Interpretation Methods

[John Caldwell]

Out of the Renaissance and Reformation came strongly the idea of interpretation of words and their meanings according to their contexts. This is exegesis: getting the meaning from the text.

Whereas reading meanings into the text - eisegesis - is the complete opposite.

I'd say assigning "biblical meanings" to words is eisegesis while exegesis is using the meaning conveyed by the words grammatical construction and historical context.

 

[farouk]

I'd say assigning "biblical meanings" to words is eisegesis while exegesis is using the meaning conveyed by the words grammatical construction and historical context.

Yes, I would say so also. Good to distinguish always reading the Scripture for what they actually say from reading things into the Scriptures.

 

[bbyrd009]

"Stay here for the present" then, if you like

 

[amadeus]

i'm still waiting for the first guy to admit "i have a closed mind" tho?

LOL, Yes, of course, we are all completely and absolutely open minded! And don't anyone try to change my mind on this point!

 

[Berserk]

As a seminarian, I was shocked by my discovery of neglected but essential methods and approaches to biblical interpretation. For example, the scholarly census on 2 points which are foundational for modern Gospel and Pentateuchal study:
(1) The scholarly consensus that Matthew and Luke (but not John) used Mark and a sayings of Jesus source called Q (from the German "Quelle" which means "source") and this insight unlocks the key to the meaning of Jesus' teaching and life experience:

(2) The scholarly consensus that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, but rather that the Pentateuch integrates 4 sources commonly designated J, E, D, and P. Each of these sources has its own literary style and theological emphases and the literary seams where each source is integrated into the Pentateuch are clearly identifiable. Moses didn't recount the details of his own death!

These 2 interpretative basics disturbed me because of my Fundamentalist Pentecostal upbringing and I did a lot of research into possible ways of debunking them, only to be sadly convinced that both basics were unassailable. But here is what troubled me most: my evangelical fellow students were also convinced by these 2 points, but concluded that their congregations must be kept in the dark about them so as not to offend.

A few years ago, 4 laymen approached me, requesting an advanced study of the Gospels that would be acceptable to modern evangelical Bible scholars. At first, I resisted, thinking that such a study might be too technical and would require a rudimentary knowledge of Koine Greek, but ultimately I relented. All 4 purchased Burton Throckmorton's "Gospel Parallels" which presents the Synoptic Gospels in parallel columns. All 4 members of that Bible study were quickly convinced that Mark is the source for both Matthew and Luke. The impact amazed me. 3 of these 4 men were inspired to get Masters degrees in Theology, and 2 even joined cutting edge archaeological digs at Gospel sites in Israel. One appeared on Nova to share his archaeological discovery. The 4th, a retired Boeing engineer, thought he was too old to go back to grad school.

I'm sharing all this with you to express my dilemma. On the one hand, I don't want to offend new or inflexible believers. On the other hand, I want to be honest and transparent with my Christian brethren and therefore want my Christian friends to know where I stand on importance interpretive issues. Marcan priority opens the door to important spiritual insights and insights into the life and experience of Jesus. In my view, pastors cannot understand Jesus' life and teaching accurately and in depth unless they work extensively with Gospel Parallels book like Throckmorton's.

 

[CharismaticLady]

agreed but some denoms are the only one who has the truth

I'm curious which denomination you believe has the truth.

 

[Willie T]

I seriously doubt if there is ANY denomination that has not missed some portion of Christ's truth.

 

[Giuliano]

A few years ago, 4 laymen approached me, requesting an advanced study of the Gospels that would be acceptable to modern evangelical Bible scholars. At first, I resisted, thinking that such a study might be too technical and would require a rudimentary knowledge of Koine Greek, but ultimately I relented. All 4 purchased Burton Throckmorton's "Gospel Parallels" which presents the Synoptic Gospels in parallel columns. All 4 members of that Bible study were quickly convinced that Mark is the source for both Matthew and Luke. The impact amazed me. 3 of these 4 men were inspired to get Masters degrees in Theology, and 2 even joined cutting edge archaeological digs at Gospel sites in Israel. One appeared on Nova to share his archaeological discovery. The 4th, a retired Boeing engineer, thought he was too old to go back to grad school.

I'm sharing all this with you to express my dilemma. On the one hand, I don't want to offend new or inflexible believers. On the other hand, I want to be honest and transparent with my Christian brethren and therefore want my Christian friends to know where I stand on importance interpretive issues. Marcan priority opens the door to important spiritual insights and insights into the life and experience of Jesus. In my view, pastors cannot understand Jesus' life and teaching accurately and in depth unless they work extensively with Gospel Parallels book like Throckmorton's.

I wish I had known about that book. I read where someone said people shouldn't have an opinion about it unless they compared them. I thought that was probably right. I copied out passages in Greek on scraps of paper to compare. I stopped the study when I reached the endings since they diverged at that point.

It was interesting to me how Matthew was different. While it contained a lot of the same material, it often had a different emphasis where it was different. Matthew tends to have harsher passages. I think he also "quotes" the Old Testament in a way that resembles Jewish mishnahs. Indeed those passages gave me such a problem, I doubted the authenticity of the book until I concluded there were not meant to be taken literally. Then it made more sense.

The problems of how to read the Gospels are small, in my opinion, to the problems in the book of Acts. . . . How people wrote histories then is different from how historians write. They would often include speeches in their accounts to liven the text up. Thus Josephus gives us a speech delivered by a man to an audience at Masada -- when they were all slaughtered, so there wouldn't have been any way Josephus could possibly know what was said. I don't think people read it that way then, just as we don't take Shakespear's historical plays seriously when famous people give speeches. I incline to the idea that Luke wrote Acts but someone else came along and added the speeches. I can't see how Luke could have written them.

 

[CharismaticLady]

I seriously doubt if there is ANY denomination that has not missed some portion of Christ's truth.

I agree. At least, I've only found one that comes close, but still there are some things I'd like to discuss with them...

 

[CharismaticLady]

As a seminarian, I was shocked by my discovery of neglected but essential methods and approaches to biblical interpretation. For example, the scholarly census on 2 points which are foundational for modern Gospel and Pentateuchal study:
(1) The scholarly consensus that Matthew and Luke (but not John) used Mark and a sayings of Jesus source called Q (from the German "Quelle" which means "source") and this insight unlocks the key to the meaning of Jesus' teaching and life experience:

(2) The scholarly consensus that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, but rather that the Pentateuch integrates 4 sources commonly designated J, E, D, and P. Each of these sources has its own literary style and theological emphases and the literary seams where each source is integrated into the Pentateuch are clearly identifiable. Moses didn't recount the details of his own death!

These 2 interpretative basics disturbed me because of my Fundamentalist Pentecostal upbringing and I did a lot of research into possible ways of debunking them, only to be sadly convinced that both basics were unassailable. But here is what troubled me most: my evangelical fellow students were also convinced by these 2 points, but concluded that their congregations must be kept in the dark about them so as not to offend.

A few years ago, 4 laymen approached me, requesting an advanced study of the Gospels that would be acceptable to modern evangelical Bible scholars. At first, I resisted, thinking that such a study might be too technical and would require a rudimentary knowledge of Koine Greek, but ultimately I relented. All 4 purchased Burton Throckmorton's "Gospel Parallels" which presents the Synoptic Gospels in parallel columns. All 4 members of that Bible study were quickly convinced that Mark is the source for both Matthew and Luke. The impact amazed me. 3 of these 4 men were inspired to get Masters degrees in Theology, and 2 even joined cutting edge archaeological digs at Gospel sites in Israel. One appeared on Nova to share his archaeological discovery. The 4th, a retired Boeing engineer, thought he was too old to go back to grad school.

I'm sharing all this with you to express my dilemma. On the one hand, I don't want to offend new or inflexible believers. On the other hand, I want to be honest and transparent with my Christian brethren and therefore want my Christian friends to know where I stand on importance interpretive issues. Marcan priority opens the door to important spiritual insights and insights into the life and experience of Jesus. In my view, pastors cannot understand Jesus' life and teaching accurately and in depth unless they work extensively with Gospel Parallels book like Throckmorton's.

Gospel Parallels by Throckmorton is one of my favorite books that I received as a gift in the early 1990's. I also believe Mark is the source for Matthew and Luke, but I don't recall learning of this in that book. Do you have the book in one of its editions called Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus by two Jewish Christians, David Bivin and Roy Blizzard? Learning Hebrew idioms made the Gospels come to life with new meaning. As I recall, I learned about Mark as the source from them. I knew Roy Blizzard through a friend, and he taught me a lot personally. Have you ever looked into Semitic writing styles? Like contrasts, or parallelisms. Again, people always claim 1 John 1:8 and 10 is to Christians, but chapter one merely contrasts verses 5 - 10 as light vs. darkness, just as chapter three contrasts of Jesus and of the devil. Why else would verses 8 and 10 be separated by verse 9. They virtually say the same thing, and verse 9 is needed to cleanse ALL sin. If we are cleansed of ALL sin, do we still have sin? No, so both verses 8 and 10 are not after being cleansed, but before, as an unsaved sinner. Unfortunately, we find more unsaved in churches today, than saved. That is what John is addressing to his congregation.


1 John 1:5-10

5 This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.

6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.

7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.


8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

 

[farouk]

The ultimate issue in the sources for the Gospels is, surely, the inspiration of the Spirit and thus the authority of Scripture.

 

[Enoch111]

The ultimate issue in the sources for the Gospels is, surely, the inspiration of the Spirit and thus the authority of Scripture.

That is absolutely correct. Every one of the writers of Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit. This literally means that every word was God-breathed (Greek theopneustos) which is not the same as what is commonly taken to be inspiration. "Holy men of God spake (or wrote) as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Pet 1:21). This speaks of the Spirit taking full control of the writer so that no errors would enter the Word of God, and only that which God wanted to say would be said.

Which means that no one *borrowed* from another writer, though they may have been aware of the others' writings. Peter was fully conversant with all the epistles of Paul, and stated that (1) they were at the same level as all the existing Hebrew Scriptures and (2) there were some things in them which were hard to be understood, and therefore perverse men twisted the Scriptures.

Catholics hate the idea of Sola Scriptura, since it does away with any man-made doctrines. But the reason Sola Scriptura is valid is because the Bible is (1) inspired, (2) therefore inerrant, and (3) therefore infallible.

 

[CharismaticLady]

That is absolutely correct. Every one of the writers of Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit. This literally means that every word was God-breathed (Greek theopneustos) which is not the same as what is commonly taken to be inspiration. "Holy men of God spake (or wrote) as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Pet 1:21). This speaks of the Spirit taking full control of the writer so that no errors would enter the Word of God, and only that which God wanted to say would be said.

Which means that no one *borrowed* from another writer, though they may have been aware of the others' writings. Peter was fully conversant with all the epistles of Paul, and stated that (1) they were at the same level as all the existing Hebrew Scriptures and (2) there were some things in them which were hard to be understood, and therefore perverse men twisted the Scriptures.

Catholics hate the idea of Sola Scriptura, since it does away with any man-made doctrines. But the reason Sola Scriptura is valid is because the Bible is (1) inspired, (2) therefore inerrant, and (3) therefore infallible.

and @farouk
I agree that every letter and every space between the letters was authored by God, and not, as you say moved. I also agree that perverse men twisted the Scriptures and came up with heretical doctrines, but I don't think we would agree on which denominations adopted those doctrines. Even though we don't agree doctrinally, I always enjoy reading what you both have to say.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Now this is really profound. Which means that Christians should simply sit on their hands and confess ignorance about what God has said in His written Word.

And pray tell, when is this imaginary *appointed time*?????

“Now this is really profound. Which means that Christians should simply sit on their hands and confess ignorance about what God has said in His written Word.”

The LORD shut Jobs mouth. Job 40:1-14 Moreover the Lord answered Job, and said, [2] Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him ? he that reproveth God, let him answer it. [3] Then Job answered the Lord, and said, [4] Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth. [5] Once have I spoken; but I will not answer: yea, twice; but I will proceed no further. [6] Then answered the Lord unto Job out of the whirlwind, and said, [7] Gird up thy loins now like a man: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. [8] Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous? [9] Hast thou an arm like God? or canst thou thunder with a voice like him? [10] Deck thyself now with majesty and excellency; and array thyself with glory and beauty. [11] Cast abroad the rage of thy wrath: and behold every one that is proud, and abase him. [12] Look on every one that is proud, and bring him low; and tread down the wicked in their place. [13] Hide them in the dust together; and bind their faces in secret. [14] Then will I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee.

Job 42:1-5 Then Job answered the Lord, and said, [2] I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee. [3] Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not. [4] Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. [5] I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.

 

[Enoch111]

For example, the scholarly census on 2 points which are foundational for modern Gospel and Pentateuchal study:

You are relying on so-called *scholarly consensus* when the scholars themselves are bent on misleading everyone about everything. The Bible certainly does not say anything about Matthew and Luke relying on Mark, and Mark relying on Peter, and Peter relying on Paul etc. That is all scholarly baloney.

Indeed, both Higher and Lower critics have totally gone off the rails with their scholarly pretensions. And most seminaries have gone totally liberal with their teachings.

 

[CharismaticLady]

I'll bet some of you guys have trouble with camels.... being swallowed, and passing through the eye of a needle. LOL

Not if you know Hebrew idioms. LOL

 

[Enoch111]

I agree that every letter and every space between the letters was authored by God, and not, as you say moved.

Sorry there may have been some misunderstanding about that word *moved* [φερόμενοι (pheromenoi) 2 Pet 1:21]. It means borne along or carried by the Holy Spirit, and may be interpreted as totally controlled by the Spirit. As John said "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day" (Rev 1:10).

Strong's Concordance
pheró: to bear, carry, bring forth
Original Word: φέρω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: pheró
Phonetic Spelling: (fer'-o)
Definition: to bear, carry, bring forth
Usage: I carry, bear, bring; I conduct, lead; perhaps: I make publicly known.

 

[CharismaticLady]

You are relying on so-called *scholarly consensus* when the scholars themselves are bent on misleading everyone about everything. The Bible certainly does not say anything about Matthew and Luke relying on Mark, and Mark relying on Peter, and Peter relying on Paul etc. That is all scholarly baloney.

Indeed, both Higher and Lower critics have totally gone off the rails with their scholarly pretension. And most seminaries have gone totally liberal with their teachings.

Matthew and Mark were both written between 50 AD and 60 AD, but I do believe Mark was written first.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Sorry there may have been some misunderstanding about that word *moved* [φερόμενοι (pheromenoi) 2 Pet 1:21]. It means borne along or carried by the Holy Spirit, and may be interpreted as totally controlled by the Spirit. As John said "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day" (Rev 1:10).

Strong's Concordance
pheró: to bear, carry, bring forth
Original Word: φέρω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: pheró
Phonetic Spelling: (fer'-o)
Definition: to bear, carry, bring forth
Usage: I carry, bear, bring; I conduct, lead; perhaps: I make publicly known.

I was referring to what you said, which I agreed to.

 

[Naomi25]

On another thread @Anthony D'Arienzo brought up a good point when it comes to differing doctrines, and that is the hermenutical principles and methods used in interpreting Scripture.

@Anthony D'Arienzo rejected the "literal" or traditional method as subjecting God to a "dictionary". Instead of using the meaning conveyed by a words grammatical construction and historical context, @Anthony D'Arienzo suggested words in the biblical text have a different meaning - a "biblical meaning".

I need to be forthright and say I am a SBC baptist. As a denomination we have had experience with liberal hermeneutics that colors many of our perceptions to this sort of liberal interpretation.

I hold to a "literal" method of interpretation which asserts that the biblical text is to be interpreted according to the plain meaning conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context

For this reason I do not believe in "biblical" meanings for words as opposed to "literal" meanings ("literal" being according to the plain meaning conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context).

Holding a traditional view of Scripture I believe several interpretive factors come into play when we interpret a text. We have to determine the "plain meaning" of the word and its English equivalent (as best we can). But we also have to examine the historic context and consider how the text would be recieved by the original audience.

What we (traditionalists in this regard) NEVER do (as best we can help it) is assign to these words "biblical" meanings. We try NOT to read theology back into the text but attempt to derive theology from the text itself.

I believe that God spoke through the authors (Scripture is "God breathed") to include word choices (not to redefine words into a sort of bible code but to have a "literal" meaning).

I hope to have a discussion about the topic. I have a few questions for those who share @Anthony D'Arienzo 's position. I do not understand how those who employ the liberal method can help but be subjective in their interpretations as it seems they read theology and philosophy into the text itself.

I agree that this is a serious matter...as it should be. How we come to Gods word cannot be more important.
However, I believe there is considerable...misunderstanding...on this topic. I myself am Baptist, but I do not always hold to a "literal" interpretation. Mostly because I find that phrase: "literal" to be a litte deceptive. Especially when it comes to those who do claim to hold scripture "literally", they then insist that everyone who doesn't, is a liberal.
First, allow me to assure you I am not a liberal. Far from it, I am conservative in my views.
I think, perhaps, in this issue, its best to try and define things a little better. I heard someone recently explain it like this: people who hold to a 'literal' interpretation seem to be intent on insisting on a 'physical' interpretation. And we see this in Revelation...Dispensationalists insist that much of what is spoken about in that book will come about physically. However...when someone like myself claims NOT to take Revelation 'literally', we are not saying that God's word is not being 'serious' and 'true' in everything. It just may not 'physically' come to pass. For example: I don't believe there will actually be a giant woman in the heavens giving birth to a male child so a dragon can attempt to devour him.... I believe very strongly that God is giving us a true message about a spiritual truth. And it's not wrong to believe spiritual truths are just as weighty, or even more so, than physical ones....after all, our salvation was a spiritual act, a spiritual truth that we did not see, but goodness, it was real!
Now...yes, I suppose there are liberals out there who brush away scripture as fables and stories. But not all people who read apocylptic literature in the bible as something conveyed to us in signs and images are people who dismiss the weight and truth of God's word. We believe it to be 'serious' and 'true'...just not 'physical'. And of course, we clearly recognize the rest of the bible to be historic and factual...in otherwords...it was 'physical'. We only take apocylptic as it is, because it is as it is. There's no good taking history as poetry or poetry as prophecy. Likewise, there's no point taking a book full of images and trying to nail down the correlation between scorpion tails and what that means the helicopters have to look like. Embrace what God has given us in the form he has...that's how we be 'serious' about it.