It is apparent from all the contradictory teachings of the many denominations and cults of Christendom, that they all cannot be right. Although some add extra biblical sources such as tradition, or the writings of their founders, for the most part, each claim to use the Bible as the source of their teachings. For example, most evangelical churches teach that salvation is by one's faith through God's grace apart from works. However, other churches emphatically teach that works such as baptism is necessary for salvation. Both may claim the Bible as the source of their belief. Most Protestants practice baptism by sprinkling whereas Baptists and a few other denominations baptize by immersion. The Roman Catholic Church teaches it is the universal and only true church, and that Peter was the first pope based on their interpretation of Matthew 16:18. No one else outside Catholicism accepts this interpretation. The differences in teachings of Christian churches numbers in the thousands.

          Christian cults such as the Jehovah's Witnesses use the Bible to deny the deity of Jesus Christ, the existence of Hell, and most of the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith. The Mormons, another cult, uses the Bible verses such as 1 Corinthians 15:29 as the source for their practice of baptisms for the dead. No one else accepts this interpretation. Seventh Day Adventists have their church services on Saturday, the Jewish "Sabbath Day." They teach this based on their understanding of the Bible's instruction concerning the Sabbath. Pentecostal churches and the modern Charismatic movement teach that speaking in "tongues" and miracle healings are valid gifts of the Holy Spirit today. All fundamentalist and most other Christian denominations strongly disagree.

          It is easy to see then, that many different sects of "Christendom" use the Bible to prove contradictory teachings. Paul Lee Tan, in his book “Literal Interpretation of the Bible” says, "Apparently the Bible can be made to prove almost anything." Considering all the contradictions in the various teachings, all supposedly based on the Bible, one must ask the question, "Who is right?" Surely, God is not teaching, for example, that one is saved by earning salvation by good works and also teaching man is saved by God's Grace without works. God is righteous and cannot contradict Himself nor can He lie. The question is then can God's truth be determined with absolute certainly? Hanging in the balance is the very souls of men and their eternal destiny.

          Where then is the problem? God says in 1 Corinthians 14:33, He, "God, is not the author of confusion." So the problem is not with God, but with finite men. Clearly, men have taken great latitude in the interpreting what the Bible says. God did not give us His written word to be a source of confusion or contention. God gave us His word in written form, whereby it would be available so that everyone could know His truth. Further, He wrote it in such a way as to be clear and not be complicated nor misleading. He said in 2 Peter 1:20, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." That simply means that no one person, church or group has a lock up on God's word. The Scriptures can be understood by all. This answers the important question, "What church is right?" The answer is the ones that correctly interpret, understand and live by God's word.

          However, the problem is that sinful and fallible men have ignored what the Bible literally says and stated what they "think" it says, their opinion, or what it means to them. That is not a acceptable hermeneutic, which refers to the science of interpretation. Scripture is not what we think it says or what it means to us, but rather what God has plainly and literally stated. In other words, truth is what God literally said when He communicated His word to those He chose to record it. Sadly, erroneous thinking has caused great confusion among believers and caused division among those seeking to know the Lord and His truth. The tragedy is that it need not be so!

          All this confusion is not caused by God. It would make no sense for God to give us His written word if we could not clearly and accurately know the truth it teaches. If this is not so, that would mean that God authored confusion which He absolutely denies. It would also mean that man cannot truly know what is right or wrong concerning God. Worse, this would put knowing the truth at the mercy of human thought and logic. That too is not acceptable, as God’s word is a absolute and immutable.

          The Bible was written in the language of men and can be easily understood if we follow the rules of language. Nothing is cryptic in the message and understanding of God's word. It is not complicated and in fact written very simple that all men can understand it correctly. God states in Romans 10:17, "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." The question that begs an answer is how can a man have faith, which comes from hearing the word of God, if he cannot absolutely know what that word is? God did not leave His word to subjection, but made sure that men would able to read and understand it in order to be saved and live for the Him.

          God plainly states "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." If we cannot accurately know what is God's word then how can a man accept that the Bible is ". . .profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." The answer is plain....we can know and those who correctly apply the rules of language do know, and they follow the Lord in truth. The Lord Jesus Himself said in John 8:32 "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." God's word, properly interpreted and applied, frees us from the lies and distortions of Satan. A believer by applying God's word can overcome, not only sin and death, but false doctrine that enslaves a man and separated him from God.

          The great need today then, in determining what the Bible really teaches, is a correct and biblical method of interpretation. If the Bible is the Word of God and God's revelation to man, then surely God would not give us His revelation without a way to accurately discern what He meant. For God not to give us a way to interpret the Bible is to leave the interpretation of Scripture to human wisdom that is at best faulty. To have the interpretation of Scripture rest on man's wisdom is to have "flesh" interpreting that which is spiritual.

          As stated earlier, the word "interpretation" means to arrive at the original meaning the writer intended when he penned the words. The original meaning the author intended is the interpretation and must be found before you can understand, apply or make the application of the passage. A faulty interpretation will produce a faulty application and therefore it is vital to correctly interpret the Scriptures. Here lies the problem. Man has for various reasons misinterpreted God's word and left many in a state of confusion. Some out of ignorance teach erroneous doctrines. Others, who claim to teach God's word, are dishonest and use the Bible for their personal gain. Their purpose is not to teach truth, but rather to use it to deceive and influence men for their purposes. These false teachers deceive many people, but not those who make the effort to correctly know what God has said. It is my belief that the leaders of false churches and cults know they are in error, but know the truth would destroy their churches or groups. They fear they would lose power, influence and the money that they receive. False doctrine is very profitable materially.

          Often we hear the platitude that we must not "major on the minors," which is saying that part of the word of God is not as important as other truths. The truth is that the whole of what God has said in His word and any part left out, ignored or minimized makes it incomplete. Another false concept purports that we really cannot be sure about what the Scripture literally teaches. These misguided folks conclude what is important is what is in one’s heart, not so much what is plainly states. For example some would say it is not important whether a church baptizes by immersion or sprinkling as it should be left to one's heart. In other words, the individual defines from himself what he thinks is baptism and how it appeals to him. They conclude the details of God's word are not important. Yet, the truth is in the details. Baptism by immersion symbolized the death, burial and resurrect of Jesus Christ. Sprinkling does not picture Christ’s work in suffering, dying, and His resurrection. Several evidences preclude any method of baptism, but immersion. One, the word God used for baptism means to immerse. Secondly, baptism can be easily seen as a picture of the Gospel, Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. So why would a man or church disregard what God has said and still claim to believe in Him? If they believed God they would respect and fear Him and obey what He says.

          Do the details and specific instructions of the Bible really matter with God? The only place to find the answer is to ask God Himself and the only non subjective place to seek the answer is His written word. Therefore, to resolve the matter and find what God wants we must determine what "thus saith the Lord" because God is the Authority. It is His word! This makes it paramount that one be able to interpret the Bible and determine its absolute meaning. It is a cunning trick of the Devil, that has convinced some men that we cannot know accurately God's truth.

          The problem today is not that God did not give us a method of interpretation. God did give us a method, but many men and churches have refused to use it or not been diligent in seeking it! The method that God gave is the literal method, or what is called the Grammatical-Historical Method. The Grammatical-Historical method interprets Scripture by taking into consideration the context of a passage, the grammatical uses of the words, and the historical setting in which they were written. The literal method, therefore, "lets Scripture interpret Scripture." It is not a new method in any sense of the word, and is the only method in which the Scriptures interpret the Scriptures.

          The literal method is letting God interpret what He has said. Surely, God is best qualified to tell us what He means. The Bible is the complete word of God to man. Revelation 22:18, says man is not to add to or subtract from the Word of God, the Bible. 2 Timothy 3:16-17, clearly states that God gave us the Bible. The verses tell us that the Bible is " . . . profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." When God "breathed" on the writers of Scripture they literally produced the Word of God, completely and accurately. The Bible is not the word of men, but God’s very word as He explains:

          "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:20-21)

          This is called the doctrine of "verbal plenary inspiration," and means God chose each word for its specific meaning. He verbally, fully (plenary) inspired the recording of His written word. God inspired or superintended the writers to use each word because that word conveyed a certain and specific meaning. The words God inspired were given to communicate a certain meaning to those who read it. This means that if we find what was the correct meaning of the word, considering its context, normal and customary usage at the time it was used, we can know the correct interpretation. The interpretation is the meaning God wanted His words to convey.

          It is the purpose of the paper to show that we can properly and accurate know what is God's word. The confusion in understanding God's word is the result of unlearned and unskilled men mishandling the word of God. This does not mean one has to be a scholar or expert to understand and properly know God's truth, but it means that anyone can learn to apply the simple and proper biblical principles of interpretation and accurately understand what God has said. Anyone can discern what is right and wrong and true from false teachings. He can positively know if what his church or teacher is presenting is God's word or the word of man. It is certainly not the mystery that so many try to make it out to be. It is therefore the responsibility of every person who claims the name of Christ to know what "thus saith the Lord" that he not be misled.

          Let us then look at eleven principles of literal interpretation that lets the Scriptures interpret Scripture. When we say let Scripture interpret Scripture we are saying, let God interpret His Word for us.

Chapter 1. FOLLOW THE CUSTOMARY USAGES OF THE LANGUAGE.

          We have dictionaries that are lists of words with their spelling and definition. A word can have several meanings, but the meaning of a word has a limited meaning. For an example the word "mountain" could be referring to many types of hills of various heights and compositions, but it would NOT be referring to a "tree." The customary, and grammatical meaning of the word "mountain" is a geographical mound or hill of some sort. It would be improper to imply that when the writer used the word "mountain," he was referring to a tree or anything else. It could be used figuratively. For example a person could say "He was a mountain of strength." If used in this manner it would be clearly apparent in the sentence that this was not a literal mountain, but was a metaphor. A metaphor is a tool of writing that uses the characteristics on one thing to describe this trait in something else. For example one could say that "John was a tower of strength." It would not mean he was a literal “tower” but his strength put him above others.

          Often, Bible interpreters incorrectly give Scripture an allegorical or so called "spiritual" meaning. Paul Lee Tan uses the following example of an allegorical interpretation of Scripture. One Stoicinterpreter allegorically interpreted the biblical account of the journey of Abraham from Ur to Haran as an imaginary trip of a Stoic philosopher who left his sensual understanding and after a time arrived back at his senses! This allegorical interpretation has absolutely nothing to do with Abraham's journey and is a totally false understanding of the biblical passage. Another example of misusing allegory would be to teach that the two pence given to the inn keeper in the parable of the Good Samaritan, represents Baptism and Lord's Supper.

          The only proper time to use allegory in interpreting God's word is when the Scripture itself instructs us to do such as in Galatians 4:24. Paul presenting the distinctness between grace and the bondage of the law compared Sarah and Hagar allegorically to illustrate there differences. Sarah was a free woman, but Hagar a bondwomen. The heir of Abraham would be through Sarah the freewoman, his wife, and not to the bondwoman who was not free. There is no mystical or hidden meaning in Scripture. There can be symbolism in God's word, but it will be clear. Biblical allegory is a tool of language that will illustrate a literal meaning.

          Accepting what the words in the Bible literally mean is a vital part of this first rule. Unless the passage says otherwise, or is clearly using metaphorical language we must give and accept the literal meaning of scripture. It is a well stated rule, "If the literal sense makes sense, seek no other sense."

A. The Bible makes statements that are to be taken literally.
1. Revelation 20:6 is a good example of applying the rule of literal interpretation. The verse states that Christ will reign for one thousand years after the Great Tribulation. This thousand years is called the "Millennium" and the verse "literally" states that the time period is one thousand years. Amillennialists falsely assert that this thousand years is only figurative and does not refer to any specific period of time. They do this to support their belief that there will not be a thousand year reign of Christ on earth or a Millennial Kingdom. They deny what God has literally stated when He inspired John to pen this statement. The question then is why would God say one thing and mean another?

2. Here lies the problem. If it does not mean a literal one thousand years then how do we go about determining its supposed "real" meaning? Often we are told to let the Bible commentator or scholar tell you, because he has education and insights that ordinary Christians do not have?! A scholar may correctly interpret the verse, or he may incorrect do so. This leaves the matter subjective with the one trying to choose which scholar is creditable.

          The problem with this answer is then, which Bible commentator, church or teacher should you trust to have the correct answer? With what criteria do you test each commentator to see who is correct. Do you see the problem? When you leave the literal method of interpreting scripture you have no means to determine what the passage says! It is left up to each person to determine for himself what he thinks it means without any standard or system of rules to follow. One can make up any meaning that suits him. Clearly, this leads to great confusion and makes it impossible to know what God intends to tell us!

3. It is obvious from reading Revelation 20, that the thousand years is literal and not figurative. There is nothing in the passage that would indicate that the period of time is figurative. Thus if we accept literally what the Bible says we are letting the Bible interpret itself. The correct interpretation of the passage is that Christ will literally reign for one thousand years on earth! The literal meaning of the words tell us what God said. There is no confusion or misunderstanding. The question the "spiritualizers" of the Bible should ask themselves is, why did God say literally that this period of time would be a thousand years? Why would He say that if He had some other period in mind. Why would God then not just plainly state what He meant? Is God not completely capable of communicating His truth to us? Why would He say one thing and mean something else. Why would he leave the determination of truth subject to human reasoning, intelligence, and logic. Clearly, the truth is that God inspired the writers to pen and they penned what He meant. God said Christ will reign one thousands years because that is what will happen. This interpretation is also perfectly in line with God’s promises in the Old Testament of giving Israel a kingdom in the future. The Amillennialist must spiritualize these literal promises God made to His chosen people. The implications of a literally interpretation in this Scripture is that the Amillennialist is wrong and this is a false teaching that should be condemned.

B. Often the Bible does use figurative speech.

          The art or skill of an interpreter, using the proper rules of interpretation combined with good sense, can easily understand an interpretation. In 2 Peter 3:8, Peter says that one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. Here the time period is clearly figurative. Note that the verse says one day "is as" a thousand years. It does not say one day is exactly one thousand years. God using the word "as" lets us know this is figurative language. It would be wrong to take this figurative statement as meaning absolutely that a day in heaven is one thousand years. It would also be wrong to use this verse to say that a when the word day is used in Scripture it always means one thousand years. Note that the proper application of language gives the proper interpretation and the Bible (its wording) is interpreting the Bible.

1. In the Bible, when a verse is not to be interpreted literally it is clearly indicated. By examining the passage we know that Peter in 2 Peter 3:8, used a simile. A simile is figure of speech in which one thing is liken to another. Also, the context of this verse presents further evidence that supports this view. Peter is addressing scoffers who rejected the truth that Christ would return to earth. He was telling them that God does not operate on our time schedule. A thousand years to Him would be "like" just one day with us or only a short period of time. It may seem like a long time to us and scoffers may mock the Lord’s return because of the long time involved. Peter explained this seeming delay, and made the point that God not operate on man’s timetable and that it is an absolute promise He will return in His time.

2. Many have tried to use this verse to fix the purported long ages of evolution into the Genesis account of Creation. They believe that this verse allows for great latitude in interpreting the word "day" in Genesis 1 and 2. But if we apply sound rules of interpreting Scripture to the passages in Genesis it too shows that this is a erroneous interpretation. Let's look at this passage closer.

3. The word for "day" is the Hebrew word, "yom." It can mean:

(1) The period of light (contrasted from the period of darkness).
(2) A twenty four hour period.
(3) A general vague "time".
(4) A point in time.
(5) A year.

4. Some want to believe the "days of creation" were long periods of time, which would support evolution. They would suggest the meaning of the word "yom" is "long ages." They point to verses such as Psalm 102:2, which use the word in a general sense. "Hide not thy face from me in the day (yom) when I am in trouble..." This could mean the day was one twenty hour period or it could mean any length of time of trouble. However, to understand what the word means you must look at the word in all the contexts it is used. Look at verses such as Gen. 7:11, 27:45 Ex. 20:10 Lev. 22:277 Num. 7:24, 30, 36, 40, 48, 54, 60, 66, 72, 77-78 Psa. 88:1, 139:12, Eccl. 8:16. These verses illustrate an unfailing principle found in every use of the Hebrew word, "yom." Whenever "yom" is modified by a number, or whenever "yom" is used in conjunction with the idea of day and night, or light and darkness, it ALWAYS means a normal twenty four hour day.

5. The use of a number with the word "yom" is conclusive evidence that the "Days of Creation" were twenty four hour periods of time. The Bible literally says, ". . .the evening and the morning were the first day." The use of the words, evening, morning and first, limit the meaning of the word "day" to a twenty four hour period of time. That is the normal use of the word and exactly what is says. To interpret the time period which is stated here as meaning anything but a twenty four hour period is a gross error in interpreting what God, the Writer meant.

6. Further evidence is found in Exodus 20:11. The wording of this verse supports the conclusion that the days in Genesis 1, are twenty four hour period of time. Note the statement of Moses, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." This is as clear a statement of the time frame of Creation as can be had. Moses in connecting the six day Creation with instructions concerning the Sabbath day is giving us conclusive evidence that the Creation was accomplished in six literal twenty four hours periods exactly as Genesis 1 states.

7. Peter, in 2 Peter 3:8, is assuring believers that God will keep his promises to us. It is pointing out that God is not confined to time as we know it. The use of the phrase "a thousand years is as but a day with the Lord" is understood as being a metaphorical reference to fact God is not limited by time. He says what we might perceive as a delay in time is within the structure of God's plan for the world.

8. If you interpret 2 Peter 3:8, literally, then you would still have only seven thousand years for God to complete the Creation. You would still not have the billions of years the evolutionist insists it took to create the world and life through natural processes. In any case you can not honestly use this passage as a precedent to interpret the "days" of Genesis 1, as being anything other than a twenty four hour period of time. The evolutionist also ignores the scientific law that life does not come from inert matter, nor can different kinds of life interbreed and produce off-spring.

9. The result of this research produces conclusive evidence that the one thousand years referred to in Revelation 20:6 is literally a time period of a thousand years. We then can be dogmatic is stating the Amillennialists are wrong in their interpretation and the correct interpretation is there will be a literal one thousand year Millennium reign of Jesus Christ.

C. The Bible student has many resources to find the proper interpretation.

          The rule is this: "Always accept the literal meaning of the words of the passage unless there is strong evidence to do otherwise." As stated earlier, "If the literal sense makes, sense, seek no other sense." With our modern Bible study references works this can be easily accomplished.

          We are very fortunate to live in this age. Excellent Bible helps are available to help us find the original meaning of a word. Word study books such as Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. This and may other reference works can enable anyone to research a word without knowing the original language and find its meaning.

          For a list of Bible study resources go to Appendix 1 or on line to

D. It should be understood that this does not mean we are to take metaphorical language literally.

          For example Deuteronomy 32:4 referring to God states, "He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." Certainly God is not literally a rock. And the statement is referring to God immutability (unchanging) or absolute trustworthiness.

          The Mormons teach that their god is a physical man of "flesh and bone" the same as any human on earth. They refer to scriptures such as "The Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friends." (Eze. 33:11) Other examples are Gen. 3:8, 32:30; Ex. 33:20, 22-23; 34:5; Deut. 23:12-13; Num. 14:14, Eze. 1:27, 8:2; 20:35). They refer to the Scriptures which refer to the hand of God a proof that God has a physical body. (1 Sam. 5:11, 2 Chro. 30:12, Job 2:10) They proudly claim that they are simply interpreting God's word literally. However, God says in John 4:24 that He is Spirit. He says He is not a man nor ever was a man. Number 23:19 plainly state, “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?” (Also see: Psalms 102:26-17; 43:10-11, 44:6, 45:21-22; Jer. 23-23; Mal. 3:6; John 1:16-18; Rom. 1:22; col 1:15; 1 Tim. 1:7, 6:16) The Bible absolutely states that God is not a man. So, it is incorrect to literally say that God is a god of flesh and bone because the Bible uses metaphorical language to describe the actions or attributes of God. To describe something to someone else we must have some common point of understanding both parties understand. God is Spirit and therefore we have no reference or understanding of what is a Spirit. Thus, God described what we could not understand about His essence, in spiritual terms, used anthropomorphic terms we could understand to explain His attributes.

          Psalm 17:8 says, "Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of thy wings." If we applied the Mormons method of interpretation one would have to conclude that God is a bird also. Clearly, the statements are metaphorical and not to be taken literally.

E. The Importance of Syntax in Interpreting Scripture.

          It is important in arriving at the correct meaning of a word to also study of syntax of the verse. Syntax is the study of the word in its grammatical setting. It deals with understanding the word's grammatical use as a verb, noun, adjective, adverb or part of speech. It also seeks to decide the tense, mood, voice, and case of a word.

          Syntax in linguistics, the study of the rules that govern the ways in which words combine to form phrases, clauses, and sentences. Syntax is one of the major components of grammar. It refers to the arrangement of words in a sentence.

          This is the study of morphology which deals with the internal structures of words in a sentence. The study of syntax will reveal to us that word “loved” of John 3:16, is not the same “loves” as found in 1 Corinthians 9:7. Syntax reveals the relationship of words to each other.

          Syntax is how a sentence is worded and structured. It consists of the type of sentence (Declarative, Interrogative, Exclamatory, Imperative) and word order (passive vs. active voice). Syntax can be used as a literary device to add extra meaning to your sentences, whereas grammar adds no greater meaning to your sentences.

          For example the imperative mood in Greek can be cohortative (positive command), prohibitive(negative command), entreaty (express a request), or permissive (allowing some action). John 17:11, “And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.” (John 17:11) This is entreaty which expresses a request and not a cohortative statement which would be a command.

F. Following the Customary Use of the Words.

          When God used a particular word He did so to convey a particular meaning. You cannot ignore the customary and grammatical meaning of a word in its historical setting and honestly claim to arrived at a proper interpretation of the passage or God's meaning in His statement. To ignore this principle of sound Biblical interpretation is to destroy the very Word of God itself. God did not give us a subjective and confusing method of understanding His Word. God chose each and every word for its precise meaning and recorded it and preserved it so there would be no confusion. Any other method of examining Scripture other than the literal method is illogical and unacceptable.

---



Chapter 2. COMMIT NO HISTORICAL OR CULTURAL BLUNDERS

         The Bible was written over a period of about 1400 years. During that time many historical and cultural changes have taken place. To arrive at the correct meaning of a passage you must consider when the statement was made and the historical and cultural situation in which the passage was written and related to.

          Interpreting God's commands and Law in the Old Testament. God’s law required Israel to stone false prophets in Deuteronomy 13:5. The passage dealing with false prophets in Israel states that false prophets were to be put to death by stoning. That is clearly what the passage says and what God commanded Israel to do. So the proper interpretation of these passages is that Israel was to put false prophets to death.

          How then are to understand that passage today? Does this mean that Christians today are to put false prophets and those involved in the occult to death? Obviously, we would not because we live in a different time in history, a different culture and different dispensation. We live in the dispensation of the Church Age sometimes called the Age of Grace. God gave the Law to the Nation of Israel in a different dispensation called the Age of the Law. God gave the Law to the "nation" of Israel, He did not give it to the Christians and churches. Paul said, "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace." (Romans 6:14). The Mosaic Law was the Constitution, Bill of Rights and system of judicial laws for the nation of Israel. There is a vast difference between the Nation Israel in the Old Testament and Christians assembled in churches in the New Testament. Churches are not a "nation" and do not have any political or civic authority over its members, nor anyone else. Christians today meet voluntarily in the local assemblies and obey the Lord in the liberty of loving God and willingly living for Him.

          God was not addressing churches of today in Deuteronomy 13:5 and this law does not apply to us. But behind every law of God there is a principle on which it is based. These principle are universal and apply to all generation. We are to apply the principle, but not the “letter of the Law. We can learn from this instruction given to Israel and Christians can apply the principle on which the commandment was given. The basis of this law was the principle that God wanted to teach Israel, which was that they were to be separated from and not follow false prophets, teachers, or the occult. The churches can apply the principle that law was based on and keep themselves free from false teachers. Therefore, Christians today can apply the principle behind the law today by preaching and teaching correctly God's truth and denouncing false prophets and the occult and remaining separated from them. It would be a wrong application of the passage for Christians today to practice putting false prophets to death. That would be a grave historical blunder.

          For example look at the historical setting of the Book of Daniel. In interpreting the Book of Daniel, one must consider that Daniel was a captive in Babylon. All the events of his life take place there. Judah were captives in Babylon for seventy years. This historical information would be essential in understanding the Book of Daniel.

          Another example that could be confusing is the use of the names "Judah" and "Israel." Historically, the twelve tribes of Israel divided after the death of King Solomon. It is necessary to understand who the names "Israel" and "Judah" identify when we find them in the Bible. The ten tribes, that occupied the northern area of Palestine, were called Israel. Most times the name "Israel" is referring to the nation as a whole or the twelve tribes. However, other times, such as during the “Divided Kingdom Period” it refers only to the ten northern tribes after the tribes separated after Solomon's death. The Bible addresses the tribes of Judah and Benjamin in the south as "Judah." The name "Judah" can refer to the Southern Kingdom (the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin). It may be referring to Judah alone, as the name of the tribe of David. You must consider the historical setting of the word's use to know what it refers to.

          Often the name Edom is misunderstood. Esau was Isaac's oldest son and the brother of Jacob. However, he sold his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of pottage and from then on he was also called Edom. (Gen. 25:30) Esau, married a Canaanite woman and settled in Seir which is in southern Jordan. This land was name after Esau and was called Edom.(Gen. 32:3) Edom therefore referred to Esau, to the land he settled and to his descendants. Edom was the bitter enemy of Israel. Over four hundred years later Moses sought to lead the Children of Israel through the land of Edom, but the Edomites refused passage. Therefore God condemned Edom and said Edom would become a wasteland and all the Edomites would be destroyed which is what happened. (Eze. 25:12-14) Therefore when reading the Old Testament it is vital to know who the name Edom refer to and in what time the name was used.

          Cultural Errors. The oriental marriage is completely different than the occidental marriages of Western civilization. Marriages in the eastern culture were arranged by the fathers of the bride and groom. In pre-Mosaic times, when the families agreed to the marriage proposal a price given and the bridegroom could come at once and take away his bride to his own house (Gen. 24:63-67). Later, the first stage of an oriental marriage was the betrothal in which a friend of the bridegroom or his parents presented the proposal to the family of the bride. If the proposal was accepted there was a period of time between the betrothal and the next event the wedding ceremony. When the proposal was accepted the bride was considered married. (Matt. 1:19, John 3:29) At a later time the bridegroom would come to the home of the bride and the bride's family would put on a feast. During the feast the bridegroom would take his bride to his home the bridal chamber and consummate the marriage. It would be a serious error to try interject western marriage practices in interpreting marriage in the Old Testament.

---



Chapter 3. MAKE CHRIST CENTRAL IN ALL INTERPRETATIONS.

          In John 5:38, Jesus said, "Search the Scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they that speak of me." The whole Bible is about the Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah. From the Fall of man in Genesis Chapter 3 the Bible is the record of God unfolding His plan of redemption for man. In Genesis 3:15 God explains to Satan, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” This is the first Messianic prophecy of the coming of the Lord Jesus.

         The appearances of the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament are called "theophanies" were actually "Christophanies" and were all pre-incarnate appearances Christ. The title "Angel of the Lord" occurs 52 times in the Old Testament and 27 times the appearance of the Lord is recorded by the phrase "the LORD appeared." The word translated in our English Bibles "LORD" (capitalized) is the Hebrew word "Jehovah." The significance of this truth is that Jesus their Messiah had appeared many times to Israel prior to His incarnation as recorded in the Gospels. Regretfully, their sinful hearts blinded them to the One they had been expecting for 2000 years.

          The interpreter of God’s word must understand that Christ is the central theme in all Scripture. An example of not taking this principle into consideration would be to say that God had a plan of salvation in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament Christ came with a new plan. It would be a serious mistake to conclude two different plans of salvation. The error would be in teaching the Old Testament saints were saved by the Law and the New Testament by Grace.

          God’s plan was from the beginning that Jesus would come to earth, God incarnate in Man, and suffer, die, and be resurrected for the atonement of sin. Paul wrote, “Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God; Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” (2 Timothy 1:8-10)

          The Book of Hebrews clearly says that the Law and all the sacrifices did not atone for sin. Hebrews 11, the Bible’s Hall of Faith states, “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” (Hebrews 11:6) All the Old Testament saints were saved through their faith in the promises of God. Their faith was in the future coming of the Messiah and Savior who would atone for sin. Thus, Christ was central in salvation in the Old Testament as He is in the New Testament. It was Christ's death on the Cross that saved the Old Testament saints. They believed and accepted God’s promise of the Messiah by faith. They trusted in Him as their coming Messiah, before the fact of His birth, death, burial and resurrection. Therefore they were saved by God's grace, through faith just like Christians in this the Church Age.

          The Old Testament sacrifices graphically pictured the coming of the Messiah and of His shedding His blood to atone for sin. These sacrifices began after Adam and Eve sinned. The importance of the blood sacrifice is seen in God accepting Able’s offering and rejecting Cain’s wherein was no sacrifice of death and blood. On the Day of Atonement, the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus was pictured as the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies and sprinkled blood on the Mercy Seat on top of the Ark of the Covenant.

---



Chapter 4. BE CONSCIOUS OF CONTEXT

          The context of a text or verse refers to its setting within a larger portion of Scripture. It refers to the verses or statements that occur before and after the text. This would include the paragraph, chapter and book. The situation surrounding the text is relevant in understanding its meaning. The writers of Scripture wrote in the environment in which they lived and this is why knowing the background, culture and current situation of the a Scripture passage is vital in interpreting scripture. Further, the writers were inspired by God to present biblical truth. This truth is learned "Line upon line, precept upon precept" and therefore the correct interpretation of a verse or phrase is absolutely dependent on the whole of the context in which it is stated.(Isa. 28:20)

          For an example look at 1 Corinthians 15:32: The verse ends with the words, "let us eat, drink for tomorrow we die." Without considering the context of this phrase, if it was by itself it would appear to be saying that Paul was teaching a person is to live a carefree life, eating and drinking, getting all the "gusto" they can. A look at the context of the statement shows that Paul was teaching quite the opposite.

          The statement is actually a reference to worldly life style that one only lives for the moment that ignores the future. Paul was condemning this philosophy among Christians. He was instructing the Corinthians that there is certainly life after death and that a man will be judged and held accountable for his deeds. The point Paul made in this discourse was that if there was no resurrection of the dead there was no reason to live a righteous life. However, he was strongly warning them they were responsible to God for their actions. In verse 34 said, “Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.” (1 Corinthians 15:34) This was a pointed rebuke for the way they were living. They were "eating and drinking" without any regard for the coming resurrection and judgment. They were living as if there was not going to be a judgment and resurrection and this was to their shame! So we see that the context of a verse is very important and absolutely necessary for understanding or interpreting the verse. To conclude the verse is teaching it is okay for Christians to live a riotous life style is opposite from what God actually meant.

          Many false teachings and beliefs, that are so prevalent today, can be traced to ignoring of the context of a passage. Mistakes can be made by sincere men. However, other times false teachers, who have no fear of God, deliberately deceive their followers for their personal gain.(Titus 1:10-11)

          The Mormons quote 1 Corinthians 15:29, as their text verse in establishing their practice of baptizing the living for the dead. Living Mormons go to their temples and are baptized in proxy for people who have died. In doing so, they teach that the deceased person is given a second chance to go to their “celestial” heaven. Thus the living Mormon does works for the decease person which give them the opportunity to go to heaven. However, Paul in making this statement was not teaching a doctrine and certainly not teaching that Christians were to baptize for the dead. He was using the practice of some pagan religions of baptizing for the dead as an illustration of the universal belief in life after death and nothing more.

          How do we know that this is what he meant? Look at the context of the statement. From the context of the statement we can see that the subject of the passage is the resurrection of the dead. Verse 12, establishes the theme Paul is addressing stating, "Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead." Contextually, verse 29 is a part of Paul's answer to this question. You cannot honestly say what this verse means without considering the context and everything said in conjunction to this statement. The Bible nowhere teaches that baptisms for the dead are a Christian practice or biblical doctrine. This is the only reference to such a practice in the Bible and there is no biblical or extra biblical record of Christians ever baptizing for the dead. Note what Paul said, "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" (1 Corinthians 15:29) The "they" of the verse is not referring to Christians, but pagans who practiced this unbiblical practice, but did believe in the resurrection of the dead.

          The following statement illustrates the importance of context in understand what a statement means or its interpretation. A similar statement would be:

          "If the Egyptians did not believe in life after death why did they go to such great lengths in preparing their dead for the hereafter?"

          In making this statement, one would not be establishing the validity of their practice in preparing the dead for the afterlife. Only the fact that their belief in the practice is addressed and showed they believed in an afterlife. There is no hint in the statement that the person condoned the practices of the Egyptians or that their beliefs were valid. To labor the point, the point the statement is making is that they must have believed in an after-life because of how they prepared their dead. Likewise, Paul was not establishing a doctrine or telling the Corinthians to do this. He does not even say that they were doing this. But he knew they were aware of pagan religions that baptized for the death. He then referred to something that was known to them and used the practice as an illustration of the universal belief in life after death even among non-believers. His point being that even the pagans believed in life after death. There can be no confusion in understanding the statement if you take into consideration the context in which the statement was made. He absolutely was not teaching that Christians are to be baptized for dead people. Further, the Bible teaches that after death man does not get a second chance to go to heaven. “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27) Further, God says that works do not save. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9)

          Let's look at another example of the importance of the context of a statement in the following:

         "Police today arrested Bill Smith for the murder of his wife Jane Smith. The Police reported that Bill Smith later changed his story. In an earlier statement he claimed that John Doe had murdered his wife. He now has made a full confession."

         Suppose in reading this statement to you someone would only read the partial statement: "John Doe murdered his wife." This statement by itself is misleading and would lead you to believe John Doe had murdered his wife. However, if you read the whole paragraph you would see that this was not what the article meant at all.

         You can see in this illustration the importance of the context of a statement. Context helps determine what happened, and what is the correct interpretation of the written statement.

         A good rule is: "A text without a context is only a pretext." The definition of the word "pretext" means a false reason or motive put forth to hide the real one. It is impossible to understand any statement without considering its context.

THE FIVE TYPES OF CONTEXT - We must consider the following aspects of context in researching a passage.

Immediate Context. The Immediate Context of the verse means the verses just before and after the verse.
Broad Context. The Broad Context of a verse addresses the verse's place within the discourse, chapter, the entire Book and the whole of the Bible.
Parallel Context. The Parallel Context of the verse refers to other places the word or text is found. It may be in the same book or a different place in Scripture.
Historical Context. The historic setting of the passage.
Analogical Context. The doctrinal relationships of the passage to other doctrinal statements.

          An example of studying a parallel context would be consulting a "Harmony of the Gospels" to find other Scriptures where accounts of an event in the life of Christ are found. In studying the parallel context, if the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, you would study the context of the Old Testament passage. This would help you decide why the New Testament writer quoted it and what it means.

          For an example you will find three accounts of the Temptation of Christ in the Gospels. (Matt. 4:1-11, Mark 1:12-13, and Luke 4:1-13) Seeking a parallel context could give a greater understanding of a statement or event, as one writer may give information another would omit. Further each of the Gospels was written to a particular audience. Matthew was written to the Jews; Mark to the Romans; and Luke to the Gentiles. In reading the account from these three perspectives would aid one in understanding a single account of the event or what Jesus was teaching.

          An example of this principle is seen in a comparison of Matthew 4:23-25, Mark 1:39, and Luke 4:44. Each of these passages record Jesus’ ministry in Galilee. Note the differences in the details of each passage:

          “And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people. And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them. And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.” (Matthew 4:23-25)

“And he preached in their synagogues throughout all Galilee, and cast out devils.” (Mark 1:39)

“And he preached in the synagogues of Galilee.” (Luke 4:44)

          As you will note each of the Synoptic Gospels gives a varying amount of information. If you were studying the Gospel of Luke it would be beneficial for you to read the parallel accounts, especially Matthew’s Gospel.

          The Historical Context. Seeking the historical context would lead to consulting history to find the setting of the statement. The historical context can be found from several places. You could begin by researching the historical information concerning the time, place, cultural background, and political situation when the book was written. To find this information you could various reference works such as Bible handbooks, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and commentaries. Books on archaeological discoveries made in the Bible lands have shed light on many Biblical events. All these findings together would show the current traditions or political situations of the passage. Language studies would show how a word was used in the past and help reveal what was original meaning.

          In seeking the interpretation of an Old Testament passage it would be vital to know the historical situation when the passage was written. For example it would be necessary to understand that the Book of Job was the first book of the Bible to be written. The text of the book most agree put the date at around 2100-1900 BC before or during the time of Abraham. The Mosiac law is not mentioned and culturally was before Moses. An indicator for the period is that the account shows that during this period Job’s daughters were equal heirs with his sons. Although Job was not a priest, he offered sacrifices which would not be possible under the Law (Leviticus 4:10; Numbers 27:8). Therefore in interpreting the events of the Book of Job all these things would affect the interpretation.

          When interpreting the Major Prophets the student should know to whom the prophet was being sent and the period in Israel’s history when he lived and ministered. Having a knowledge of the hatred of the Gentiles by the Jews would be necessary to understand the Book of Jonah. Much light is shed on the Book of James when we understand it was the first book of the New Testament and historically was written in the earliest period after Pentecost and that James was the pastor of the church in Jerusalem. It also would aid our understanding to know that all of Paul’s Epistles were written before 70 AD when Jerusalem was destroyed and the Jews dispersed. The historical situation in each of the seven churches of Revelation 2-3 help understand Christ’s message to them. Clearly, hermeneutics is greatly aided by the historical information that is available.

          The Analogical Context The analogical context is vital to arriving at the proper interpretation of a passage of Scripture. Analogy is the similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based. In scripture the analogy of a passage with its resemblance or similarity of one truth, verse, or passage with the rest of the Bible. This is discussed in detail in the next section. Briefly it means that Scripture does not contradict itself. In operation the principle would be that if the passage you read seems to contradict some other scripture, then you must study further to understand the passage and to resolve the seeming conflict. If your interpretation seems to be in conflict with other scripture truths your interpretation is false.

          An illustration would be to examine the modern tongues movement in light of all the New Testament says about biblical tongues. The great error today of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements of today that they ignore what the New Testament says about speaking in unlearned languages (tongues). They fail to see the historical setting of who in the New Testament spoke in unlearned languages and why they did so. They also ignore 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, which emphatically states that when the Bible was complete "tongues " would cease and therefore ignore the broad context of this early church sign gift. For example they falsely conclude the modern tongues is a conformation to believers of receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit when 1 Corinthians 14:22 clearly states biblical tongues was not for believers, but unbelievers and a host of others differences.

          Another problem created by not applying sound hermeneutical principle has resulted in the Pre-wrath Rapture movement. These people and the Amillennialists ignore the dispensational truths clearly expressed in the Bible. They ignore the fact that God’s plans for the Jews in the Old Testament, and the Christians in the Church Age are different. It is an error to mix the promises and prophesies concerning Israel with the God working with the churches in this dispensation. The result of such a careless hermeneutic has produced untold confusion and division. They have weak and unsound principles of interpretation which lead to false teaching. The rules of interpretation are simple and easy to follow and it is truly sinful to refuse to apply God’s rules. To incorrectly interpret a passage of Scripture is to add or subtract from God's word and is severely condemned by God in Revelation 22:19. Jesus Christ is the "Logos" meaning "the word of God. You cannot separate Christ from the Word as they are One and the same. To deny the Word is to deny Jesus Christ. (John 1:1) To tamper with or misuse the Word of God is to defame Christ Himself. To misinterpret God’s word and instead teach things contrary to the scriptures is in fact presenting a lie. That is a serious error and thus it is vital and absolutely necessary to know what God actually meant by what He said. It is the task of hermeneutics to correctly arrive at presenting a accurate interpretation of what God said.

          Every Scripture is interconnected to all other Scriptures. You cannot take a verse or passage out of its context, a way from the other Scriptures and interpret it correctly. This leads us to the next principle of interpretation.

---



Chapter 5. INTERPRET BY THE ANALOGY OF THE FAITH.

         Bible does not contradict itself. God did not make the Bible to be contradictory. If a passage of Scripture seems to contradict other Scriptures the problem is not in the Bible, but with the interpreter.

          Some may object to the premise that the Bible does not contradict itself. However, at the heart of understanding the Bible is understanding what the Bible says about itself. The Bible claims to be the Very Word of God! To attack and discredit the Bible is to attack and discredit God. God is totally capable of giving us this revelation accurately and did so when He inspired each word, paragraph, chapter, and book of the Bible.

          The term "inspiration" is the theological term taken from the Bible which expresses the truth that the Bible is God's Very Word. To understand inspiration we must look at two classic Scripture verses:

1. The first passage is 2 Tim. 3:16-17 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

2. The word "inspiration" can be literally interpreted "God-breathed." The Greek word is "theopneutos", which means "theo" = God, and "pneutos" = breathed. The Hebrew word is "nehemiah" and is used only once in the Old Testament in Job 32:8. The verse is saying God breathed on the writers of the Bible and they wrote His Very Word. In other words, God superintended the writing of His word so that the author was God Himself and the writer wrote exactly word for word what God intended.

3. The next passage is 2 Peter 1:21, "For prophecy came not in old times by the will of man but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

4. Literally the verse is confirming 2 Timothy 3:16-17, that inspiration is the process by which the Holy Spirit supernaturally moved on the writers of Scripture and what they wrote was not their words, but the very word of God. God superintended each and every word of Scripture and it accurately reflects what He intended to say. Heb. 1:1 says, "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in time past unto our fathers." Therefore God has at different times in the past, and in many ways has spoken through men to reveal Himself to mankind. Paul and Peter state that what these men wrote was God's word.

         To properly interpret God’s word we must understand how God spoke to man or revealed Himself and His will throughout history. Hosea 12:10 says, "I have also spoken by the prophets, and have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.” A literal translation of the verse says, "I spoke to the prophets, gave them many visions."

1. God spoke by angels to Abraham and Lot in Genesis 18-19. To Daniel, in Daniel 10:10-21. 2. In visions. Isaiah 1:1, Ezekiel 1:1, 8:3, 11:24, 43:3, Daniel 7:1, 8:1, 10:1. 3. By miracles. To Moses in Exodus 3:2 from the burning bush. To Gideon using the woolen fleece in Judges 6:37-39. 4. By voice directly to Moses in Exodus 19; to young Samuel in I Sam. 3. 5. Through an inner voice when He spoke Jeremiah in Jeremiah 46:1. 6. By chasing lots as recorded in Jonah 1:7 and Proverbs 16:33

          David said, "The spirit of the Lord spake by me and his word was in my tongue" (2 Sam. 23:2). God used men to speak to other men. When the prophets spoke what God had revealed to them, they used phrases such as "thus saith the Lord", or "the Word of God came to me saying." They made it clear that what they were saying was from God.

          To look at the matter in a practical way, what was happening was that as the writer wrote, God "breathed" on him by the ministry of the Holy Spirit. As he wrote the Spirit guided and superintended his thoughts so that what he produced was from God without error or omission. It was literally, word for word, what God wanted written.

          In theological terms, the doctrine that God wrote the Scriptures and that every word of Scripture is inspired of God is called, "verbal plenary inspiration." This is the view of Scripture which the Bible itself teaches.

1. Definitions of the words are: VERBAL = "WORDS" and PLENARY = "FULL”. It means that God-breathed the very word of God in full expression of His thoughts in what the writer of Scripture wrote. This means that every word that was written was the mind of God without error. In other words, although the Bible was penned by men, it was really God who is the author.

2. God guided them in the choice of every word and expression. This does not mean God did not allow for personality and cultural background of the writer to be used in expressing God's Words. God allowed the writers to express His thoughts in their own way.

3. This is why we must conclude the Bible is without error. God wrote it and preserves it and not man. It is the product of God, and His very Word to man. It then is without error or contradiction.

4. When there seems to be an error or contradiction the problem is in the interpretation of the verse or passage not the Scriptures. If your passage appears to be a contradiction then your course of action is to continue studying until you arrive at the correct interpretation. Often arriving at the correct interpretation of a passage of Scripture will take a great deal of study.

         For example lets look at one "so called" problem passage. 1 Peter 3:19 says, "By which also "He" (referring to Christ) went and preached unto the spirits in prison." At first, reading the verse appears to say that Christ after His crucifixion went into Hell and preached salvation to the lost pre-flood peoples giving them a second chance for salvation. However, applying the analogy of the faith we know this cannot be the correct interpretation of what happened.

          Applying this interpretation presents the interpreter of Scripture with a serious problem because other Scriptures clearly state man does not have a second chance to be saved. After death comes a man's judgment.

Job 21:30, states the "The wicked is "reserved" to the day of destruction."
Hebrews 9:27 "It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment."
Luke 16:22, The rich man in Hell, begged for mercy, but was denied even a drop of water.

          If you consider the verse in the analogy of the faith and saying that this verse teaches that Jesus gave those who lived before the flood a second chance is a contradiction of other scriptures. This alerts you to the problem! In considering what the verse means you must consider the analogy of the faith. In other words, does this interpretation contradict other scripture? Clearly this interpretation does, so you would be alerted to look for another possible meaning.

          The next step to resolve the problem would be to take into consideration the other principles of interpretation. Using these principles you attempt to arrive at an interpretation that is not contradictory. The principle of interpreting within a verse's context would lead you to read the verses before and after this one. The context of the verse would show you that Peter is writing about Christ's suffering and death for the sins of the world. This is the subject of this passage. This is stated in verse 18, “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit”(1 Peter 3:18)

         Verse 20, gives us the time of the preaching to the pre-flood people. It says, "When once the long-suffering of God, waited in the days of Noah." So the verse tells us this preaching was done in the days of Noah, not at the death of the Lord Jesus.

         Understanding this makes the explanation clear. The pre-flood people were offered salvation, by Noah, who preached to them before the flood. The principle, that we are to make Christ central to the Scriptures, points us to understand Christ made possible the salvation that God offered to the pre-flood people. Noah, in preaching salvation was preaching Christ! The "spirits" or the pre-Flood people who rejected Noah's warning and offer of redemption are in "prison" or in Hades awaiting judgment of Revelation 20:11-15. This interpretation does not violate any doctrine of Scripture and is not contradictory. It then is the better, and correct interpretation. By applying the proper rules of hermeneutics we are letting the Scriptures interpret the Scriptures.

         The rule is a simple one: In interpreting Scripture you must always consider the fact that the Bible does not contradict itself. If a proposed interpretation conflicts with other Scripture then your interpretation is not correct. You then must continue your study and arrive at an interpretation that is not contradictory.

---



Chapter 6. RECOGNIZE THE PROGRESS OF REVELATION.

          When finding the proper interpretation of scripture it must be understood that God gave His revelation, the Bible, to man over many centuries. This is referred to as the doctrine of "Progressive Revelation."

         For an example, when God gave the first prophecy of the coming of Christ, He revealed very few of the details. God only revealed that, "I will put enmity between thy seed and her seed it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." All Adam and Eve knew was that God was promising them a Redeemer, who would overcome Satan and bring an end to the curse caused by their sin. God continued and progressively revealed His Plan of Salvation over the whole period of the Old Testament. Over time, as God worked with man, He revealed more about the Messiah and gave more details. This process took place over hundreds of years. It was four hundred years before Christ's coming, when the Old Testament was completed and God had revealed, the Savior's name, place of birth, that He would be from the tribe of Judah, year of birth, that His death would atone for sins, the virgin birth and a total of over 300 prophecies concerning Christ's coming.

          Another example was the giving of the Law to Moses. Abraham, the Father of the Nation of Israel, died having never heard of the Law. When Israel became a nation and needed laws to govern them, over four hundred years later, God used Moses and gave him the Law at Mt. Sinai for Israel. The Law given was the "Constitution" of the Nation of Israel. It set forth principle and specific instruction as to what was right and wrong in all spiritual and civil matters. It set penalties for crimes against God and individual Israelites. It addressed everything from cleanliness to relations with other nations.

          We live now in the age or dispensation of Grace (Eph. 3:2). The author likes to call this the Age of Principles. Christians are not under the Old Testament law.(Rom. 6:14) Christians live by a higher rule, that being the principles of God. We obey God out of love. The law defined right and wrong and commanded men to do what is right. You do not have to command people to do right when that is what they want to do. When God gave commandments to the Christians they were given to define correct actions.

         When the Old Testament Laws were broken by the Israelites, the priests administered justice. In our present the Age of Grace, every believer is indwelled by the Spirit of God who brings conviction. We also have the Word of God to instruct us in righteousness. When we sin the Holy Spirit convicts us. When there is unconfessed sin and rebelling in the life of a believer it is God that chastens that believer.(1 Cor. 11:27-32; Heb. 12:6-11; 1 John 5:16-17 Our civil government does not punish us when we disobey God's commandments unless it also breaks a civil law. God has given the government the authority to execute punishment for breaking civil laws. Further, churches nor Christians authority to administers civil laws.

         When the canon of Scripture was completed, about 90 AD to 95 AD, God had completely revealed all that man needed to know to be saved, and live for God. Paul states, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17) God further stated in Revelation 22:18, at the very end of His revelation to man, that no man should ever add to or subtract from the Scriptures.

         Another important principle to understand is that when God revealed a principle in the Old Testament, it was never invalidated by later revelation. Take for example the Law given at Mt. Sinai. Today Christians do not live by the letter of the law, but the principles on which the laws were based are to be applied to our lives. Are the principles of the Law given at Mt. Sinai valid today? Surely they are!

          The Law says we are to "have no other God before thee." (Deut. 5:7) That is a true now as it was then. It is important to understand the Bible's principles do not change in time. Customs, culture, political situations may change and this in turn may change the way the principle is applied, however the principle itself does not change.

         For an example, in Deuteronomy 7:1f, God instructs Israel to be separated from the wicked peoples of Canaan. In 2 Corinthian 6:14, the same principle is being applied to the Christians being unequally yoked with unbelievers. In both passages, God is teaching us the Doctrine of Separation. Time changed the people involved, the manner of separation, and a host of other details, but the principle remains and it is the same principle in both the Old and New Testaments. The principle is clear that a passage of Scripture can only have one meaning or interpretation, but in different circumstances can have different applications.

          When interpreting God's word, we must understand that God revealed His word over a long period of time. The interpretation of a passage to be accurate must consider when the scripture was penned and what God was revealing at that time and take into consideration the principles involved.

---



Chapter 7. GRANT ONE INTERPRETATION TO EACH PASSAGE.

          When the words of Scripture were penned they had only one meaning. We should search for that one meaning. To accept multiple interpretations for one scripture passage causes confusion and is inaccurate. Scripture itself does not allow for multiple interpretations of a verse. Note that we are talking about the interpretation of a passage and not about application. A passage can have several applications, however in its historical and grammatical setting it can have only one interpretation or meaning. The proper application of a passage of scripture can only be valid if it is correctly interpreted.

          For example, God promised the Nation of Israel would inherit the area of land from river in Egypt in the south to the Euphrates in the north. (Genesis 15:18) It is incorrect to interpret this verse in any other way. The verse literally means God promised this specific land, as described geographically to Abraham's descendants. It does not mean God gave His promises to the churches or anyone else. The Euphrates River does not mean the Persian Gulf or any other body of water, nor does it have some mystical meaning. It has only one meaning. That meaning must govern the interpretation of a verse or passage.

          This rule of granting only one interpretation to a passage is violated most often in the studying the parables. A parable is a simile and metaphor that was used to illustrate a particular point or truth in a discourse. Jesus used sixty parables in His preaching to illustrate the principles he was teaching. A good example of the improper interpretation of a parable is the allegorical interpretation of Augustine (355-430 AD) who founded most of the theology of the Roman Catholic Church. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Augustine said that the man who was attacked stands for Adam; Jerusalem, the heavenly city from which Adam fell. The thieves, represent the devil who strips Adam of his immortality and leads him to sin. He allegorized that the priest and Levite, was the Old Testament Law and ministry which was unable to cleanse and save anyone. Augustine concluded that the good Samaritan who binds the wounds was Christ who forgives sin and the oil and wine as being hope and stimulus to work. He interpreted the donkey as the incarnation; the inn as the church, and the innkeeper, the apostle Paul. The question one should ask is on what basis did Augustine come up with this elaborate interpretation? The answer is used his own imagination to allegorize the parable.

          How then should this parable be interpreted? The answer is let the Bible interpret itself! The parable of the Good Samaritan recorded in Luke 10:30-37 was Jesus answering the question asked by a lawyer to tempt Him. The lawyer asked what should he do to inherit eternal life? (Luke 10:25) Jesus asked the lawyer what was written in the Law meaning the Old Testament scriptures. The lawyer quoted Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18. Jesus replied that the lawyer's answer was correct and for him to do this and live. The lawyer seeking to justify himself then asked who was his neighbor? The pious and proud Jews excluded Samaritans and Gentiles from being their neighbors. Jesus knew this and used the parable to expose the hypocrisy of the lawyer and of the Jews. In Luke 10:36, after concluding the parable, Jesus asked the lawyer who did he think was the neighbor in the parable. The lawyer replied "he that showed mercy on him." Jesus then told the lawyer "Go and do likewise." There is no hidden meaning in this illustration. It was given to present one meaning. The parable was an illustration of showing mercy. The lawyer understood this and correctly responded to Jesus' question. To allegorize this parable or use it to teach anything else other than to answer the question "who is my neighbor" is a false interpretation and not meant by God.

          Therefore grant a parable only one interpretation. A parable is given to illustrate one point or truth and should not be to "walk on all fours."

---



Chapter 8. CHOOSE THE SIMPLEST ALTERNATIVE

          In a very few instances the correct interpretations of a passage is not immediately clear. This is a rare occurrence. There is a classic example of this found in Judges 11:30-40. Jephthah, made a vow that if God would grant him victory in battle, whatever met him coming out of the doors of his house when he returned home, he would sacrifice in a burnt offering to the Lord. When He returned home he was met by his daughter! In Judges 11:39 states that he honored his vow. Some interpret that verse to mean he offered up his daughter to service for the Lord in the temple and others that she was literally sacrificed as a burnt offering. Both sides of this debate have valid reasons to accept their view. The Bible says the daughter went into the mountains for two months of mourning to "bewail her virginity" with her friends. Afterward the vow was carried out and the women in Israel each year went for four days to the lament in honor her loyalty and sacrifice. How then is this passage to be interpreted?

          First, considering the analogy of the faith, it must be considered that God would never condone human sacrifice. It is a simpler explanation is that Jephthah gave her up to temple service to be a perpetual virgin. Judges 11:37 says his daughter went for two months into the mountains to "bewail her virginity." This statement is vital to understanding the interpretation of the event. The daughter was his only child, and now Jephthah would have no descendants. This was a serious matter in eastern culture, the tragedy was that Jephthah's lineage would end. What he sacrificed was having grandchildren and future descendants. In this example we can see that historically both views cannot be right. She either lived or died, and one or the other is true, but not both. Judges 11:39, says the vow was kept and "And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel." In other words, “she knew no man” meaning she never married and was a virgin the rest of her life. God would never condone human sacrifice for any reason.

          We can honestly only allow one interpretation, because it can have only one. The simplest alternative is that she lived. This interpretation fits the culture of the time, the context of the discourse, and does not violate the analogy of the faith. Thus, the proper understanding is she was not killed and sacrificed, but rather the sacrifice was she gave her father no children and his lineage ended.

---



Chapter 9. NEVER INVENT EXPLANATIONS TO SILENT AREAS OF SCRIPTURE

          Simply stated this principle means the Bible student is not make up explanations to areas of Scripture that are silent and where God has not given us all the information about some topic of Scripture.

          For example, the Bible does not say where Heaven is. The Bible only indicates its direction is up. It is foolhardy to speculate that it is in some specific area of space. Some state they believe Heaven is in the northern area of space where astronomers report there are few stars. Others, considering recent discoveries in astronomy speculate that heaven is in a parallel universe to our own.

          This speculation serves no valid purpose. If the Bible is silent we then too are to be silent. To offer one's personal speculation on some subject where the Bible is silent is in a real sense adding to Scripture. Often one person's stated speculation becomes another's belief.

          Jesus said, only the Father knew when He would return. So according to God no one knows the time of Christ’s return. However a well known fundamentalist evangelist of national acclaim stated in a Bible conference that when the planets aligned in 1984, the Rapture would occur. Your author was there and heard what he said. Many tracts were printed stating this view. Obviously, he was wrong. In the eyes of many people his testimony and credibility as a preacher was seriously hurt. His predictions served only a negative purpose. If God is silent then we need to be silent!

          Jesus said referring to the time of heaven and earth passing away, "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." (Matthew 24:36) Yet, many foolish men had sought to calculate the date of the end. Clearly such speculation would indicate they apparently do not believe Jesus knew what He was saying. Literally, hundreds of dates have been proposed and every one of them have been wrong. It is sin to add to God's word to try and offer an explanation for silent areas of God's word. The rule is if God is silent....we should be silent.

---



Chapter 10. NEVER THEORIZE TO ACCOMMODATE MAN'S VIEWS OF RELIGION OR MODERN SCIENCE.

          This principle is closely aligned with the ninth principle. In interpreting Scripture we should never invent explanations to areas where the Bible appears vague. We may not have the knowledge to understand some teaching or event in the Bible. The limitation is in our knowledge, not in the truth of the Word of God. When a man begins to speculate, he is in fact, trying to second guessing God! Such speculation casts a shadow over the credibility of the Bible and our faith. It does not convince the doubters and only brings confusion. The best approach is not to invent explanations, but honestly say we do not know!

          A good example of man trying to harmonize science and the Bible is seen in the theories such as "Theistic Evolution" and once popular "Gap Theory.” Theistic evolution is the product of man's trying to fit into the Bible the false teachings of the so called "science of evolution." In truth, evolution contradicts the Biblical account of Creation and there is no possible way to make the two coincide. Further, there is not even one demonstrative evidence of evolution occurring in true science. False science seeking to discredit the Bible and deny the existence of our God and Creator have invented what they call "evolution." This means the universe and life came into existence by random chance and there is no Designer and no God.

          To suppose that God used evolution to create the world is to deny the literal meaning of Genesis Chapter 1 and 2. You must understand that God's Word is perfect and without error. It is inerrant and infallible. When God said He created the universe and the earth in six days, by speaking it into existence out of nothing, then that is the Word of God on the matter and the truth. If science disagrees, then science is wrong! Science is the product of man's wisdom which is often proven faulty. The Bible is the very Word of God who is never wrong!

          However, some who have a poor understanding of God's word have concluded that God used evolution to create life over long periods of time. This false idea is called Theistic Evolution. That flatly denies God’s word and which in fact calls Him a liar and is wrong. Moses stated in Exodus 20:11 “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” (Exodus 20:11) Jesus said in John 5:47, “But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” Without question Jesus was saying that what Moses wrote was to be believed as coming from God. The implication is that to reject Moses’ statement confirming a six day creation is to deny God.

          On several occasions I was privileged to hear the late Dr. Charles Stevens, founder of Piedmont Bible College. One principle he stressed was that the only way to know the truth was to examine it using the "looking glass" of the Bible. In other words, we are to take the Bible and examine everything by it. We look at the world through the Bible. We examine everything in the light of God’s written word. It is the ONLY true standard. It is the only pure source of truth on earth. The world's way is the opposite. Man with a sinful and darkened mind examines the Bible and declares it invalid. Fallible man starts out with a distorted view that can produce a distorted conclusion. God explains this saying, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14)

          Such theories, such as the Gap Theory, in no way have any value within themselves. This "theory" states that between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, there is a gap in time in which the fossil record is placed. Its explanation is that the fossils are the remains of another race of man and a world that was destroyed when Lucifer rebelled in heaven, before the present world was created. This theory is based on man's speculations over one hundred years ago when evolution became popular. Men such as C. I. Scofield, under attack by so-called modern scientific evidence, tried to accommodate the popular teachings of the then new "science" of evolution. He and others theorized a gap in the biblical record between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. In that supposed gap, Dr. Scofield, with little understanding of geology, palenotology, and science, put everything he could not explain. Few men in his day understood where the fossils came from. Today, we can easily explain the fossil record. It was created by the Flood when God destroyed all life on earth saving only Noah and his family and the animals in the ark. The fossils are the remains of the pre-flood world, not some world created and destroyed by God before the current Earth. All fossils are found in sedimentary rock deposits. Sedimentary rock is formed by water action such as would be caused by a world wide flood.

          Today, evolution and Darwinism is fast falling into disfavor and even secular science is questioning the teaching of Darwin. Yet, today the Gap Theory is still being taught by a few proponents as fact, and yet it was never anything more than a man's theory or speculation. Today, few theologians hold or teach the view, but it will probably be many years before it completely disappears.

          I respectfully asked a professor, that taught me in Bible college, that in light of gap theory being so clearly refuted, why did he believe and continue to teach it. He replied only that he was a “smiling gapist.” His reply revealed he knew the idea was false, but because of pressures of his peers continued to include this false teaching in his lectures. Ignorance and being deceived can be understood, but not knowingly perpetrating error cannot.

          To try and harmonize the teachings of evolution with the Bible, theologians have in fact denied the Word of God. God said He spoke the Universe into existence "ex nihilo," meaning out of nothing. God says "In the beginning" meaning that before time there was nothing and the universe and the earth had a beginning. Evolution purports there was no beginning. God's word then states, the universe did not evolve over long periods of time as evolution postulates. The gap theory in reality instead of clarifying the matter of Creation has caused confusion. It actually supports the false theory (lie) of evolution. Theistic evolution and the gap theory both aid in causing Christians to believe in evolution or some form of it which denies God’s word. The speculation of theologians in the past, who invented of the Gap Theory caused many people to believe in the lie of evolution. They added to God's word and aided Satan in denying the word of God.

          Another clear example is the Roman Catholics who worship and pray to Mary. They say that she is the "mother of God" thus deifying Mary. Never in God's word is Mary called the mother of God nor is she deified. She is called the "mother of Jesus." (John 2:1,3. 19:25-26, Acts 1:14) The Roman Catholic Church speculates that if Mary was Jesus' mother, and Jesus was God, then she was the mother of God! They use unsound logic to support their belief.

          John 17:5 refutes this false speculation recording that Jesus said, "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." Yes, Jesus Christ is God, incarnate in flesh and He is our eternal God, the Alpha and Omega.(Rev. 1:8) Jesus said He was with the Father "before the world was." Mary, the godly young Jewish woman, was chosen by God to be Jesus' earthly mother and give Him His physical body. She could not be the mother of God because she did not give birth to God who is not a physical Being, but Spirit (John 4:24). Mary was a physical person and therefore could not give birth to a Spiritual being. Further, never in God's word does God say we are to pray to anyone but God the Father, through Jesus Christ. (Matt. 6:9, Heb. 4:16) Therefore the Roman Catholic Church believes and teaches false doctrine which makes is a false church. A simple literal reading of God’s word dispels their false teachings.

          The rule of correctly interpreting God's word is to let the Bible interpret itself. We should never invent supposed solutions areas where the Bible is silent.

---



Chapter 11. NEVER BASE A DOCTRINE ON ONE PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE.

          No doctrine should be built on only one passage or verse of Scripture. Any true doctrine of God will be found in many places in the Bible. The Mormons falsely base their doctrine of baptisms for the dead on only one verse in the Bible.(1 Cor. 15:29) No where else is the practice even mentioned. If you cannot find other places in the Bible that teach the doctrine this should alert you to a problem. If the supposed doctrine is only found in one place you should seek to find out why. In every case you will discover that what is being taught is not a doctrine. To arrive at the correct understanding of a teaching (doctrine) in Scripture you must study all related texts and then put them together. Until you do this, it is difficult to know that you have all the truth revealed on a particular subject. Thus, using this holistic view of the Bible the interpreter will not go astray.

---



CONCLUDING STATEMENT

          In trying to determine what the Scriptures mean and coming to a correct interpretation of God’s word, we must have a method or standard of interpretation as a guide. The literal method stands alone as the only real biblical method. Why? Because the best interpreter is God Himself, and by letting Scripture interpret Scripture we are letting God, the Author of the Bible tell us what He means by what He said.

---



DEFINITIONS:

Allegory. Taking the literal meaning of a story, discourse, or something written and giving it another spiritualized or non literal meaning.

Analogy. Similarity between things partial resemblance. Comparing something point by point with something else noting its similarity . As applied to Bible study, it means the scriptures are alike and do not contradict each other.

Context. The parts of a book, passage or verse, which shows the whole situation and relevant environment in which it is found.

Expository. Setting forth facts, ideas, and an explanation from a detailed examination of a passage.

Exegesis. Critical analysis or interpretation which seeks the meaning from the passage and does not impose meaning on the passage.

Interpretation. To arrive at the original meaning the writer intended when he penned the words.

Hermeneutics. The science of interpreting written language to derive the original meaning of the author.

Syntax. Syntax is the study of the word in is grammatical setting showing it relation to other words.

* All rights reserved. This article may not be copied, retrieved, stored in any format, reprinted, nor sold without the written permission of the author. The above restrictions do not apply if the article is to be used for personal use. It may be copied and used in a group Bible study situation if the author is notified. It may be quoted if proper reference and credit is made as to the author and source.

It is always encouraging to receive email from those who find the messages helpful, or who have comments.