Methods of Biblical Interpretation-Hermeneutics

Back to Q & A

What do you think is the most egregious mistake in the interpretation of the Bible?

The most egregious error is when the interpreter takes a sentence or verse out of its context and develops a pretext for whatever he wants it to mean.  An example of this is the false notion about Philippians 4:13 "I can do all things through Him who strengthens me".  As a stand-alone statement it appears to be saying that with God I can "achieve" anything.  However, even a casual observance of the context will lead one to conclude it is about the power to experience "contentment" in any situation-rich or poor, success or failure.  Philippians 4:11. "Not that I speak from want; for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am.  12 I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need.  13.  I can do all things through Him who strengthens me."  The power of verse 13 is the secret to verse 12.  To make this about achievement does danger to God's Word.

The problem is not only the development of a concept not found in the passage, but it is also missing the revelation that the power of God will produce contentment in poverty. The interpreter has developed a false notion that God will help us get more, accomplish more and sets up a paradigm of accomplishment not found in the passage thus creating a lack of contentment.

Back to top

 

What is the difference between allegorical and literal interpretation?

  • Allegorical Interpretation:

        The allegorical interpretation method adds to the literal meaning of                     words and phrases and gives a spiritual meaning not clearly seen in the             text. Allegorism is the method of interpreting a literary text in such that             it regards the literal sense of the text as a vehicle for a secondary, more             spiritual sense.

  • Literal interpretation:

        The literal method of interpretation ascribes the same meaning to                     each word, phrase or context that would be given to any piece of                     literature.  The literal interpretive method employs the                                     Grammatical-historical approach to Scripture.  This guarantees that                 grammar and historical background are considered in the process of                 analyzing the text.

  • Problems with the allegorical interpretation method:
    • This method does not interpret Scripture; it spiritualizes words, phrases, and concepts.  There is no concrete attachment to the context, the setting and the background of a text.
    • The authority of the interpretation is the interpreter, not the text itself.  The text takes on a meaning ascribed by the interpreter.
    • The interpreter must rely totally on an "apriori" (i.e. deductive) approach to Scripture.
    • After the "interpretation" is completed there is no way to verify the accuracy of the interpretation.
    • Once a spiritualized conclusion has been reached, the application will most likely be disconnected from Divine truth.
  • The benefit of the literal interpretation method:
    • The meaning is attached to the text, not the imaginations of man.
    • The syntactical structure and background to the text is the source of authority and maintains a proper meaning to the text, avoiding double meaning.
    • It employs exegesis (an explanation or critical interpretation of a text) not isegesis (the interpretation of a text by reading into it one's own idea).
    • It recognizes the figurative language, allegories, types, symbols and parables in the Bible. Only through a literal approach can the true meaning of figurative language be found. (e.g. Metaphors and similes have corresponding truths that can be reached only through a literal analysis.)

Back to top

 

Why do some see the church and Israel as the same?

The promises are made to Israel and not to the church.  There are those who feel because the Church is equated with the Kingdom of God that Israel is the church.  Some of the promises made to Israel are in a secondary sense fulfilled in the church and so some have confounded the Church and Israel.  What should be noted is the clear distinction between Israel and the church in the New Testament. 

The promises made to Israel will be given literally to Israel.  The covenant was made by God to Israel.  The future of Israel is bright and filled with hope in that the Lord will literally reign and fulfill the Abrahamic, Davidic and Palestinian Covenants.

Back to top

 

Do you believe in dispensationalism?

Yes, I make a distinction between the relationship of God to man in especially four ways:

  1. Pre-Law (Adam to Abraham)
  2. Law (to Israel)
  3. Grace (Pentecost to the Rapture of the Church)
  4. Millennium (primarily to Israel and secondarily to all in the Kingdom of God).


God clearly required a different walk for the children of Israel under the Law than He does for the Church today.  The failure to recognize this distinction has lead to much confusion among believers.   The failure to see that God made specific promises to Israel that will be fulfilled only to Israel leads to many mistakes in the study of apocalyptic prophecy.

Back to top