Basics of Bible Interpretation

[John of Japan]

So what is "interpretation" as it applies to Scripture?
A concordance search yields 72 occurrances in the KJV.
The word is generally used to explain the meaning of dreams, or to translate into an understandable language. God-given spiritual understanding is required for the former, while knowledge of both languages, or a spiritual gift is required for the latter.

I think it is a useful word for the study of Scripture as it implies that more than a basic understanding of contextual meaning is needed. More than a straightforward literal understanding taking into account "Literal, Grammatic, Historic hermeneutic."

Interesting that the the Gk is translated "expound" or "explained" in Luke 24 -

And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.​

If we had been there, there would be fewer arguments !
As it is we rely on the inspired Apostles in their preaching & letters.

I'm glad you mentioned this. In the NT, the word "interpretation" virtually always means from one language to another. And in the NT, such usages are always literal:

Joh 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
Joh 9:7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.
Ac 9:36 Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did.
Ac 13:8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith.

And so forth.

As a professional in languages who has often interpreted (spoken as opposed to translation in modern terminology, which is written), when interpreting from one language to another, the interpreter is obliged to transfer the meaning of the original speaker as closely as he can. An interpreter who adds his own words soon gets fired.

True story: the widow of a missionary to Japan wanted to keep her husband's work alive without being the preacher herself. She found a young man still in language school to be the preacher, and she "interpreted" his messages. That is, she did until he actually learned Japanese well enough and found out she was not interpreting but preaching her own message. He quit as her flunky immediately--fired her, in other words.

There was recently a case in Milwaukee of a woman who claimed she knew sign language, and was hired to interpret. As it turned out, she knew no sign language and was making up her own signs. She was immediately fired.

We don't have the liberty of adding our own thoughts to Scripture. It is vital that we take what the Word of God says, and get as close to the original meaning as we can.

 

[asterisktom]

I completely disagree. An interpretation is either literal or metaphorical. It cannot be "excessively" in either direction. It is what it is, as my son likes to say.

No, literal or metaphorical is just one way to classify interpretations. There is also right or wrong and, most importantly for this context, God-guided versus humanly-inspired. The issue - if you will just consider the context - is whether one is interpreting according to God's Spirit.

 

[John of Japan]

No, literal or metaphorical is just one way to classify interpretations. There is also right or wrong and, most importantly for this context, God-guided versus humanly-inspired. The issue - if you will just consider the context - is whether one is interpreting according to God's Spirit.

What are you saying "no" to? I agree with the classifications of literal and metaphorical, and I agree with "right and wrong," and I agree that the Holy Spirit must guide.

As for "God-guided versus humanly-inspired", that depends on your understanding of the nature of language. Vern Poythress has an excellent theology of language, In the Beginning Was the Word, in which he points out that the Trinity communicates within the three persons, giving us a basis for human communication.

Now, if you say that somehow you have a meaning of the Biblical text that is not based on the actual syntax and semantics, you have wrong interpretation, no matter how much you insist that the Holy Spirit is guiding you. In other words, if you come up with some interpretation that no one else can see, that is a wrong interpretation. The Holy Spirit guides through syntax and semantics.

 

[asterisktom]

What are you saying "no" to? I agree with the classifications of literal and metaphorical, and I agree with "right and wrong," and I agree that the Holy Spirit must guide.

As for "God-guided versus humanly-inspired", that depends on your understanding of the nature of language. Vern Poythress has an excellent theology of language, In the Beginning Was the Word, in which he points out that the Trinity communicates within the three persons, giving us a basis for human communication.

Now, if you say that somehow you have a meaning of the Biblical text that is not based on the actual syntax and semantics, you have wrong interpretation, no matter how much you insist that the Holy Spirit is guiding you. In other words, if you come up with some interpretation that no one else can see, that is a wrong interpretation. The Holy Spirit guides through syntax and semantics.

Oh John, John. Where have you wandered off to? Forget Poythress. And take off your mind-reading hat and look at what is actually written. You are making this personal. Again. The issue I focused on was strictly the overuse of literal interpretation.

And I responded that your verse had nothing to prove your assertion.

That is what the "No" is for.

 

[John of Japan]

Oh John, John. Where have you wandered off to? Forget Poythress. And take off your mind-reading hat and look at what is actually written. You are making this personal. Again. The issue I focused on was strictly the overuse of literal interpretation. And I responded that your verse had nothing to prove your assertion.

I haven't made it personal at all, and was not thinking in personal terms. (My "you" was generic in the last paragraph.) Your "Oh John, John" does that.

And no, I won't forget Poythress. It's a really great book for the subject we are on. I recommend that you read it--it would help you greatly in understanding the nature of language.

And I did not get at all from your posts that you were working on the "overuse of literal interpretation." You simply mentioned it along with a parallel phrase on the overuse of metaphorical interpretation.

And what verse are you talking about anyway? Please be more clear.

Unlike you in this case, God communicates clearly. Here is an awesome quote from The Gospel Developed, by W. B. Johnson (1846): "For if God is pleased to make a communication to us in human language, we will be able so to understand it as to know what is required at our hands, or the communication would be of no avail." (From Polity, ed. by Mark Dever, p. 230).

 

[Deacon]

Literal interpretation: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." (2 Peter 1:20).

Sorry not to answer so quickly, out visiting family.

This is the “bristling” verse.
I believe you are bringing the term LITERAL into the meaning or interpretation of the verse when it is not needed.

Rob

 

[TCassidy]

Sorry not to answer so quickly, out visiting family.

This is the “bristling” verse.
I believe you are bringing the term LITERAL into the meaning or interpretation of the verse when it is not needed.

But Rob, isn't that what it is saying? The Greek word ἴδιος means "one's own" or "one's self."

The verse is saying "knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own pronouncement." If I say that "cow" means "horse" and nobody else sees it that way, and the grammar and syntax of the language doesn't support my interpretation, then I am relying on a false "my only" understanding. And the reason for "cow" not meaning "horse" is that a literal "cow" is not a horse. A literal "cow" is a cow.

 

[Revmitchell]

But Rob, isn't that what it is saying? The Greek word ἴδιος means "one's own" or "one's self."

The verse is saying "knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own pronouncement." If I say that "cow" means "horse" and nobody else sees it that way, and the grammar and syntax of the language doesn't support my interpretation, then I am relying on a false "my only" understanding. And the reason for "cow" not meaning "horse" is that a literal "cow" is not a horse. A literal "cow" is a cow.

See the cow is meant not in a literal animal that eats grass but in a "spiritual" way that allows the cow to be a horse or even a Unicorn. You know the allegorical method of interpretation. It is the same idiotic method that says Christ already came back. If you make Christ to have already come back "spiritually" then a cow can be a unicorn. But I digress.

 

[TCassidy]

See the cow is meant not in a literal animal that eats grass but in a "spiritual" way that allows the cow to be a horse or even a Unicorn. You know the allegorical method of interpretation. It is the same idiotic method that says Christ already came back. If you make Christ to have already come back "spiritually" then a cow can be a unicorn. But I digress.

You know, I think you may be on to something here!

 

[asterisktom]

And what verse are you talking about anyway? Please be more clear.

Unlike you in this case, God communicates clearly.

The verse you cited to try to prove your point about literal interpretation. Private interpretation.

Unclear? I just thought you would remember your own verse.

 

[asterisktom]

See the cow is meant not in a literal animal that eats grass but in a "spiritual" way that allows the cow to be a horse or even a Unicorn. You know the allegorical method of interpretation. It is the same idiotic method that says Christ already came back. If you make Christ to have already come back "spiritually" then a cow can be a unicorn. But I digress.

You do more than digress, you call "idiotic" a mode of interpretation sanctioned by Christ and His inspired Apostles.

I am not talking about your cow = unicorn silliness. I am referring to your belittling something you apparently you should have understood better, you being a reverend and all.

 

[TCassidy]

Is it just me or did Mark make a humerus allusion to ἴδιος by using the word "idotic" which comes from ἴδιος?

I thought it was funny. Tom, did you miss the joke, or am I imagining things?

 

[Covenanter]

Is it just me or did Mark make a humerus allusion to ἴδιος by using the word "idotic" which comes from ἴδιος?

I thought it was funny. Tom, did you miss the joke, or am I imagining things?

Are you trying to slay those "idots" who believe that Jesus came as he promised in AD 70 (Luke 21:20-32), with an ass's front leg (humerus) as Samson slew 1,000 with an ass's jawbone?

No, we didn't miss the joke, but while you are dodging the unicorn's horn, beware of the kick from its hind legs.

 

[Deacon]

But Rob, isn't that what it is saying? The Greek word ἴδιος means "one's own" or "one's self."

The verse is saying "knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own pronouncement." If I say that "cow" means "horse" and nobody else sees it that way, and the grammar and syntax of the language doesn't support my interpretation, then I am relying on a false "my only" understanding. And the reason for "cow" not meaning "horse" is that a literal "cow" is not a horse. A literal "cow" is a cow. ​

​

knowing this first,

that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,

for prophecy never came by the will of man,
but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
2 Peter 1:20–21
​

I don't see this as a passage that describes how we interpret Scripture, rather as where Scripture draws its authority.

Rob

 

[Revmitchell]

Is it just me or did Mark make a humerus allusion to ἴδιος by using the word "idotic" which comes from ἴδιος?

I thought it was funny. Tom, did you miss the joke, or am I imagining things?

While I was tempted to run with what you said here, in order to maintain my integrity I must say The majority of my post was intended to be humorous but I actually do find that preterism and all its forms is idiotic.

 

[John of Japan]

Sorry not to answer so quickly, out visiting family.

This is the “bristling” verse.
I believe you are bringing the term LITERAL into the meaning or interpretation of the verse when it is not needed.

Rob

See what Tom Cassidy wrote. He is exactly right. If you let the text simply speak from the syntax and semantics, it will never be "one's own" meaning but the literal meaning.

 

[John of Japan]

​

knowing this first,

that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,

for prophecy never came by the will of man,
but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
2 Peter 1:20–21
​

I don't see this as a passage that describes how we interpret Scripture, rather as where Scripture draws its authority.

Rob

What part of "interpretation" did not communicate to you? What word would God have used other than "interpretation" to communicate that interpretation was meant in the verse?

It's clearly a logical progression: God gave the Scripture, the prophecy, so don't interpret it on your own, but discern what God meant.

 

[John of Japan]

The verse you cited to try to prove your point about literal interpretation. Private interpretation.

Unclear? I just thought you would remember your own verse.

Sorry, I have a whole lot on my plate right now: VBS at our church all week, preparing for a grad class next week, etc.

 

[Yeshua1]

This speaks to the fact that there are various levels of context. You are speaking of the wide context of all of the Bible here. So, one should interpret according to the immediate context (the verses before and after), the chapter context, the context of the book, the context of the Old or New Testament, and the context of the whole Bible.

Accept the plain and literal meaning of the scripture, unless there are legit reasons to do otherwise, based upon its literary genre.

 

[Yeshua1]

What part of "interpretation" did not communicate to you? What word would God have used other than "interpretation" to communicate that interpretation was meant in the verse?

It's clearly a logical progression: God gave the Scripture, the prophecy, so don't interpret it on your own, but discern what God meant.

The scriptures also have progressive revelation, so need to see all doctrines based upon their full revealing.