Interpretation

Introduction

( ) = observations not expressly made by scripture itself

                  We may wonder what definition to put on “fulfill” if it covers such a wide range of ideas as (1) a prediction’s coming to pass, (2) an event that illustrates a generalized principle (Acts 1:20?), (3) the accomplishment of something that was also the purpose of something else (the gospel’s fulfilling the Mosaic law: Matthew 5:17; cp. Romans 3:31?), (4) an obedience that accomplished what was commanded (Romans 13:8-10), (5) a necessary inference from another passage, (6) a meeting of the requirements for something (“This course fulfills the requirement”), and (7) a mere formal similarity (? Matthew 2:18, 23; perhaps 2:15).

                  For interpreters to do their work properly, they must be able to bring to the text an awareness of as many linguistic and conceptual features as appear and are presupposed in the materials they are trying to understand. Jesus’ hearers in John 7:34-36 wondered whether he would go among the Gentiles or Diasporic Jews when he said, “You cannot go where I am going.” They could not understand him because in their minds they did not have the possibility of Messiah’s ascension to heaven. The same thing happened with the Sadducees when they presented Jesus with the problem about a woman married to seven brothers in succession. They did not understand the power of God to generate new possibilities beyond what they could already conceive of on the basis of past experience.

                Historical backgrounds are important because they illuminate scripture. In addition, they often confirm the biblical record and occasionally may even help prove its trustworthiness in regard to things that can be tested. Consequently, we tend to view historical backgrounds favorably as a valuable resource. This presentation, however, stresses another observation. Like all sources of information, historical background, misused, can harm rather than help biblical studies. In the wrong hands, it can be invoked in ways that detract from hermeneutical and apologetic concerns.

            A. Observations against Jonah as history

Introduction

                  Several hermeneutical questions arise about the New Testament writers’ use of Old Testament texts. In cases like Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1, we may broaden the definitions of prophecy and fulfillment as a way of legitimizing his use of the prophet’s comment. Making this move reflects a prior commitment to the principle that inspiration makes New Testament authors “forever correct.” People’s prior commitment to “inerrancy” causes them to take a positive view on a text that they might not otherwise have chosen or would otherwise consider a matter of opinion. That does not weaken its validity; it merely demonstrates consistency. We cannot with finality settle some questions directly. We take views on derivative issues that harmonize with primary views. On the other hand, the possibility of other imaginable reasons for a writer’s use of an earlier text does not invalidate one affirmed because of assumed inerrancy. We are involved here in the distinction between a presuppositional and phenomenological approach to the view of scripture. Without the assumption that divine inspiration kept writers from error, we would have less justification for using insights from one writer to clarify ambiguous words of another writer, for harmonizing two authors who could otherwise mean incompatible things, for interpreting biblical statements so as not to conflict with information we learn from science, for choosing this interpretation from among two or more otherwise equally plausible views, given only the text itself, or even for taking a less likely sounding interpretation.

            The difference between law and wisdom as well as the relationship between them showed up in an article on the adult offspring of divorce by Irene Sege published in the Boston Globe (see The Manhattan Mercury for Friday, December 20, 1995, D1). Generalizations about these young people show that their parents’ divorce measurably affects a sizable portion of their children when they grow up.

            Many of the examples below raise issues that are not in themselves very important. We offer them, however, as (1) “exercises” in hermeneutical creativity on matters where frankly it does not hurt to be wrong. Besides, it is not healthy to get in the habit of “dodging” critical issues because they impact (2) evaluating biblical accuracy. Though the points themselves are often not significant, their existence in a religious text does raise a point that is significant—whether people can trust the biblical accounts. Distrusting them for unnecessary reasons should be avoided, and we cannot legitimately trust them without correct exegetical work as a means of properly avoiding unnecessary criticism of scripture.

                  The first portion of Matthew 5-7 has to do with the first “petal on our daisy”: Blessings and Responsibilities (5:3-16). Before looking at the meaning of the verses individually, we must see how the structure of the sermon may affect its interpretation. Since it is wisdom literature, it is loosely structured. The significance of this point can be appreciated by looking at Luke’s Sermon on the Plain (6:20-49), which has several close parallels with the Sermon on the Mount. Despite similarities many interpreters consider them different presentations, partly because they may fall at different points in Jesus’ ministry. Regardless of whether they are two accounts of the same sermon or different accounts of two sermons, Luke’s rearrangement of similar material shows that we should be cautious about making too much out of connectors between blocks of material. In other words, context connections in wisdom literature are less helpful in interpretation, because the writer tends to connect his paragraphs more loosely. They are self-contained units more than interdependent ones. In yet other places Luke has bits and pieces that appear in Matthew 5-7. Luke 13:22-24ff. compares with Matthew 7:21-23 on the judgment scene and the narrow gate. Luke 16:17-18 parallels Matthew 5:18 and 32, which includes the “jot and tittle” statement and the ethics of marriage. The connections we see between portions of the sermon may not have been as strong in Jesus’ mind as they might look to us. The structure of Matthew’s account may be more apparent than real. Observations based on sequence and association may be well to make, but their validity probably rests more on the nature of adjacent subjects than on their placement.

         The following examples provide occasions for working through paradoxes, apparent contradictions, hard sayings, and ambiguous comments. A summary of ways to resolve difficulties accompanies the course description and agenda sheets: “Resolving Apparent Contradictions in Scripture.”

(NOTE: This author has adopted the non-standard policy of using bold type for chapters as an aid to the eye in distinguishing chapters and verses. That practice helps especially with long lists of chapters-and-verses as in 1 Kings 21:21, 29; 2 Kings 6:33; 21:12; 22:16.)

In general, Greek raises possibilities of interpretation we would not think from the English wording. Sometimes the Greek eliminates ideas the English wording might suggest. The Greek helps us understand why translations differ at certain points, and alerts us to ambiguities in the original text so we do not get dogmatic about a certain idea in the passage. Greek awareness enables us to use study tools like Greek concordance, lexicons, and commentaries that discuss the original text.

Mode    Text                            Wording                                     sign             Pharaoh’s            

                                                                                                                            offer          

       c   Ex 4:21           I will harden Pharaoh’s heart

       c         7:3             "   "        "             "           "

Introduction 

A.   Interpretation of texts often comes in terms of the assumed overall viewpoints, more than by the requirements of the text under discussion. Hence, we can’t solve the problem itself because we are not dealing with the whole viewpoint that gives credence to the idea on this text.

VII. HERMENEUTICS AND LIFE

INTRODUCTION: Nature of Language Communication

                  8. Hindrances to interpretation

                        c. Irrationalism (improper thinking patterns)

b. Presuppositions (accompanying misinformation)

                  Even though the Sermon on the Mount is wisdom literature and therefore less structured, it has pattern and carries a unifying theme. The initial set of beatitudes introduces statements of responsibility for being God’s light and salt in the world. To accomplish that purpose, Jesus’ disciples must correct their thinking at points like the ones he mentions. We should not misconstrue this correcting as discarding previous revelation, but as fulfilling it by proper understanding. In 5:20 Jesus tells his followers that their righteousness needs to exceed that of contemporary religious leaders, a comment clarified by six illustrations. Under the contrast formula “You have heard that it was said by them of old time . . . but I tell you     . . .” Jesus discusses murder, adultery and divorce, oath taking, revenge, and love. Chapter 6:1-18 is a further unit about hypocrisy.

                  B. Interchange of Nature, State, and Action Terms

In dealing with controversial passages, interpreters make their choice by their understanding of the big picture, the general understanding, the conceptual context. They follow this procedure even with passages that at first glance would call for a more likely-sounding interpretation. The readers may choose a less likely sounding meaning because of the general understanding they bring to the text. In such cases, where more than one reading is possible, the text doesn’t prove either idea that the readers are bringing to it; that text rises no higher than confirmatory evidence in contrast to primary proof. The passage falls out of the process of arriving at the general understanding. That general understanding must come from someplace else or from other places taken together.

 IV. INTERPRETING VARIOUS CLASSES OF LITERATURE

            A. An allegory: parallels between working a puzzle and interpreting the Bible

                  Our study of the Sermon on the Mount brings us to Matthew 5:17-20, the second “petal” on the daisy. We have entitled it “Jesus and the Law” because it shows how his ministry and teaching relate to God’s earlier revelation. This paragraph introduces Jesus’ objection to the Pharisees. He contrasts his teaching more with theirs than with the Old Testament Law itself. The verses deal with his concern that people not misunderstand what he is teaching.

            Several well-known scriptures combine love and hate. They appear first as worded in the New American Standard Bible followed by the wording in the Conversational Version. The manner of expression in the latter represents what gets at the Hebrew idioms that impact this set of words. After the examples, there are notations about the rationale for the translation in the Conversional Version.

            Comments below have more to do with interpretation mistakes than with false ideas. Regardless of the correctness of the beliefs involved, many texts do not indicate them.

                  This chapter looks at Matthew 5:33-48, dealing first with verses 33-37 on taking oaths. Jesus said,

                  When Jesus says, “Do not judge,” he raises four questions: (1) What does judge mean? (2) Why do we do it? (3) Why should we stop it? (4) How can we stop it? We can study Matthew 7:1-6 by asking these questions about the text.

            D.  Adopting an inappropriate model (cp. allegorizing comparisons and nature of the

            J. Confusing advice and commandment

            C. Confusing example and precedent

            F. Confusing language and reality

            B. Misidentifying the genre

            E. Misidentifying the Intended Reference (frame of reference)

            G.  Reading restrictive for nonrestrictive (or positive)

            I. Setting the conclusion and then working toward it

            H. Technicalizing terminology

V. PITFALLS IN INTERPRETATION

            A.  Allegorizing the comparison

Genesis 3:20: “He named his wife Eve because she was the mother of all living.” Evolution

                        Resolving apparent contradictions in scripture calls for proper methods of interpretation. The approach assumes the inerrancy of scripture; brain teasers often become paradoxes in wording rather than real contradictions. The approach also assumes that scripture is divine in such a way that makes it harmonious throughout. The mechanisms available for harmonizing scriptures with each other and with experience amount to the same mechanisms for interpreting human language in general. What we do to clear up ambiguities we do to resolve difficulties. Apparent difficulties arise because either or both sides of a dilemma are unclear, but readers do not realize that when they sense a problem with the text. The following list is a brief list of mechanisms for resolving apparent discrepancies.

Basic claim: law is artificial to interpersonal process and detrimental to Christianity; law impacts interpretation, faith, and practice. We are calling the Christian worldview “interpersonal” because persons in relationship are the most original, eternal, supreme, basic, pervasive, universal, and complex aspect of the system. Christianity’s prominent vocabulary deals with persons relating positively to one another: love, faith, grace, mercy, promise, truth (in communication), conscience, heart, mind, blessing, righteousness, reconciliation, joy (vs. happiness), humility, peace (vs. national tranquility), spirit (vs. physical circumcision for naturalization into a physical nation). All the features of interpersonalism contrast with their opposites. The first and second great commandments (cp. Golden Rule) deal with love, the summarizing, most important, outward-directed pattern of interpersonal action, which produces the other interpersonal actions. As Micah 6:8 said of old, “What does the Lord require of you but to do justly, love kindness, and walk humbly with your God” (cp. Deuteronomy 10:12-13; Isaiah 66:2).

  II.      SELECTED LINGUISTIC PHENOMENA (Note Dr. Warren’s Ph.D. dissertation The Implication of Divine Self-Consistency for the Doctrine of Natural Depravity, pp. 152-70.)

                  Matthew 6:19-34 gives us an opportunity to use a simple method of Bible study. It consists of asking a question and reading scripture with an eye for answers. We may be surprised at how often scripture addresses such questions. Familiar scriptures take on a fresh light because new experiences establish a new context for seeing new applications. The answers were not noticed before because we were not prepared for them. Matthew 6 offers insights into matters we never thought the Bible even addressed. 

        This write-up describes methods of study applied to the Book of Hebrews. It follows the examples in Merrill C. Tenney’s commentary on Galatians: The Charter of Christian Liberty.

Is there a verse or set of verses in scripture that supports the hermeneutical principle (biblical/systematic) that specific passages are to be understood within the overall context of scripture itself, or is this a logical principle of interpretation put together from experience?

INTRODUCTION:  The Nature of Language Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    

                  Our study of Matthew 5-7 has progressed around the daisy outline to the model prayer. We discussed 6:1-18 under the heading of hypocrisy. The accompanying diagram shows how the model prayer fits inside that larger portion. Jesus’ comments about giving, prayer, and fasting follow a pattern that includes “they have their reward,” doing their alms, praying and fasting “in secret,” and “your Father will reward you openly.” His statements about prayer lead into the “model prayer,” a subset in this format for 6:1-18. 

 VI. TESTING OTHER PEOPLE’S INTERPRETATION

                  One of the biggest plagues in Bible study is failing to see the “big picture.” We tend to read a verse and discuss it. As a result, that statement gets lifted from its setting and put in the context of people’s interests or problems even when it may not belong there. Foreign ideas come into the picture because context is not kept in mind. Bible study needs to cover large portions to keep in sight the general flow of thought. In addition, the total purpose and character of Christian understanding must provide the framework for individual doctrines.

 III. GENERAL MECHANICS BEHIND INTERPRETATION

            C. Consequent nature of appropriating scripture (illumination)

                  Isaiah 35:8 prophesied that there would be “a highway of holiness” that only the redeemed would pass over. A wayfaring man, though a fool, would not err in it. Life gets complicated sometimes, but scripture teaches one principle that simplifies it for everyone regardless of capacity or station.

                  Matthew 5-7 records the Sermon on the Mount. This study presents thirteen lessons on that material. First, we look at the structure of the whole presentation. It is “wisdom literature,” an especially appropriate expression in this case because Jesus closes with an illustration about a wise man who built his house on ledge rock. “Wisdom” lies not only in knowing what to do, but in doing it. It is application in addition to information. Wisdom is living life among men according to the will of God. It means more than avoiding evil and doing good; it means aiming at doing best. That is always the wise way to live.

                The previous study on Matthew 7:12 dealt with the meaning of the Golden Rule. This study looks at the impact of the Golden Rule on individuals and on their relationships. In the parallel between “[Do] [to others] [as you would have others do to you]” and “[Love] [your neighbor] [as yourself],” we made two primary observations. (1) Do replaces love; so love is an action that can be commanded. That doing is a giving of ourselves for the joy of others. Often love means giving of ourselves for the needs of others, but we can also love God, who “is not served by men’s hands as though he needed anything” (Acts 17:25). It is better, then, to define love broadly enough to include loving him. When we meet people’s needs, we are increasing their happiness; so love becomes self-giving for the joy of others.

            Knowing biblical languages does not leave you so much at the mercy of translations. One disadvantage of having to work through a translation is that (a) no two languages match up exactly. A vocabulary item in one language seldom has the same range of denotations and connotations as the closest corresponding word(s) in another. The same thing applies to phrases, sentences, word endings, and particularly idioms, a culture’s customary usages of its language’s mechanisms.