions of authorship, date, and destination are important for clear understanding of a book.

Inerrancy is used to indicate the "utter truthfulness" of the Scriptures.

Rules for Biblical Interpretation

Rule 1: The Bible is to be read like any other book. Although unique among all literature as inspired by God and infallible, the Bible is still literature and is to b e treated as such. A verb is still a verb, a noun is still a noun in the Bible.

Rule 2: Read the Bible existentially. This does not mean the modern "existential" method of interpreting Scripture is used where words are taken out of historical context for subjective meaning. Taking this approach would diminish the significance of God’s work in history, and particularly His cumulating work in Christ. Without a historical Christ, our faith is in vain (1 Corinthians 15).

Reading the Bible existentially means to be passionately and personally involved in what is read, not only for personal application, but for understanding as well. this can lead to a kind of empathy by which a person will try to "crawl into the skin" of the characters they read about.

Rule 3: Historical narratives are to be interrupted by the didactic. The word didactic comes from the Greek word that means to teach or instruct. Didactic literature is literature that teaches or explains. The Epistles should interpret the Gospels rather than the Gospels interpret the epistles, since the Epistles are largely interpretative and come after the Gospels.

The erosion of confidence in biblical authority has led to a tendency to put the authority of Jesus over against the authority of the Epistles, particularly Paul’s Epistles. What is actually occurring is that one apostle is set against another. Jesus wrote nothing; we are dependent upon apostolic testimony for our knowledge of what He did and said. If the apostles received this authority as apostles from Jesus Himself, how can we criticize them in their teaching and still claim to follow Christ? Irenaeus, an early church father, used this argument against the gnostics of the early church who attacked the authority of the apostles. If you don’t obey the apostles, he said, you can’t be obedient to God, because, if you reject the apostles, you reject the One who sent them (Jesus), and, if you reject the One who sent the apostles, you reject the One who sent Him (God the Father).

The principles of interpreting a narrative by the didactic is then not designed to set an apostle against apostle or apostle against Christ. It is merely recognizing one of the principle tasks of the apostle, to teach and to interpret the mind of Christ for His people.

Rule 4: The implicit is to be interpreted by the explicit. Distinctions must be made in what is actually said and what is left unsaid though implied. Often the difference is a matter of degree and the distinction can be muddled. When an implication is drawn that is contradictory to what is explicitly state, the implication is to be rejected.

Watch for comparative statement. If one thing is said to be better than another, that doesn’t imply one is good and the other bad. There are comparative levels of goodness (1 Corinthians 7:38; 14:4-5).

Closely related is the rule to interpret the obscure in light of the clear. If we interpret the clear in light of the obscure, we drift into a kind of isoteric interpretation that is inevitably cultic. Observe the rule of care: careful reading of what the text is actually saying will save us form much confusion and distortion. No great knowledge of logic is necessary, just the simple application of common sense.

Rule 5: Determine carefully the meaning of words. The better individual words are understood in biblical statements, the better a person is able to understand the total passage. Accurate communication and clear understanding are difficult when words are used imprecisely or ambiguously. Misuse of words and misunderstanding go hand in hand.

There are two basic methods by which words are defined: etymology and by customary usage. Etymology is the science of derivations.

In addition to origins and derivations, it is extremely important to study language in the context of its usage. Words undergo changes in meaning depending on how they are use.

with words that have multiple meanings, only context can determine the particular meaning of a word. Other words have doctrinal significance and need to be understood based on definition that fits the context. Such words as justification, sanctification, salvation have multiple meanings.

Rule 6: Note the presence of parallelisms in the Bible. Parallelism may be defined as a relationship between two or more sentences or clauses that correspond in similarity or are set with each other. There are three types:

Synonymous parallelism occurs when different lines or parts of a passage present the same thought in a slightly altered manner of expression. For example,

A false witness will not go unpunished,

And he who tells lies will not escape. Proverbs 19:5

Antithetic parallelism occurs when two parts are set in contrast to each other. they may say the same way but say it by the way of negation. See Proverbs 13:1; 10:4

Synthetic parallelism is more complex. The first part of a passage creates a sense of expectation which is completed by the second part. A third line could be the conclusion of a progressive, "staircase" movement. See Psalm 92:9; Matthew 5:42; 7:7.

Rule 7: Note the difference between proverb and law. A common mistake in biblical interpretation and application is to give a proverbial saying the weight or force of a moral absolute. Proverbs are designed to express practical truism, reflect principles of wisdom for godly living, but not considered moral laws to be applied absolutely to every conceivable situation.

It is also important to distinguish between forms of laws. Two basic types found in the Bible are apodictic and casuistic law. Apodictic law expresses absolutes and follows a direct personal form such as "you shall" or "you shall not."

Casuistic law is expressed in the "if. . .then" form of conditional statement. This is the basis for the so-called case law. A series of "examples" are a part of this form which act as guidelines for rendering justice.

Rule 8: Observe the differences between the spirit and the letter of the law. There were types of legalists in the NT times. The first and most famous was the type that legislated rules and regulations beyond what God had commanded. this was to attribute divine authority to human laws. And another type of legalist was the one who altered the law to be technically righteous by violated the spirit of the law.

Another way the law is distorted is by trying to obey the spirit of the law by ignoring the letter. Letter and spirit are inseparably related. The legalist destroys the spirit and the antinomian destroys the letter.

Matthew 5:17-19 clearly teaches that Jesus is concerned with keeping the letter of the law. And He goes beyond the letter to a concern for the spirit. He doesn’t set the spirit against the letter or substitute the spirit for the letter, but He adds the spirit to the letter. Read Matthew 5:20. The Pharisees noted the letter; Christians are to note both the letter and the spirit.

Rule 9: Be careful with parables. Parables are not as simple to understand as at first glance. First there is the problem of the original intent of the parable. Jesus was fond of using the parable as a teaching devise. But was He using the parables to explain or obscure His teaching?

Keep in mind that the parables were originally given to an audience who did not have benefit of the entire NT to help in interpretation. At times the disciples asked Jesus for a more detailed interpretation.

Another challenge in interpreting parables rests with the question of the relationship of a parable to allegory. although Jesus used allegory to interpret some parables (Matthew 13, sower), looking for an allegorical meaning in all parables will not work.

The simplest approach to treat the parables is to look for one basic central point in them. Avoid allegorizing of the parables unless there is clearly an allegorical meaning.

Rule 10: Be careful with predictive prophecy. Handling predictive prophecy from both Old and New Testament is one of the most abusive forms of biblical interpretation. The tacit assumption is that future prediction with accurate results is impossible. Examining how the NT treats OT prophecy reveals that in some cases an appeal is made to fulfillment of the letter (as in the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem) and fulfillment in a broader sense (such as fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy of the return of Elijah - Mal. 4:5,6; John 1:19-20; Matt. 11:13-15; Luke 1:17).

The apocalyptic form of prophecy is the most difficult to handle which is characterized by a high degree of symbolic imagery that is sometimes interrupted and sometimes not. the most prominent apocalyptic books are Daniel, Ezekiel, and Revelation. A key to interpreting these images is to seek the general meaning of such images in the Bible itself.

In what way is the Bible conditioned by culture? If the Bible reflects the culture of its day, how can it have any authority over us today? Said another way: To what extent is the Bible’s relevance and authority limited by changing human structures and perspectives in the biblical text?

The biggest problem of "cultural conditioning" is with the conditioning of the reader. We must face the fact that the perspective we bring to Scripture may be a distortion of truth. This is the reason the Reformers sought to approach exegesis in terms of the tabula rasa ideal, striving as hard as possible for an objective reading of the text through the grammatico-historical approach, listening to the message of the Scriptures without mixing in one’s own prejudices.

A different approach has surfaced called the "existential method" which is a sharp departure from the classical method. The Bible must be modernized before it can become relevant which calls for a necessary "prior understanding" before coming to the text at all. proper questions must be brought to the bible to find answers, and these questions can only be provided by a proper philosophical understanding of human existence, formulated before coming to Scripture. this leads to a subjective Bible void of its own history which means the first century message is swallowed up and absorbed by contemporary thinking.

If there is agreement that the Bible is inspired by God and not merely the product of prescientific authors, there is still the questions of application relevance, and obligation. Does what the Bible command first-century Christians to do apply to us? The issue is one of principle or custom. Is all Scripture binding for Christians today in principle, or is all Scripture local custom with no relevancy beyond its immediate historical context? Some guidelines and categories can help determine the difference:

1. Examine the Bible itself for apparent areas of custom. the Scriptures display a certain latitude of custom. Divine principles from the OT culture have been restated in the NT culture which means that some common principle transcends custom, culture, and social convention. Normal cultural differences such as language, clothes, and monetary systems are open to change. But matters of cultural institutions are more difficult.

2. Allow for Christian distinctives in the first century. It is one thing to seek a more lucid understanding of the biblical content by investigating the cultural situation of the first century; it is quite another to interpret the NT as if it were merely an echo of the first century culture. Care must be taken not to let our zeal for knowledge of the culture obscure what is actually said in Scripture.

3. The creation ordinances are indicators of the transcultural principle. The laws of creation are not given to certain men at certain times. To set principles of creation aside as mere local custom is the worst kind of relativizing and dehistoricizing of the biblical content. Consider Jesus’ treatment of divorce in Matthew 19. The inference to be drawn is that the creation ordinances are normative unless explicitly modified by late biblical revelation.

4. In areas of uncertainty us the principle of humility. What if, after careful consideration of a biblical mandate, we remain uncertain as to its character as principle or custom? If we must decide to treat it one way or another but have no conclusive means to make the decision, what can we do? Here the biblical principle of humility can be helpful. It would be better to treat a possible principle as a custom and be guilty of being unscrupulous in demoting a transcendent requirement of God to the level of a mere human convention, than to treat a possible custom as a principle and be guilty of being over scrupulous in our design to obey God.

If the principle of humility is isolated from the other guidelines mentioned, it can easily be misconstrued as a basis for legalism. We do not have the right to legislate the consciences of Christians where God has left them free. It cannot be applied to an absolutistic way where Scripture is silent. The principle of humility applies where we have biblical mandates whose nature remains uncertain (as to custom and principle) after all the arduous labor of exegesis has been exhausted. To short-circuit such labor by a blanket scrupulosity would obscure the distinction between custom and principle. This is a guideline of last resort and would be destructive if used as a first resort.

The problem of cultural conditioning is a real one. Barriers of time, place, and language frequently make communication difficult. Still, the barriers of culture are not so severe as to drive us to skepticism or despair of understanding God’s Word. It is comforting that the Bible has indeed manifested a peculiar ability to speak to the deepest needs and communicate the gospel effectively to people of all different times, places, and customs. The obstacle of culture cannot make void the power of this Word.

Taken from Sproul, R. C. Knowing Scripture. InterVarsity Press, 1977.