Search
I. As literally as possible
II. No literal and spiritual interpretation within the same sentence, verse, or section
III. One portion not sufficient to represent a whole truth
IV. Every verse containing all the truths
V. Not sacrificing any portion of the Word
VI. All appositional expressions being equal
VII. Neither being confined by the background nor ignoring the background
VIII. Paying attention to the differences in the dispensations
IX. Taking care of the difference in the persons being addressed
X. Persons, events, and objects in the Old Testament not clearly referred to as types not to be treated as types but as illustrations
[In this chapter we need to see some of the principles in interpreting the Bible. If we want to study the Bible, we have to understand the Bible. In order to understand the Bible, we need to interpret it. If there is no interpretation and no explanation, naturally we will have no way to understand the Bible. We know everything has its own principles. The more esteemed and important a matter is, the stricter are its governing principles and laws. If a matter is of no significance or importance, and can be carried out in any way, there will not be any laws, principles, and regulations to speak of. But if a matter is proper, and occupies a definite place and significance, and if it is great and noble, surely there are principles and laws governing it; one cannot carry it out haphazardly.
The Bible is an extremely great item in the universe. Besides our Lord and God of glory, I believe the greatest item in the universe is the Bible we have before our eyes and in our hands. Since the Bible is so important, we need the proper interpretation before we can study or understand it. This interpretation must be governed by definite rules, laws, and principles. We cannot interpret it in this or that or any way we like.
Now that we have seen how the Bible was written, how it was translated into different languages and placed in our hands as an available book, we need to find out the governing principles and laws for its interpretation and study. Not only will this help us to understand the Bible, it will also help us to avoid many errors.
All rules are a kind of protection. If a train has no railroad tracks to run on, not only will it be unable to run smoothly, but it will also be without protection. When there are railroad tracks, the train will move smoothly and will have the proper protection. This is the same way with the study of the Bible. If one studies the Bible and expounds it blindly and carelessly, the result will be inconceivable and even dangerous. Our thoughts are often without restraints. It is very dangerous for a person to judge according to what he thinks and to interpret according to what he perceives. If we want to study the Bible properly and understand it accurately, there must be the restrictive interpretation. If we want a restrictive exposition of the Bible, we need to find out the principles and laws of Bible interpretation. Here we will point out ten such principles.]
[The first principle is to interpret and understand the Bible as literally as possible. We have to grasp firmly the fact that when God inspired men to write the Bible, He used words that are fully comprehensible to man. When we attempt to understand the Bible today, we must understand the thought of God strictly and accurately according to the letter of the words. We should not think that since the Bible is inspired by God, it will always transcend human language, and is therefore open for spiritual interpretation. This is a dangerous proposition. We should interpret the Bible according to the literal meaning of the words. No matter how difficult or out of place a literal interpretation appears to us, we have to adhere strictly to the literal meaning.
Let us mention a few examples. An obvious one is the Old Testament prophecy in Isaiah concerning the Lord Jesus being born of a virgin. Today, the Lord has already been born of a virgin. It is therefore no surprise to us when we read and hear this word. But at the time of Isaiah, when men read what he wrote concerning a virgin bearing a child and calling his name Emmanuel, would they not have had difficulty in their mind? A person would certainly have difficulty in understanding how a virgin can be with child. Some could have turned to a spiritual interpretation, suggesting that the virgin could mean something else rather than an actual virgin. But when this prophecy was fulfilled, it was fulfilled literally. The virgin referred to an actual virgin.
Again the book of Zechariah in the Old Testament prophesied that the Lord Jesus would enter Jerusalem the last time on a colt. When a person read this at that time, they could have found it hard to understand because to them, this One to whom others would proclaim “Hosanna,” the King worthy of praise, the most esteemed One of Israel, could not possibly enter Jerusalem on a little colt. Men would think that it is illogical to ride on a colt. For that reason, they would interpret it spiritually to mean something else. However, when the prophecy was fulfilled, it was fulfilled literally in every way. The word was colt, and it was in fact a colt.
When we read the Bible, on the one hand, we have to receive spiritual inspirations, but on the other hand, we must not alter the literal meaning to fit a spiritual interpretation. Only when a literal interpretation of a prophecy or parable leads to absurdities or improprieties can we interpret them spiritually. But such cases are few in the Bible.
One has to consider carefully whether a passage should be interpreted literally or spiritually. There is a big difference there. I have heard that some have interpreted the locusts in Revelation as today’s airplanes, and the hail from heaven as the bombs dropped by the planes. This is ridiculous. We must be careful not to interpret the Bible too freely. If one wants to find examples of strange and irrational interpretations, he can read the “Signs of the Times,” published by the Seventh-Day Adventists. There one can find many unrestricted and haphazard interpretations. We should not interpret the Bible this way. We should hold fast to the principles and adhere to the literal meanings as much as possible. It is only when a literal interpretation of some words in some visions, prophecies, and parables becomes too absurd and silly that we can interpret them spiritually.]
[We cannot interpret a sentence, a verse, or a section of the Bible spiritually for the first part and literally for the second part. We should not do that the other way around either. If a passage is to be interpreted spiritually, it should be interpreted spiritually throughout. If a passage is to be interpreted literally, it must be interpreted literally throughout. For example, the Lord Jesus said in John 3 that unless one is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Many Bible expositors have interpreted the water here spiritually as referring to the word of God. However, in the next phrase, they take the Spirit literally, referring to it as the Holy Spirit. This kind of interpretation is wrong and is against the principle of Bible interpretation. If one would interpret the Spirit in the second part literally, he must interpret the water in the first part literally also. If one interprets the water spiritually, he must interpret the Spirit spiritually also. Since one cannot interpret the Spirit spiritually, neither can he interpret the water spiritually; it must be interpreted literally.
In Matthew 3, John the Baptist said, “I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I...He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire; whose winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly cleanse His threshing floor and will gather His wheat into His barn, but He will burn the chaff with unquenchable fire” (vv. 11-12). Some expositors have interpreted the fire here spiritually as tribulations and trials. Some have even interpreted this to be the Holy Spirit burning as a fire. All these have interpreted the word fire spiritually. But in this verse, the water mentioned by John is actual water, and the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit, literally. Therefore, the fire in the latter part should not be interpreted spiritually, but rather, literally. If the word fire has to be interpreted spiritually, then the water should also be interpreted spiritually. However, it is impossible to do this. This is an important principle in the interpretation of the Bible. For the different parts within a same passage, either they must all be interpreted literally, or they must all be interpreted spiritually. They cannot be interpreted both ways.]
[In interpreting the Bible, we have to pay attention to one more thing: one portion of the Word is not sufficient to represent the whole truth. In other words, there is no truth that can be fully explained in a single portion of the Word. Therefore, in reading and interpreting the Bible, we should pay attention to the words “again it is written.” This is the word spoken by the Lord Jesus in Matthew 4:7. When the Lord was tempted, the devil quoted to the Lord the words in Psalm 91 that God would give charge to His angels to bear Him up, lest He strike His foot against a stone. The devil argued that He could jump from the top of the temple and would not be hurt because there is such a promise in the Old Testament. This is how the devil tempted the Lord Jesus with an isolated passage of the Old Testament. When the Lord heard that, He answered right away, “Again it is written, You shall not tempt the Lord your God.” This shows us that we cannot consider one isolated portion of the Bible alone. Instead, we must consider two, three, or more portions of the Word together.
If we neglect the principle of “again it is written,” but apply the words of the Bible in an isolated way, we will easily be deceived by the wiles of the devil. If the devil cannot stop someone from following the Bible, he will cause that one to quote the Bible in an isolated way. Of course, Satan would wish that we do not do anything according to the Bible. But many times, he knows that this is impossible. All those who love and fear the Lord want to walk according to the Bible. The devil cannot stop us from following the Bible or walking according to the Bible. He can only use other ways, one of which is to cause us to follow the Bible in an isolated way. In this way we are driven to the extreme and forget the words that say “again it is written.”
This word “again” is too big a word. We should put a circle around it. This shows us that when we follow the Bible, we should not do so in an isolated way. We should consider both sides and even all sides. No single portion of the Bible can represent the whole truth, in the same way that no one face of a house can represent the whole house completely. Even we ourselves are the same. If we take a picture from behind, there is not a single hole in the head. But if we take a picture from the front, there are clearly seven holes. Any single side of a man cannot represent the whole person. The same can be said of the words of the Bible. Any one portion of the Bible cannot represent the whole truth, and we have to be balanced in every way. Hence, we have to remember the principle of “again it is written.”]
[No single verse can represent the whole truth. However, every verse of the Bible contains all the truths. On the one hand, no single verse can include the whole truth, and to understand a truth, one cannot rely on one verse alone, but has to consider many other verses. On the other hand, in determining any truth, one has to consider every verse. Each verse in the Bible contains all the truths.
One brother once said that any single verse in the Bible requires the whole Bible to explain it. This is very true. If one wants to understand Genesis 1:1, he has to understand the whole Bible. On the one hand, Genesis 1:1 cannot contain the whole truth. On the other hand, Genesis 1:1 includes all the truths of the Bible.
Therefore, in determining any truth, we cannot rely on one portion of the Bible alone. Instead, we have to depend on all the words of the Bible. In a similar way, the exposition of any single verse cannot be based on its own context; instead it must be based on the whole Bible. Second Peter 1:20 says that no prophecy of the Scripture is of one’s own interpretation. The original meaning of this verse is that the prophecy of the Bible should not be interpreted according to its own context. This means to interpret any prophecy, one has to study all the prophecies in the Bible, and has to make decisions based on all the prophecies of the Bible. Only then will the interpretation be complete.]
[In determining a truth, sometimes many related verses indicate a certain meaning, but two or three among them cannot be explained in that kind of way. One cannot say that because there were only one or two verses that could not be explained that way, one can therefore sacrifice them and base the exposition on the majority of the verses. If one does that, he is sacrificing a small number of verses. We cannot do this. As long as one or two verses do not allow a certain interpretation, we have to give up that interpretation. We have to respect every portion of the Bible. Only when an interpretation harmonizes with the whole Bible can this interpretation be considered reliable. Any verse that forbids a certain interpretation of the truth must not be sacrificed. Instead, that certain interpretation must be abandoned, and we must wait for God’s further revelation. If we study the Bible this way, we will not fall easily into error.]
[There are many expressions in the Bible that are in apposition one to another. All these appositional expressions are equal and are not different. For example, Matthew 5 speaks of nine blessings. It says, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of the heavens,” and “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” These are matching expressions, with the first expression matching the second one. In this case, with every blessing, there is first the condition for blessing and then the blessing itself. All matching expressions are equal. If the first part of one expression specifies a condition, then all first parts of matching expressions specify conditions also. If the second part of one expression specifies a blessing, then the second parts of all expressions specify blessings also. This is another principle or rule.]
[In interpreting the Bible, one should not be confined by the background, nor should he ignore the background. For example, in the Lord’s sermon on the mount, many words are spoken with a Jewish background. The Lord says, “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has anything against you,” (Matt. 5:23) and so on. This offering of the gift at the altar is based wholly on the background of Judaism. If you want to understand the original meaning of this word, you cannot neglect the background of the time. The Jews offered their gift at the altar then for the purpose of drawing nigh to God and fellowshipping with Him. If you grasp hold of this principle, you will realize that the Lord’s words refer to a man offering something before God and fellowshipping with God. Therefore, we cannot neglect the background. Rather, we should understand the background.
On the other hand, we should not be confined to the background. We cannot teach people to go to the altar to offer gifts now just because the Lord Jesus has spoken such a word. If you are confined by this background, you will have a big problem. Hence, we must see that we cannot neglect the background; if we do, we will not understand the exact meaning of the Bible. On the other hand, we must be careful not to be confined to the background lest we fall into error.]
[God’s words to man are divided into dispensations. Some words were spoken by God to man in the dispensation of the law. Some words were spoken by God to man in the dispensation of grace. When we try to understand these words, we must differentiate between the different dispensations. We should not apply the words spoken in the dispensation of the law to the dispensation of grace. This is the mistake of the Seventh-Day Adventists in keeping the Sabbath. Keeping the Sabbath is a commandment that God gave to man in the dispensation of the law. When one comes to the age of grace, it is a different matter altogether. But the Seventh-Day Adventists hold on to Exodus 20 and say that since God clearly spoke about the Sabbath, we should therefore keep the Sabbath today. It is true that God spoke of keeping the Sabbath, but this is a matter in the dispensation of the law and not in the dispensation of grace.
There is another example. In Psalms it says that our children in the flesh are God’s blessings. Please remember that this is a word in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, this is no longer true. One cannot find anything in the New Testament that says that the children of the flesh are blessings. Although I cannot say that the children of the flesh are now curses, I dare to assure you that the children of the flesh are burdens and lessons. Today, in the dispensation of grace, the real blessing is the spiritual children.
In the same principle, God promised His chosen people in the Old Testament that they would prosper and enlarge their territory on the earth. But it is exactly the opposite in the New Testament. If you stood on the podium today and quoted the Old Testament words, telling the brothers and sisters, “Thank God, He has promised that if we fear Him, He will enlarge our territory and everyone will be a great landowner,” this would be entirely wrong. There is such a promise in the Bible, but this promise is not under grace, but under the law. In the New Testament age, God said that we should forsake our land and sell it to give to the poor. This is exactly opposite to the Old Testament age.
Although all these are words of the Bible and are all inspired by God, we should not take the words of the old dispensation and apply them to the present dispensation. The Catholics and many Protestants err on this point. There are many things in Catholicism that come from Judaism in the Old Testament. Even the clothing worn by their priests and their rituals of worship are all a borrowing of the principle of the Old Testament. Surely those things are mentioned in the Bible, but they are not for our present dispensation. In expounding and interpreting the Bible, one cannot say, “Is not this the word of the Bible? If it is, we should keep it.” We cannot speak in this way. We have to differentiate the ages; that is, we have to know clearly to which dispensation a word belongs. If you are not in a certain dispensation, then the words for that dispensation have nothing to do with you.]
[In expounding the Bible, one has to take care of the persons to whom a word is spoken. Some words are spoken to the Jews, and they are not related to the nations or to the church. Some words are spoken to the nations and have nothing to do with the Jews or with the church. Some words are spoken to the church and have nothing to do with the Jews or with the nations.
First Corinthians 10:32 says, “Give no occasion of stumbling both to Jews and to Greeks [referring to nations] and to the church of God.” In the Bible, there are at least these three kinds of people to whom God speaks His words: the Jews, the nations, and the church. In the Old Testament, the majority of the words were spoken to the Jews. In the New Testament, there are many words that are spoken to the church. At the same time, whether in the New Testament or the Old, there are some words spoken to the nations. We should differentiate between these when we read them and should find out to whom the words are spoken. We should differentiate clearly between the different persons to whom a word is addressed, whether it is to the Jews, to the nations, or to the church. First we identify the persons spoken to, then we can make the proper judgment.
For example, some Bible scholars have had strong disputes concerning whom the book of Matthew was addressed to. There are many expositors who assert that Matthew was for the Jews and not for the church. They point out the Jewish background of the words in Matthew, saying that the Lord Jesus was clearly referring to offering gifts at the altar. To them this is a proof that these words are for the Jews. The Lord Jesus clearly spoke about the judgment of the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was an organization of the Jews. They also point out Matthew 24 which mentions the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place. To them the holy place clearly belongs to the Jews. The Lord also said that when one encounters the great tribulation, he should pray that his flight may not be on a Sabbath. Would the church still keep the Sabbath? Since these people who receive the word keep the Sabbath, are they not Jews? These scholars point out many examples like these to prove that the book of Matthew is spoken to the Jews. If it were so, this would be very serious, because the whole book of Matthew would no longer be our inheritance.
After we read through the book of Matthew carefully, we have to admit that the words in Matthew 5 certainly have their Jewish background, but they are not spoken to the Jews; rather, they are spoken to the people of the kingdom of the heavens. The kingdom people not only include the saved ones among the Jews, but they also include the converted ones from among the nations. The kingdom people are the church. Because among the kingdom people there were some who had formerly been in Judaism, and who had a Jewish background, the Lord Jesus had to use things related to that background when He gave the sermon on the mount at that time. There are more discussions in chapters twenty-four and twenty-five of Matthew. If you read carefully, you will find that a portion was spoken to the Jews, a portion was spoken to the church, and a portion was spoken to the nations. In chapter twenty-four, verses 1 through 31 are spoken to the Jews. Verse 32 to chapter twenty-five verse 30 is spoken to the church. Verse 31 to the end of the chapter is spoken to the nations. In studying the Bible, before we make a decision on an interpretation, we must first ascertain the person to whom a word is spoken. Only then can we understand and interpret the words accurately.]
[We know that there are many types in the Old Testament. Some types are simply individual persons, such as Isaac, who typified the Lord Jesus as the inheriting son, and Rebecca, who typified the bride gained by Christ — the church. Some types are events, such as the Passover of the Israelites which signifies our salvation before God when we received the slain Christ as our Savior. Another example is the children of Israel’s exodus from Egypt, which signifies our going out from the world. There are also some types that are objects, such as the lamb typifying Christ and the brass serpent also typifying Christ.
In the Old Testament, many persons, events, and objects are types, but it is not up to us to decide whether or not they are types. We have to find out the clear evidence from the New Testament. If there is no mention in the New Testament of the object, the events, or the person as a type, then we should not rashly surmise that they are a type. At the most, we can only borrow these persons, events, and objects as illustrations and use them to explain the truths in the New Testament. To say that something is a type means more than to say that it is merely an illustration.]
[Here we are only presenting and pointing out briefly these ten principles of interpretation of the Bible. These principles have evolved gradually from hundreds or thousands of years of experience of Bible study. They are like the cream of the milk and the honey of the bees, and are very precious. I hope we can all remember them clearly. These all are our aids and restrictions. I hope that from now on all the brothers and sisters will apply these principles in their study of the Bible. If we apply them, we will find new meaning to the Bible and will have a better, more accurate, and thorough understanding.]
