<chapter id="h2-rules">
  <title>Rules of Bible Interpretation (Hermeneutics)</title>
  <para>We already learned about the "3 Cs": content, context,
  cross-reference. We want to expand that now by delving briefly into
  biblical hermeneutics, whose goal is to discover the meaning intended
  by the original author (and Author!). While many applications of a
  passage are valid, only one interpretation is valid. The scripture
  itself says this by saying that no scripture is of any private
  interpretation (2 Pe.1:20 KJV 
  <quote>Knowing this first, that no prophesy of scripture is of any
  private interpretation.</quote>). Certain rules are helps toward
  discovering the correct meaning; by ignoring these rules people have
  brought much trouble on themselves and their followers. 2 Pe.3:16 
  <quote>...in which are some things hard to understand, which the
  untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the
  Scriptures, to their own destruction.</quote></para>
  <para>How do we go about discovering the intended meaning of a
  passage? Let's say your attention has been drawn to a particular
  verse whose meaning is not clear to you. How do you study it out?
  Keep these rules in mind:</para>
  <section id="h2-rules-exact">
    <title>Rule 1 - Interpret according to the exact meaning of the
    words.</title>
    <para>The more precise we can be with the exact, original meaning
    of the words the better our interpretation will be. Try to find the
    exact meaning of the key words by following these steps:</para>
    <orderedlist>
      <listitem>
        <formalpara>
          <title>Definition</title>
          <para>Look up the definition in a Greek or Hebrew dictionary.
          For verbs, the verb tense is also crucial.</para>
        </formalpara>
      </listitem>
      <listitem>
        <formalpara>
          <title>Cross-reference</title>
          <para>Compare scripture with scripture. Seeing how the same
          Greek or Hebrew word (not the English word) is used in
          scripture may clarify or throw new light on the definition.
          How does the same author use this word elsewhere? Other
          authors? Your reference tools may give you uses of the word
          in non-biblical documents, as well. Why do we have to go to
          the original languages; why isn't the English word good
          enough? 
          <emphasis>Because more than one Greek word may be translated
          into the same English word, and the Greek words may have
          different shades of meaning.</emphasis></para>
        </formalpara>
      </listitem>
    </orderedlist>
    <section id="h2-rules-exact-crossref-ex1a">
      <title>Example 1A</title>
      <para>Jn.20:17 
      <emphasis>"Touch me not"</emphasis> (KJV) sounds harsh, doesn't
      it? Sounds like Jesus doesn't want to be touched now that He is
      risen, that He is too holy or something. But that doesn't seem
      right, so let's look it up in Spiros Zodhiates' 
      <emphasis>The Complete Word Study New Testament</emphasis> (AMG
      Publishers, 1991).</para>
      <para>Definition: Turning to John 20:17, above the word "Touch"
      we see "pim680." The letters give us a code for the part of
      speech, and the number refers to Strong's dictionary reference.
      Let's look up the definition (p. 879). "680. Haptomai; from hapto
      (681), touch. Refers to such handling of an object as to exert a
      modifying influence upon it... Distinguished from pselaphao
      (5584), which actually only means to touch the surface of
      something. " Now look up "pim." The grammar codes in Zodhiates
      come right after Revelation; on p. 849 we see that pim stands for
      "present imperative active (80)". On p.857, "Present Imperative.
      In the active voice, it may indicate a command to do something in
      the future which involves continuous or repeated action or, when
      it is negated, a command to stop doing something. " This is a
      negative command, so it is to stop doing something that is
      already occurring. So, what have we found?</para>
      <para>
        <emphasis>Mary is already clinging to Jesus, and he is saying
        to stop holding him!</emphasis>
      </para>
    </section>
    <section id="h2-rules-exact-crossref-ex1b">
      <title>Example 1B</title>
      <para>In James 5:14, 
      <emphasis>Elders are told to pray and anoint someone who is
      sick</emphasis>. What is this anointing?</para>
      <para>Definition of aleipho (218) - "to oil" (Strong's); but we
      also have another Greek word translated "anoint", chrio (5548) -
      "to smear or rub with oil, i.e. to consecrate to an office or
      religious service" (Strong's). Since it's a verb, consider the
      tense also, "apta" aorist participle active. "The aorist
      participle expresses simple action, as opposed to continuous
      action...When its relationship to the main verb is temporal, it
      usually signifies action prior to that of the main verb."
      (Zodhiates p.851)</para>
      <itemizedlist>
        <listitem>
          <para>Cross-references for aleipho: 
          <orderedlist>
            <listitem>
              <para>Mt.6:17 But you, when you fast, anoint your
              head</para>
            </listitem>
            <listitem>
              <para>Mk.16:1 [the women] brought spices that they might
              come and anoint Him.</para>
            </listitem>
            <listitem>
              <para>Mk.6:13 And they were...anointing with oil many
              sick people and healing them.</para>
            </listitem>
            <listitem>
              <para>Lk.7:38 [...] kissing His feet and anointing them
              with the perfume</para>
            </listitem>
            <listitem>
              <para>Jn.12:3 Mary [...] anointed the feet of Jesus, and
              wiped them with her hair</para>
            </listitem>
          </orderedlist></para>
        </listitem>
        <listitem>
          <para>Cross-references of chrio: 
          <orderedlist>
            <listitem>
              <para>Lk.4:18 
              <quote>The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has
              anointed me to preach [...]</quote></para>
            </listitem>
            <listitem>
              <para>Acts 4:27 Jesus, whom Thou hast anointed</para>
            </listitem>
            <listitem>
              <para>Acts 10:38 God anointed Jesus with the Holy Ghost
              and power</para>
            </listitem>
            <listitem>
              <para>2 Cor.1:21 Now He who...anointed us is God</para>
            </listitem>
          </orderedlist></para>
        </listitem>
      </itemizedlist>
      <para>So what's the difference between aleipho and chrio? Look
      back over the cross-references and the definitions, and sum up
      the difference: 
      <emphasis>"aleipho" is a practical use of oil and "chrio" is a
      spiritual</emphasis></para>
      <para>As an illustration (although the word is not used) of the
      practical use of oil at that time, when the good Samaritan cared
      for the man beat up by robbers he poured oil and wine in the
      wound. So oil had a medicinal use in Jesus' day.</para>
      <para>Now let's apply what we just learned by this word study to
      James 5:14 
      <emphasis>"Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of
      the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in
      the name of the Lord."</emphasis>Is "anointing" spiritual or
      practical? Practical!</para>
      <para>And the tense in Greek, the aorist participle, would be
      better translated "having anointed," so the order is the
      anointing first, then the prayer ("in the name of the Lord"refers
      to the prayer, not the anointing). James 5 is saying that the
      elders should give the sick person medicine and pray for him in
      the name of the Lord. Doesn't that express a beautiful balance of
      practical and spiritual in our God!</para>
    </section>
  </section>
  <section id="h2-rules-context">
    <title>Rule 2 - Interpret within the biblical context</title>
    <para>Interpret scripture in harmony with other scripture. What do
    the verses on each side say? What is the theme of the chapter? The
    book? Does your interpretation fit with these? If not, it is
    flawed. Usually, the context supplies what we need to correctly
    interpret the passage. Context is key. If confusion remains as to
    the meaning after we have interpreted the text within its context,
    we have to look further.</para>
    <section id="h2-rules-context-ex2a">
      <title>Example 2A</title>
      <para>In a previous lesson we considered Jn.3:5 
      <emphasis>"born of water and the Spirit."</emphasis>In context,
      what is the water under discussion here?</para>
      <para>Water baptism is not under discussion here, which would be
      a big switch from the subject being discussed by Jesus and
      Nicodemus. Watch out for a sudden change of topic, it may be a
      clue that your interpretation has been derailed! The water is the
      amniotic fluid, "born of water" = natural birth.</para>
    </section>
    <section id="h2-rules-context-ex2b">
      <title>Example 2B</title>
      <para>1 Cor.14:34 
      <quote>Let the women keep silent in the churches</quote>has to be
      taken within the biblical context of 1 Cor.11:5 
      <quote>every woman [...] while praying or prophesying
      [...]</quote></para>
    </section>
    <section id="h2-rules-context-ex2c">
      <title>Example 2C</title>
      <para>Acts 2:38 
      <quote>And Peter said to them, "Repent, and let each of you be
      baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your
      sins [...]"</quote>. Is this teaching baptismal regeneration? If
      this was the only verse of scripture we had, we would have to
      conclude that. But in the light of the clear teaching elsewhere
      that regeneration happens by faith in Christ, we have to
      interpret it otherwise. Peter is urging baptism as a way for his
      hearers to respond to the gospel. If baptism were the pathway to
      being born again, how could Paul write 1 Cor.1:17 
      <emphasis>"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach
      the gospel"</emphasis>?</para>
    </section>
  </section>
  <section id="h2-rules-hcontest">
    <title>Rule 3 - Interpret within the historical and cultural
    context</title>
    <para>At first we are not asking 
    <quote>What does it mean to me?</quote>but 
    <quote>What did it mean to the original readers?</quote>; later we
    can ask, 
    <quote>What does it mean to me?</quote>. We have to take into
    account the historical and cultural background of the author and
    the recipients.</para>
    <section id="h2-rules-hcontest-ex3a">
      <title>Example 3A</title>
      <para>
      <quote>3 days &amp; 3 nights</quote>(Mt.12:40) have led some to
      come up with a "Wednesday crucifixion theory," esp. the cult of
      Armstrongism. How could Jesus die on Friday afternoon and rise
      Sunday morning yet "be raised on the third day" (Mt.16:21)? Exact
      meanings of "three" or "days" won't help explain the apparent
      contradiction.</para>
      <para>We need an historical tidbit: Jews counted any part of a
      day as a full day, as we would count buckets of water (if there
      were six and one-half buckets of water, we would say there were 7
      buckets of water even if one was only partly full). So to the
      Jewish mind, any part of a day counted as a full day, and days
      started at 6 p.m. and ended at 6 p.m. Friday from 3 p.m. to 6
      p.m. = day 1. Friday 6 p.m. to Saturday 6 p.m. = day 2. Saturday
      6 p.m. to Sunday 5 or so a.m. = day 3. Interpreting within the
      cultural context keeps us out of trouble.</para>
    </section>
    <section id="h2-rules-hcontest-ex3b">
      <title>Example 3B</title>
      <para>Gen.15:7-21. The historical context is that cutting animals
      in two and then walking between the pieces was the normal way of
      entering a contract in Abraham's day. Both parties walked
      between, taking the pledge that dismemberment would happen to
      them if they didn't live up to their part of the contract. But in
      this case only God goes thru, making it a unilateral
      covenant.</para>
    </section>
  </section>
  <section id="h2-rules-normal">
    <title>Rule 4 - Interpret according to the normal usage of words in
    language</title>
    <para>Let literal language be literal and figurative language be
    figurative. And watch out for idioms, which have special
    meanings.</para>
    <section id="h2-rules-normal-ex4a">
      <title>Example 4A</title>
      <para>
      <quote>evil eye</quote>in Mt.6:23.</para>
      <para>Rule 1, definition of "evil" and "eye" - no help here. Rule
      2, context: seems to confuse us even more. It doesn't seem to fit
      with what goes before and after! This should tip us off that we
      aren't understanding it rightly!!</para>
      <para>What we have here is a Hebrew idiom, 
      <quote>evil eye</quote>. Let's look up other uses of this idiom:
      Mt.20:15 "
      <emphasis>Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is
      my own? Or is your eye envious [lit."evil"] because I am generous
      [lit. "good"]?</emphasis>" We find that having an "evil eye" is a
      Hebrew idiom for being stingy or envious. Now go back to Mt.6 and
      notice how this understanding ties in so perfectly to the
      context.</para>
    </section>
    <section id="h2-rules-normal-ex4b">
      <title>Example 4B</title>
      <para>Is.59:1 
      <quote>The Lord's hand is not short;</quote></para>
      <para>Deut.33:27 
      <quote>Underneath are the everlasting arms.</quote></para>
      <para>References to body parts of God are used by Latter-Day
      Saints to prove that God was once a man just as we are. Once they
      convince people of that, they go on to teach that we can become
      God just like He is! At a lecture he was giving, a group of
      Mormon elders challenged Walter Martin (author of 
      <emphasis>Kingdom of the Cults</emphasis>) with an enumeration of
      verses like these. Dr. Martin then asked the Mormons to read one
      more scripture: Ps.91:4 
      <quote>He will cover you with His feathers; And under His wings
      shalt thou trust</quote>. W.M. said, 
      <quote>By the same rules of interpretation that you just proved
      God to be a man, you just proved that He is a bird</quote>. The
      Mormons had to laugh as they realised the ridiculousness of their
      position.</para>
    </section>
  </section>
  <section id="h2-rules-parables">
    <title>Rule 5 - Understand the purpose of parables and the
    difference between a parable and an allegory</title>
    <para>An allegory is: 
    <emphasis>A story where each element has a
    meaning.</emphasis></para>
    <para>Every parable is an allegory, true or false?</para>
    <para>Some parables are allegories, for instance, the parable of
    the sower is an allegory: the seed is the word of God, the thorns
    are worries and greed, etc. But most parables are not allegories
    but simply stories to illustrate one point. It's dangerous to get
    our doctrine from parables; they can be twisted to say all sorts of
    things. We need to get our doctrine from clear scriptures that lay
    it out; then if a parable illustrates that, fine.</para>
    <section id="h2-rules-parables-ex5a">
      <title>Example 5A</title>
      <para>The parable of the widow with the unrighteous judge in
      Lk.18:1-8. This story illustrates one lesson: boldness in prayer.
      If we draw it into an allegory, what do we have?</para>
      <para>All sorts of violence happens to the meanings: God is
      reluctant to protect the rights of widows, prayer "bothers" Him,
      etc.</para>
    </section>
    <section id="h2-rules-parables-ex5b">
      <title>Example 5B</title>
      <para>The parable of the unrighteous steward in Lk.16:1-9. What
      is the point of the parable? Is it an allegory?</para>
      <para>The steward is commended for only one thing, his shrewdness
      in using what he had to prepare for a time when he wouldn't have
      it. But he is not commended for his unethical behavior in
      cheating his master.</para>
    </section>
  </section>
</chapter>
