Tag Archives: hermeneutics

Correctly Interpreting The Bible: Authority and the Testaments — Jon Mitchell, Editor (Editorial: January/February, 2019)

The editorial in the last issue started a study on whether it is possible to correctly interpret the Bible. It examined the necessity of doing so (Matt. 7:21-23; Heb. 5:9; 2 Tim. 2:15), the false notion that truth is not absolute, the need to heed the entirety of God’s Word (Ps. 119:160), and the benefits of researching the definitions of biblical terms in the original languages when necessary.

We will now continue our study by examining the concept of biblical authority. Jesus was asked about the authority He had to teach His doctrine (Matt. 21:23), a legitimate question even if it was asked with illegitimate motives by the religious leaders. It’s a legitimate question because God tells us to have divine authority in everything we do and say (Col. 3:17). Thus, biblical authority is very important to properly interpreting Scripture. Authority is a foundational precept of Christianity, for without it we have no basis for anything we believe, teach, or practice individually or congregationally.

For example, consider the basic fundamental trait of Christianity which is prayer. We all know Christians pray…but how do we know to whom to pray, for what to pray, or even to pray in the first place? Ultimately, we know to pray (Col. 4:2) to God the Father (Matt. 6:9) about numerous topics (Matt. 6:9-13; 1 Tim. 2:1-2; etc.) because God’s Word tells us to do so. If not for the Spirit-inspired Scriptures (2 Pet. 1:19-21), we wouldn’t know how to pray or even to pray to begin with (Rom. 8:26). Thus, we get our authority to pray from God’s Word.

In fact, every divinely pleasing thing we do as Christians is done by authority which comes from Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Paul said that Scripture equips us for “EVERY good work.” That means if there is a work out there which we don’t need Scripture to give us authority to do in some way, it is not a good work as far as God is concerned. Sure, we might think it a good work…but God’s thoughts aren’t ours (Is. 55:8-9; Prov. 14:12). So again the need for biblical authority is apparent.

Yet how do we get that authority? Studying Scripture reveals three ways in which God’s Word gives authority. The first would be through a command, a direct statement of something which can or cannot be done (e.g., John 13:34; Acts 2:38; Eph. 5:18; 1 Thess. 4:3).

Sometimes biblical commands are general in nature, not limited in scope, area, or application. For example, the command to “go” (Matt. 28:19) is general nature and would authorize all methods of transportation in our efforts to evangelize since God did not specify just how we are to “go.”

On the other hand, sometimes biblical commands are specific in nature, like when God specified gopher wood as the type of wood Noah was to use while building the ark (Gen. 6:14). For this reason Noah would have disobeyed God by using pine wood.

In like manner, a specific command may itself have a degree of general authority which would open up the use of aids not specifically mentioned in the command but which nonetheless are suitable for carrying out that which is authorized. For example, peruse the instructions God gave to Noah about the construction of the ark and you will see more examples of how specific God was in His requirements (Gen. 6:14-16). However, you will find no mention of God telling Noah to use tools such as hammers, nails, saws, etc. Yet, we know that the ark was not built miraculously in that it took decades to build it (Gen. 6:3). Thus, Noah must have used construction tools to build it, tools which God did not mention in His instructions. Did Noah go beyond what God had authorized? No, because when all was said and done Scripture says twice that Noah “did all that God commanded him” (Gen. 6:22; 7:5).

The second way God’s Word gives authority is through approved examples. The divinely inspired Paul taught not only through command, but also by example (Phil. 4:9). In fact, he encouraged others to imitate him and follow his apostolic example (1 Cor. 4:16-17; 11:1), something which the early church did with all the apostles (Acts 2:42; Phil. 3:17; 2 Thess. 3:9). They did so with good reason, considering that the apostles were inspired by the Spirit of God (Eph. 3:3-5). So when we have an example in Scripture which meets with apostolic approval, we know there is authority for the practice. To illustrate, we meet on the first day of each week to partake of communion because of the example set by the early church with the apostles’ approval (Acts 20:7; cf. 1 Cor. 10:16-17).

The third way God’s Word gives authority is through necessary implications. These are neither explicitly stated nor specifically exemplified, but rather are necessarily implied by the clear meaning of the language used by the inspired writers, so much so that one could only logically draw a particular conclusion. Jesus made a necessary implication in His teaching of the existence of the resurrection of the dead to the unbelieving Sadducees (Matt. 22:31). He quoted what God said to Moses at Mount Horeb (Ex. 3:6) about currently being the God of Jewish patriarches who at the time were centuries in their grave (“I AM the God of Abraham…Isaac, and…Jacob”) to necessarily imply that God is not “God of the dead, but of the living,” i.e., that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob still existed after their deaths.

We do the same thing, probably without realizing it. For example, we cite John 3:16 as biblical proof that God gave His only begotten Son because He loves all of humanity. Yet the verse doesn’t actually say that. It actually says, “For God so loved THE WORLD that He gave His only begotten Son…” We necessarily infer that “the world” refers to the entire human population rather than the physical planet because of what is specifically stated in other passages (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4). In like manner, students of the New Testament know that there is no specific command which states, “Thou shalt not punch thy wife in the face.” However, none of us would say that spousal abuse is therefore permitted in the New Testament. Why? Because of the necessary implications we make from certain passages (Matt. 7:12; Eph. 5:28-29).

A study on authority and its relationship to correct biblical interpretation would not be complete without examining the differences between the Old and New Testaments (covenants). Unlike the new covenant whose laws apply to everyone (Matt. 28:18), the old covenant applied only to Israel (Deut. 5:1-3), serving as a “guardian” to Israel until Christ came (Gal. 3:24), after which its laws would not longer be applicable (Gal. 3:25; Rom. 7:1-6). Those attempting to obey some of its commands would be obliged to obey them all, and would fall from grace (Gal. 5:3-4). Yet it still has value to the Christian (Rom. 15:4) by instructing us about God (cf. Ps. 19:1; 23) and His interactions with man (cf. 1 Cor. 10:1-11).

However, correct biblical interpretation requires recognition that its laws given to Israel which regulated their theology, worship, eating habits, holy days, etc., do not apply to Christians today unless we read of those same regulations within the new covenant. For example, all ten of the commandments given at Mount Sinai are also found in the New Testament except for the one concerning the Sabbath Day. Both Testaments command to love our neighbors as we love ourselves (Lev. 19:18; Rom. 13:9). Other examples could be cited.

Yet, while we read of Israel worshiping God through animal sacrifices and instrumental music in the Old Testament (Lev. 1; 2 Chr. 29:25-30), we do not read of Christians commanded to worship in the same ways in the New Testament. Rather, Christians are told that Christ is their sacrifice (Heb. 9:26). We are told to sing praises to God while “plucking the instrument” (the literal definition of the Greek word translated “making melody”) of their heart (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16).

Interpreting the Bible correctly requires constant study (Ps. 1:2; 1 Tim. 4:13, 15-16). Proper understanding doesn’t come overnight; in fact, continual study will always be required if for no other reason than we will forget some of what we’ve learned (2 Pet. 3:1-2). These two editorials provide only a generalized overview, but it is my hope that they can serve as a good starting point in our efforts to no longer be spiritual children “carried about by every wind of doctrine” (Eph. 4:14; cf. Heb. 5:12-14; 6:1-2).

— Jon

Is It Possible To Correctly Interpret The Bible? — Jon Mitchell, Editor (Editorial: November/December, 2018)

The above question is relevant for many reasons. After all, how one interprets the Bible — more specifically, whether one does so correctly — determines whether one actually obeys the commands and principles within Scripture. That in turn has a direct bearing on one’s salvation (Matt. 7:21-23; Heb. 5:9; 1 John 3:4; Rom. 6:23; Rev. 21:8). Since we are commanded to accurately handle Scripture (2 Tim. 2:15), then doing so is possible and necessary.

Some believe truth is relative rather than absolute, a notion proven to be erroneous when one thinks about it honestly (cf. Lk. 8:15). The inconsistency of this proposition is shown by simply responding to the person who confidently asserts, “There is no absolute truth,” with the question, “Are you absolutely sure about that?” Still, many believe this misguided notion. A popular rock band from my youth wrote a song which opined, “This is not a black and white world/To be alive, I say that the colors must swirl/And I believe that maybe today/We will all get to appreciate/The beauty of gray.” This post-modernistic idea — the beauty of gray, no black and whites, no absolute truth — is very popular in our society for good reason. After all, the absence of absolute truth results in the absence of an absolute standard of right and wrong…so who are you to tell me if I am wrong for doing whatever it is I want to do?

Hypothetically, anyone could commit adultery with your spouse, murder your child, steal your money, and burn down your house and if you have a problem with that…well, that’s just YOUR definition of truth. The one who did these things would say, “MY definition of truth says it’s okay for do those things. Truth is relative, so we’re both right. Therefore, I will continue to do these things to you, and who are you to do tell me I’m wrong?” This mindset is both ludicrous and also extremely dangerous because chaos is its natural result (Judg. 21:25).

This mindset is even more dangerous when we see that it would make it impossible to correctly interpret Scripture. In a post-modernistic mind every word in the Bible would be subjective, open to multiple interpretations of which all are valid. You believe John 3:16 teaches God gave His Son because He loves the world? Fine, that’s YOUR interpretation. MY interpretation is that God sent Jesus because He did NOT love the world. Truth is relative, so we’re both right and who are you to tell me I’m wrong? Yet to the one who knows about and accepts the existence of absolute truth, a simple reading of John 3:16 shows the above mindset to be absurd because the passage very clearly states, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son…” Believe that statement to be absolutely true, and you clearly see the error of any other interpretation.

The existence of the post-modernistic worldview does not mean it is impossible to correctly interpret the Bible. Indeed, those who recognize the existence of absolute truth will find it easier to correctly interpret God’s Word because God’s Word is truth (John 17:17). When one has already accepted the existence of absolute truth and then accepts that God’s Word is truth, one is well on their way towards correctly interpreting Scripture.

Yet even then it could still be possible to misinterpret Scripture. One could looks at parts of the Bible to be absolutely true while failing to realize that the entirety of Scripture is truth (Ps. 119:160). This fallacy of thought has led some to dismiss parts of Scripture as myth and other parts of the Bible as not applicable to us today. Yet Scripture says that every word of God is “tested” (Prov. 30:5), meaning both that every word in the Bible has proven to be true (John 17:17) and that it has a reason to be in Scripture, namely to guide us to eternal life and godliness and make us complete and thoroughly equipped for every work God deems good (2 Pet. 1:3; 2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Thus, one continues to be on their way to correctly interpreting Scripture by recognizing all of Genesis through Revelation to be true and there to help them grow closer to God and eternal life. This will cause them to accept the biblical account of creation and the biblical record of miracles to be historically factual. They will accept the commands and principles of God within the Bible to be applicable to them and to all men of all cultures and times. Any conclusion that a law or principle found in Scripture would not apply to them personally will be only because Scripture specifically says so (cf. Heb. 8:7-13; 1 Cor. 11:13-16). Any conclusion that certain parts of Scripture are figurative rather than literal in its language will be solely due to evidence found in Scripture rather than one’s own musings and theories (cf. Revelation 1:1’s “signified”). If a certain verse is read that commands one to do a certain thing in order to be saved while other verses command additional things to be done in order to be saved, one will accept the fact that all of those passages need to be obeyed rather than a select few of them (Ps. 119:160; cf. John 3:16; Mark 16:16; 2 Cor. 7:9-10; Rom. 10:9-10; 1 Pet. 3:21).

We must also remember that when we read Scripture we are reading documents written long ago, in a different culture which had different definitions to words which might still be used today. This happens in other contexts. 100 years ago the term gay meant to be happy or joyful; only in recent years has the homosexual movement applied the term to themselves, resulting in gay meaning something else today.

In like manner, God’s Word was written by Spirit-inspired men a long time ago (2 Pet. 1:19-21), completed about two thousand years ago. None of it was written in English. The Old Testament was written primarily in Hebrew with a smattering of Aramaic, and the New Testament was written in Greek. It has since been translated into numerous languages. Even though the translators have generally done an excellent job in conveying the intent of the inspired authors through their translation of the original foreign words, it is still easy for us to read a word in our English Bibles and assume its original definition in the inspired Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek of long ago is the same as our modern-day definition of it in English. In most cases that assumption would be correct, but not in every case. In some of those cases, our mistaken assumption would make all the difference in the world in correctly interpreting the will of God and thus have a direct impact on our eternal destiny. An example of what I’m talking about is the biblical term baptize, which is a command from God directly correlated with salvation (1 Pet. 3:21) and which today is defined by many as sprinkling or pouring water onto someone…yet in the original Greek it means to dip someone in water. Thus, to do the former instead of the latter would be to not do what God had originally commanded.

One doesn’t have to be fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek…but we all should take our study of the Bible seriously and, when needed, do research to know for sure what God requires of us. This is why correct interpretation of Scripture is very important. The next editorial will continue this study, Lord willing.            — Jon

Some Leave The Church, Leave The Lord – David R. Pharr

They went out from us, but they were not of us: for if they had been of us, they would not doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.  (1 John 2:19)

The words of John are blunt.  There were certain ones who had once participated in the fellowship of the saints who had left the church.  The apostle’s explanation was that “they were not of us.”  He does not mean that they were not physically and personally associated with the brethren, but rather that they were of a different mind set, of different convictions.  This had become “manifest” (evident) in their actions as “they went out.”  There had been a time when they appeared they were “of us,” but their apostasy had demonstrated otherwise.

Comparable observations can be made in regard to modern departures.  The Holy Spirit warned that “some shall depart from the faith” (1 Tim. 4:1).  Some leave the church to pursue a worldly lifestyle.  Some leave seeking acceptance by the world.  Some leave to affiliate with denominations.  Some abandon faith altogether.  Some leave because they want a broader, more liberal and more compromising fellowship.  And some leave because they have drawn their circle of approval so small that they have no room for most of the brotherhood.

We will borrow John’s language to name some reasons why some “went out from us.”

They went out from us because they had doubts about the verbal inspiration and inerrancy of the Holy Bible.  This means that the Scriptures cannot be trusted 100%.  Such is the thinking in worldly theological circles and some who have their degrees from denominational schools show that they have swallowed this kind of infidelity.  One who does not have full confidence in the reliability of God’s Word will never be comfortable where there is sound Bible preaching.

They went out from us because they were not of us with respect for the pattern authority of Scripture.  We believe the New Testament provides a pattern for our faith and practice and that it is by compliance with the pattern that the church of Christ is identified.  Those who pride themselves in their rejection of “pattern authority” logically must embrace an unscriptural paradigm.  The only alternative, according to 2 John 9, is either to abide in the doctrine of Christ or to leave the Lord by leaving the doctrine.

They went out from us because they were not with us as regards the hermeneutic of command, example, and necessary inference.  This has sometimes been incompletely described “as the ONLY way the Bible teaches.”  Obviously there is much more in the Bible (history, facts, poetry, etc.)  The point about command, example, and necessary inference is that this is the only basis by which to establish religious authority.  The place of commandments is obvious (Matt. 28:19ff).  The examples in view are those which are demonstrations of how commands are to be obeyed (1 Cor. 11:2; Phil. 3:17).  Necessary inferences are conclusions so logically necessary as that two plus two equals four.  Those who leave the church over contempt for this hermeneutic have nothing to offer in its place.

They went out from us because they found the simplicity of New Testament worship to be dull and meaningless.  Religious entertainment has a greater appeal.  After all, how can bread and grape juice compare to dramatic performances?  And how can singing scriptural hymns compare to “Christian rock”?  Such measure church by how it makes them feel, not by what is authorized in God’s Word.  We make no defense for worship assemblies that are half-hearted.  “In spirit” is as essential as “in truth” (John 4:24).  But those who go out from us in order to have a more satisfying church experience either never knew or have forgotten that worship is to praise God, not to satisfy fleshly emotions.

They went out from us because they resented preaching that upholds truth and exposes error.  With some audiences there is no longer room for sermons showing biblical proof for our distinctive positions regarding worship, the oneness of the church, scriptural baptism, the sinfulness of divorce, etc.  It’s the same story as described by Isaiah, people who do not want to hear “the law of the Lord” are demanding “smooth” preaching that pleases the multitudes (Is. 8:19ff).

They went out from us because of an inordinate emphasis on grace and faith to the exclusion of obedience.  We know and preach that salvation is by grace, unearned and never merited, and that God’s offer of pardon must be accepted by faith (Eph. 2:8-9).  However, any preaching of grace and faith which minimizes or excludes the necessity of obedience is unacceptable (Heb. 2:1-3; 5:8-9; 1 Pet. 1:22).

They went out from us trusting an inflated view of grace.  Our only hope is in the grace of God and his grace is sufficient to cover all our sins.  It is an invention of men, however, to assume that there is (as some have called it) “an umbrella of grace” that makes the rejection of God’s instructions acceptable.  Yet it is more comfortable for some to ignore the demands of truth and to justify continuance of sin and error by saying “grace will take care of it.”  Some who have gone out from us realize they have affiliated with unscriptural organizations, which teach unscriptural doctrines, and which worship unscripturally, but feel satisfied because they think grace will make it right.

They were not with us with regard to the restrictions implied by the silence of the Scriptures.  We have long endured the mockery of those who ridicule our convictions regarding instrumental music in worship.  Our position has been explicit – such is not the music for worship authorized in the New Testament – and this position has never been refuted.  In many places there has not been sufficient teaching on the principles involved, but whatever the fault, some are going “out from us” because they don’t realize that what is NOT authorized is NOT authorized!

They were not with us in recognizing the principle of GENERIC and SPECIFIC authority.  Some biblical instructions are generic, leaving the specifics of how to follow the instructions to our judgment as to what is expedient.  For example, the instructions for our meeting together on the Lord’s Day are generic as regards to time of day and the place.  Any practice which fits within the framework of that generic command is acceptable.  But there are also commands that are specific, which can only be obeyed in the specific way authorized.  The elements for the Lord’s Supper are specified and to omit these elements, or to substitute other elements, or to add to these elements is in violation of specific authority.  Liberalism tries to make the specific generic, to allow more than is authorized.  Radicals try to make the generics specific, binding what God has not bound (Matt. 18:18).

They went out from us because they lacked love and loyalty for the church, which is the body of Christ.  It is easy enough to point out the failures in the human side of the church.  But such does not justify contempt for the church.  Some of the meanest, most unfair, and false things that are said against Christ’s church are said by those who were once among us.  We suspect that this is their psychological compensation for their own sense of guilt that they have deserted the cause they once loved and served.

It is not a new thing that some are deserting the church.  John saw it happening and placed the blame on the ones who were leaving, not on the faithful.  Paul was saddened by the defection of Demas, but he knew the fault was in Demas (2 Tim. 4:10).  When someone leaves the church it is in order for us to examine how we might have better helped and encouraged them.  We realize our human side of the church has many shortcomings and we want to do our best in helping all who are weak and struggling.  But the faithful must also realize that some are going to depart because “they were not of us.”