diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'docs/howto/unicode/how2-interpretation.docbook')
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/howto/unicode/how2-interpretation.docbook | 212 |
1 files changed, 212 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/docs/howto/unicode/how2-interpretation.docbook b/docs/howto/unicode/how2-interpretation.docbook new file mode 100644 index 0000000..aadc189 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/howto/unicode/how2-interpretation.docbook @@ -0,0 +1,212 @@ +<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 occuring. 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 relaitonship 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 & 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> |