Interpretation
(In Process)
This page last updated:
10/15/2006 03:58 PM
Introduction
Differences
between Meaning and Application
Literal Interpretation
Allegorical Interpretation
Rabbinic Interpretation
PaRDeS
Grammatical-Historical
Interpretation
Exegesis
vs. Eisegesis | Hermeneutics
This page presents basic material on the
subject in a (hopefully) easy to understand format. Each heading
contains a short explanation of the concepts so a beginner can get a
'hand up' on understanding. These sections also serve as a
reference and clarification for other articles on this site. We
suggest you start with the Introduction and
then move through the other headings as you have time. If
you find that any of the explanations are too complicated, please email
us and let us know about the confusion and we will try to clean it up.
An excellent class is available from
www.torahresource.com titled
"Interpreting the Bible" which is about a semester long and covers this
material in more depth. It has a very reasonable cost and you can
pretty much study at your own pace. Or you can buy the lectures on
CD and a syllabus for study at your own convenience without going
through the class. Much of the material presented here and on the
Theology page is condensed from the class syllabus which was written by
Tim Hegg.
You can also peruse the multi-part study
from Brad Scott at Wild Branch ministry (The
Wildbranch Ministry)
called Hebrew Mind vs. Greek Mind. Just click on the link and
click the button on the left of the page.
Good books to buy:
"Protestant Biblical
Interpretation" by Bernard Ramm. Used copies can be purchased
reasonably at www.half.com.
"An Introduction to
Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning" by Walter C. Kaiser Jr.
and Moises Silva. This is the text book for the Bible
interpretation class offered by Torah Resource above, but it is also
fairly readable for the casual student.
"Interpreting the Bible, An
Introduction to Hermeneutics," a class syllabus with recorded lectures
by Tim Hegg available at
www.torahresource.com.
Our desire is to de-mystify the study of
God's Word and to make it available to any interested party. Thank
you.
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a
workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of
truth. 2 Timothy 2:15 NASB
The study and interpretation of the Bible
is complicated by the way we look at the words and by how we communicate
with each other. We bring to any study a set of ideas we already
have called preconceptions (we can also call them pre-conceived
ideas or assumptions), which are picked up from our education, our parents, peer influence, and so
on. They can be good or bad, true or false.
False preconceptions interfere with our ability to properly understand
and apply what we are hearing from the Word of God. An example of
a false preconception is the idea that the Old Testament does not apply
in the modern believer's life except as a series of object lessons or
illustrations. The Bible itself proves this untrue. A true preconception, on the other hand, can help
us with our study, such as the idea (opposite of the above) that all of
the Book is currently applicable to a believer's life. We can't get rid of preconceptions, but we can
be aware of them and modify
them if needed when we find out that one of them is
false.
Of course, sin also has a major role
in corrupting the pure understanding of the Word. We have to deal
with pride, prejudice, narrow-mindedness, money, greed, and a host of other thinking
and relational problems as we deal with His Words. It doesn't help
that many of the teachings from God found in His Word deal with these
exact same subjects in unflattering terms as well. As James says,
the Word is like a mirror that depicts us accurately (1:21-25), and it
can be very difficult to behold the image that the mirror reveals. Because
of pride we tend to shrink back from viewing that image, but through the
sacrifice of the Lamb and confession of our sins we are cleansed and
gain access to our Father. So, to overcome the sin problem in
the interpretation process, we just have to stay current on confession
and repentance as we read and apply the Word to our lives.
Another complication is the language
barrier. The writers of the Bible wrote and spoke, in the main,
Hebrew, and also spoke other popular languages of the day such as
Aramaic and Greek (when in Rome...). Many times we are able to
make a direct word-for-word translation, but other times we must try to
figure out equivalents. It's a problem akin to trying to explain
snow to a lifetime resident of the Sahara desert. Fairly often
when translating we can't just go with a dictionary definition because
several words together are intended to convey a different idea than just
the word meanings. For instance, the words 'abolish' and 'fulfill'
in Matthew 5:17-19 mean to 'interpret improperly' and 'interpret
properly.' There are also idioms (combinations of words that
together mean more than the individual word definitions) such as 'face
to face,' used in 1 Corinthians 13:12, which recalls the high priest's
offering on the Day of Atonement. Fortunately God finds a way to speak to us so that we
understand, using word pictures that convey His meaning without any
doubt. We just have to dig a little.
Cultural differences between the
people of the Bible and the modern reader can also cause confusion and
make interpretation difficult. Not only did they communicate in a
different spoken language but they had some practices in their culture
that mystify us today. For instance, we don't sign a contract in
the same way that God 'cut a covenant' with Abraham in Genesis 15.
In some ways we understand a contract, but how does this relate to
cutting some animals in pieces and walking between them? (Part of
the meaning is that 'may this happen to me' if I break the covenant.)
There are many such cultural practices that, unless studied and
understood as we interpret the Word, mean little or nothing to us today.
On top of our preconceptions, our sin,
language differences and culture in the Bible, we are faced with a bunch
of different types of literature, from poetry to apocalyptic and
narrative to symbolic. Throw in some genealogies, mix with
prophecy, slice in some artificial chapter and verse divisions, ignore
the author's intentions and perspectives, and next thing you know some
priest is telling you that you cannot interpret properly and he must do
it for you. And there are people who buy into the priest thing, thinking that
their own personal responsibility is
eliminated. Fat chance. Everyone will have to give an account
of himself or herself directly to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
and hiding behind the skirts of someone else you allow to interpret for
you isn't going to go over well with Him. That whole 'he said' and
'she did' argument was shot full of holes by God in the Garden.
The Bible is the original interactive
media. We must be willing to do
what God tells us to do, and frequently we fall far short of this
willingness. If we are not willing to respond to what God is
communicating, how will we be able to continue learning more? We read and we do.
As we read and do what we know and understand, more understanding is
made available. Some of you may say that the possession of the
Holy Spirit is necessary before a response can be made, and that may be
true for some of God's teachings. But there are certain elementary
actions that can be taken without the assistance of the Holy Spirit
(although it's debatable whether anything, even breathing, can be done
without the Holy Spirit),
such as the act of reading the text itself (the ability to read being a
God-given gift itself). God promises to reward
the seeker, setting aside questions of who initiates the contact.
Some
think, and I am one of them, that we cannot be saved if God does not
intervene in our lives to save us, so if you are seeking it is because
of His intervention. But if we
study, without getting involved by responding, the study just
becomes an abstract occupation of looking without seeing or hearing
without listening.
These potential difficulties do not mean that God has not
been able to cut through the tangle and deliver a message that the
average person can understand and practice. Most of the meaning of
Scripture is straightforward and easily discernable by even the most
casual of readers. Some meanings may take extra study and time,
but the bulk of the meaning is there for the taking. In my opinion
the Holy Spirit is always working to illuminate and judge in this
fashion with all people.
There are
many ways we can overcome preconceptions and the like. For
instance we can
acknowledge the presence of handicaps such as those listed above and stay open to change if we are wrong.
We can also learn from others who have studied for longer and in more
depth than we have.
Fortunately, too, God has not just left us with only a few ambiguous
statements. He has provided us with a great deal of material which
can be cross-referenced by comparing Scripture with Scripture, keeping the Words in context.
The Word is an organic whole, not just a series of one-liners that we
can misuse to back up what we want to believe. A lot of the uncertainty
of interpretation could be avoided if we just read the whole text and do it
completely, and take what the scholars say
with a large dose of salt. Each of us
has a responsibility to keep reading and practicing.
There's much more to studying the Word of
God than just reading a few verses and developing a teaching based on
those verses. When God tells us to 'Be diligent to present
yourself approved' He isn't kidding around about the 'be diligent' part.
It's a lot of hard work to read the Word and do what it says, and to
continue
making changes as they are needed. We can do it, if we apply ourselves. God has
provided an abundant amount of communication which will help us
understand that He has been reaching out to us for a long time.
Now we just have to reach out our own hands and take up the task of
responding.
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for
teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for
every good work. 2 Timothy
3:16,17
Two questions are usually asked by the
humble reader and interpreter of the Word that are related to each other
but have distinctly different effects. "What does the text mean?"
is the first and deals with such things as word definitions and cultural
differences when trying to discern what ideas are being communicated.
The second is "What does the text mean to me?" The answers
to this question involve the application of the text to the
reader's life. There is only one meaning to the text, which is the
meaning that the author intended. There are, on the other hand,
literally thousands of applications.
Applications can be personal or universal,
but they are not necessarily the Word of God. For instance, there
are some people who will tell you they believe it is wrong to watch an
'R' rated movie. These people think God has told us through His
Word that the actions and thoughts represented in such a movie are not
things we should 'approve of' by 'watching.' But the Bible does
not specifically say to avoid watching an 'R' rated movie. As a
matter of fact it doesn't mention movies at all. I am not saying
that it is okay to watch, I am just pointing out the difference between
the 'meaning' of the Word and an application. The person who
cautions against a particular movie may be well meaning and may even be
correct. As long as the caution is treated as an application or
opinion it is fine to both offer the caution and agree with it by not
watching the movie.
But many times the person with an
application crosses the line and begins to teach that their particular
application is really the 'meaning' of the Bible text. The next
thing you know someone is legislating my behavior through their opinions
(or applications), which is what many religious leaders attempt to do.
I believe Paul addresses this type of thing in such places as Romans 14.
If God is specific, we should be specific. If He is not, then
we must be guided by applications within the framework of the Word. However, we should be extremely
reluctant to force other people to live by our applications while
ignoring the true meaning of the Word. The Bible tells us that
each person has to answer to his or her Creator individually, and there
will be no defense allowed for wrong actions that transfer blame to
someone else because 'they told me to do it.' An application from
the Word is not 'law' in the same way that God's Word is law.
This method of interpretation assumes
(there's one of those preconceived ideas again) that
God means what He says and has conveyed it to us in a simple, easy to
understand fashion. The author intended to communicate one meaning
when he was writing, and this is the meaning we must strive to
determine. It is true that there can be a wide range of
applications to an individual's life, and there are meanings in the Words
that perhaps the author wasn't aware of at the time of writing.
But those not-so-obvious meanings can be drawn from the text as a whole
without resorting to tricks of interpretation such as those used in the
Allegorical Interpretation method.
Sometimes the literal interpretation method is
lumped together or confused with the
grammatical-historical
method. But there is a difference. The Literal method seeks
to take God, through the writer, at His Word. We use this method
to get as close as possible to what the writer intended to say, and
there are tools that have been developed to help find this meaning.
For the literal method, the tools include grammar and history but are not
limited to those tools alone. The grammatical-historical method,
if used properly, is excellent for placing the Biblical text in the proper
historical and linguistic context, but it does not take into consideration such things as the
writer's perspective.
The literal
interpretation also take's into consideration the type of literature
that is being interpreted. For instance, the wisdom literature of
the Proverbs of Solomon are different than the poetry of the Song of
Solomon, and both are different than the apocalyptic style of
Revelation. The Literal method asks, "What does the style of
writing have to do with the content?" "Does the style itself
affect the delivery of the truths presented?" "How does the style
affect the meaning?" These are facets of meaning that are not
included in other interpretation methods.
The word 'allegory' refers to a style of writing
where the obvious symbols used by the writer to tell a story actually
represent other, less obvious, ideas. Aesop's Fables are
allegories. Edgar Allen Poe wrote stories and poems that are
allegorical (a talking raven?). There is also allegory in the
Bible, such as the Song of Solomon. Allegory is a useful method of
communication sometimes, but the purpose of allegory is to reveal truth,
not obscure it (this is also the purpose of the Bible). If the
meaning can't be understood and acted upon by the people the writer is
trying to communicate with, what use is the allegory? Therefore
allegory is a legitimate form of expression, and one used by biblical
writers, but for the specific goal of illuminating Truth and making it
plain to any reader, rather than to obscure it.
Some interpreters of the Bible are not
content with the plain meaning of the words on the page, but insist
there is a 'fuller' or 'hidden' meaning to each one. The 'real'
meaning is considered to be, not the definition of the word itself, but
an idea behind the plain meaning. The allegorical method of
interpretation proceeds from the assumption (another of those pesky
preconceptions) that the entire Bible is an allegory. The real
meaning is hidden and must be uncovered through the interpretation
process. According to these interpreters, we can't just read the
text and do what it says, we have to peel away the 'husk' to get at the
'kernel' of the real meaning.
The biggest drawback to this interpretation
method is that it is so arbitrary. There is no table anywhere in
the Bible that gives us the 'real' meanings for each of the mundane
terms employed by the writers. The problem is, who sets the fuller
meaning of a given word? Who decides that a river isn't really a
river but a representation of faith? When does the meaning change,
and why? The allegorical interpreter cannot answer these questions
satisfactorily. Even their answers are arbitrary, and so using
this method causes the meaning of the text to stay in their hands
instead of being freely available to the average person.
The sheer arbitrariness of this
interpretation method leads us to the next biggest drawback, which is
that it takes self-proclaimed 'experts' to translate the text and tell
you or I the 'real meaning.' So people who use the allegorical
interpretation method must be consulted before meaning can be extracted
from the text. This gives rise to a group of priestly
intermediaries like the so-called 'priests' of the Catholic church, who
reserve the ability to correctly translate the text for themselves.
Instead of being able to go direct to God ourselves, these types of
people set themselves up to act as go-betweens and thus control access.
As a matter of fact, it is my opinion that control is the main reason
for this type of interpretation method.
The allegorical interpretation method
simply does not fill the bill for correctly extracting meaning from the
Bible. It encourages unsupported doctrines (unsupported from the
Word, also called dogma, meaning flat statements made without proof),
and all kinds of wild interpretations. This is to be expected from
an interpretation method for which the first rule is, "there are no
rules."
Jewish rabbis (is there another kind?) have developed a number of
rules for interpreting the Bible, and most of them seem to be sound in
principle at least (depending on how they are used). It is
important to understand the Hebrew thinking that affects interpretation,
because it was Hebrew minds that God used to write the Scriptures.
Greek thinking is different from Hebrew thinking in a number of ways; in
fact it might almost be said that they are opposites. Western
culture and the interpretation it produces are saturated in Greek
thinking, which makes it hard (not impossible, just more difficult) to
understand the words that God has delivered to us through the Hebrew
writers. More on the differences between the thinking patterns can
be learned through the classes and books listed at the head of this
page.
The Hebrew language is verb-oriented, which
means it tends to be more concerned with actions rather than abstract thoughts.
So the average rabbinical approach to interpreting is also more
concerned with action (application of the Word) than with complicated
systems of beliefs. Truth is not an idea, but an experience, and
is best conveyed through a presentation of history rather than endless
discussions of 'what is truth.' The Hebrew wants to show his
thinking by his actions, not by a list of beliefs.
To the Hebrew, relationship is more important than
theology. For instance, the thinking process for the Hebrew is in
the heart, out of which one loves (Deuteronomy 6:5), fears (Deuteronomy
28:65), or sins (Jeremiah 17:9). The stomach (bowels) are where
one feels anguish, and the liver is where a person experiences horror or
terror. The head is thought of as the source of the life force,
which is why Yeshua (Jesus) is spoken of as the Head of the Church.
A famous rabbi called Hillel came up with
seven rules of interpretation, while another one called Ishmael
developed 13 rules and still another came up with 32. These rules
of interpretation serve to help rabbis apply the Torah in individual
cases where the Torah is not clear, but they also help to interpret
Scripture (the same thing?) The following is a short summary of
some of the beginning rabbinic interpretation laws, compiled from the
"Interpreting The Bible" class syllabus available from Tim Hegg's web
site www.torahresource.com.
kal v'chomer - literally "light and
heavy." A comparison is drawn between two cases in the Word, one
lenient and the other stringent. If something is true for a
'light' case, then it is certainly true for the more important case.
The words, 'how much more' are usually a clue for this kind of rule.
In other words, when the Pharisees tithed 'mint, dill and cummin,' "how
much more" should they have practiced 'mercy, justice, and compassion.'
This rule had certain limitations, such as that it could not be used to
prove that something is prohibited by Torah.
gezerah shavah - "comparison of
equivalent" or "similar law."
The acronym “PaRDeS” stands for four
levels of Medieval Rabbinic Interpretation, namely: “Peshat” meaning
“simple” and thus referring to the plain or apparent meaning of the
text; “Remez” meaning “hint” and referring to an allusion in the text or
something gained from the text through inductive reasoning; “Darash”
meaning “to examine” or “search,” and refers to an allegorical or
topical interpretation taken from the text primarily for a homiletical
purpose; “Sod” meaning “hidden” referring to interpretation gleaned from
mystical reflections upon the text, including gematria and other
so-called mystical references in the text.
According to the Encyclopedia Judaica (10:622-23) this system of
hermeneutics became well-known among the kabbalists. Moses de Leon is
given credit for summing the four levels under the acronym “PaRDeS,”
himself a kabbalist of the Middle Ages. This system of interpretation
fit the kabbalistic philosophy, for the goal was in every way to proceed
to the “sod” of the text, never to linger on nor be satisfied with the
mere “pashat.”
The peshat,
therefore, which was taken to include the corpus of Talmudic law as
well, was only the Torah’s outermost aspect, the “husk” that first met
the eye of the reader. The other layers revealed themselves only to
that more penetrating and latitudinous power of insight which was able
to discover in the Torah general truths that were in now way dependent
on their immediate literal context. Only on the level of sod did the
Torah become a body of mystical symbols which unveiled the hidden
life-process of the Godhead and their connections with human life. (Ency
Judaica 10:623).
In fact, this hermeneutic, which was
developed and promoted by the kabbalists, shows remarkable similarity to
an interpretive scheme used by some medieval commentators which employed
the literal, aggadic, and philosophical-allegorical levels of the text.
Joseph ibn Aknin’s long commentary on the Son of Songs, composed in the
early 13th century, combined all three of these approaches. Bahya b.
Asher was the first Jewish commentator (1291) to introduce a kabbalistic
aspect into his explanation of the text, though he did not use the
acronym PaRDeS. An example of the length to which some kabbalistic
commentators went to exhaust the sod
of a text is the commentary on the prayer of Moses in Deuteronomy 3:23ff
by Nathan Spira. He offers 252 different ways it could be explained or
interpreted!
Thus, this later mystical or kabbalistic interpretive scheme should not
be confused with earlier Jewish interpretation (e.g., that of Qumran).
We may conclude that PaRDeS as a hermeneutical formula was founded in
the Middle Ages, and was generally the product of kabbalists.
It is therefore a mistake to think that such a hermeneutic was in place
in the 1st Century, or somehow that Yeshua and His Apostles would have
interpreted the Scriptures from this vantage point. To postulate such a
scenario would be entirely anachronistic.
Further, the PaRDeS schema undermines all sound hermeneutics, and
divests the text of its literary meaning. Since the Pashat is considered
to be the “surface” or plain sense, this is considered less than
significant for the true chacham
or Sage. It is only when one arrives at the
sod, the mysterious and
mystical sense found through subjective criteria, that the text gives up
its treasures. Such an approach simply combines a full-blown mysticism
with a kind of “sensus plenior,” leaving the text entirely manipulated
by the interpreter, and thus unable accurately to bear the author’s
meaning. Such a hermeneutic should be avoided at all costs.
('Interpreting the Bible' syllabus, Tim Hegg, pp 89-90)
Sensus Plenior
A further note from the same syllabus regarding the term 'sensus
plenior.'
Not everyone believes that HaShem has
given us His word in common language. Some have taught that while the
Bible is written in common language, there exists “beneath” the words a
spiritual meaning. This
so-called “spiritual meaning” is discovered (so it is taught) through
subjective or mystical experience. Historically, it was the Roman
Catholic Church which emphasized this teaching. According to her
teaching, only those endowed with leadership within the church were able
to discern the “deeper meaning” of the text. In fact, during the Middle
Ages, the Roman Catholic Church kept the bible from the people, fearing
that in their inability to understand the “deeper sense,” they would
inevitably err in their interpretations of it.
Some would point to a verse such as 1 Cor. 2:14 to substantiate a
“deeper sense:”
“But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for
they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they
are spiritually appraised.” (NASB)
But this verse is talking about the SIGNIFICANCE of the things of the
Ruach, not the MEANING. Apart from the Ruach HaKodesh, it is utterly
impossible to make a proper
application of the Scriptures, even if one knows the MEANING. In
fact, apart from the inner working of the Ruach, the biblical text will
inevitably be misapplied, that is, the attempt to find relevant
SIGNIFICANCE of the text will be fruitless.
Thus, when Paul speaks in 1 Cor 2:14 of the spiritual man being able to
examine the things of the Ruach, he is talking about taking the things
of the Ruach (which would certainly include the Scriptures) and making
proper application to one’s life. The MEANING is carried by the words
and language, the SIGNIFICANCE (or life-application) comes from the
Ruach illuminating or enlightening the mind of the believer.
With this in mind, the first task of the Bible interpreter is to find
and understand the author’s MEANING. This will be done by understanding
the meaning of the words, phrases, sentences, and larger context as they
were given in their historical and cultural settings. The language
itself carries the author’s meaning. The Bible interpreter, therefore,
must find the author’s meaning in the words themselves.
Questions to ask:
1. Do I
understand the words?
Sources:
dictionary, lexicon, word studies, concordance searches.
2. Are the key phrases used
elsewhere in the Bible?
Sources: concordance, cross-reference.
3. Does the Bible teach about
the same subject elsewhere?
Sources: concordance, cross-reference, commentaries
4. Do I understand how the
words and sentences fit together?
Syntax, grammar: Biblical Hebrew
Syntax (Walke, O’Conner)
Literary structure; kind of literature; literary devices
Sources: The Literary Guide to the
Bible by Alter & Kermode (Belknap)
5. Do I understand the
author’s primary point in this text?
Sources: Overview of the book or section; Outline of the text;
parallel passages in the Bible; commentaries.
('Interpreting the Bible' syllabus, Tim Hegg, pp 5-6)
The definition of 'exegesis'
(ex-eh-gee-sis) is to draw meaning out of a text. The opposite of
exegesis is 'eisegesis' (eye-sa-gee-sis) which means to read our own
meaning into the text. To let the text speak for itself is
exegesis. To put words in the mouth of our Father is eisegesis.
The interpreter must watch himself (or
herself), to avoid 'reading into' the text with their own opinions.
This is very hard to do sometimes because of the problems mentioned
above in the introduction. The remedy for eisegesis is to compare
notes with others, and avoid trying to develop ideas and theology in a
solitary fashion. If we cross check our interpretations with
others, and with the rest of Scripture, it helps to focus the effort on
the plain meaning of the text and not the wishful thinking of the
interpreter.
Some type of education is recommended for
the student of Scripture, even if it is self-education. If we
consult and share with others then we can find out what mistakes other
interpreters have made and hopefully avoid the same mistakes ourselves.
Education also serves to clarify thinking, and shortens the learning and
development curve.
A 'hermeneutic' is another name for a rule
or system or method of interpreting the Bible. The line between
the words gets blurry after a while. Especially after you've
studied these things in-depth for a while in a college-level class and
you get behind on your homework and the test is coming up in a few days
and somebody misplaced the textbook and your computer is on the fritz
and the professor is demanding an answer to his question and, oh, wait a
minute, I must've drifted there for a second.
Hermeneutics have been developed for
Say this one ten times fast. Some
people think this hermeneutic is the same as the Literal, but there is
enough difference that we should talk about it separately. |
