GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.
1. Since the Bible addresses men in human language, and according to
human modes of thinking and speaking, the interpreter's first work is to
ascertain the _meaning of the terms_ employed. Here he must proceed as
in the case of other writings, seeking by the aid of grammars, lexicons,
cognate languages, ancient versions, ancient interpreters, and whatever
other outward helps are available, to gain a thorough knowledge of the
language employed by the Holy Spirit in his revelations to men. To these
external sources of knowledge he will add all the internal light which
comes from a careful consideration of the context, of the author's known
use of terms, of parallel passages, etc.
In the case of the New Testament, a knowledge of classical Greek will
not be sufficient. The interpreter must superadd a thorough acquaintance
with the peculiar dialect of the New Testament (Chap. 24, No. 5), and
also the special usages of particular writers. The apostle John, to
adduce a single instance, applies the term _Logos_, _Word_, to the Son
of God. But we cannot argue from this for a like usage by other writers;
as, for example, in the well-known passage: "The word of God is quick
and powerful," etc. Heb. 4:12.
Usage alone is often insufficient to determine the meaning of a word in
a particular passage; for (1) the term may occur nowhere else, (2) it
may have in current usage two or more different significations. In the
former case, the interpreter must avail himself of all the external
helps above specified, and especially of the light shed upon the meaning
of the term in question by the context. In the latter case, the context
must be his chief guide. The same Greek word, for example, signifies
_stature_ (Luke 19:3) and _age_ (Heb. 11:11). In the interpretation of
Matt. 6:27, where our version reads: "Which of you by taking thought can
add one cubit unto his stature?" the question may naturally enough arise
in which of these two senses the Saviour employed it. Whatever may be
the decision, it must have for its basis not simple usage, which is
ambiguous, but the connection of the word in the context. Many like
examples might be adduced.
It has been already remarked (Chap. 24, No. 5) that in New Testament
usage many words have a technical and therefore peculiar meaning. We are
not at liberty, however, to determine such technical meanings at random,
or in accordance with any preconceived opinions. It can only be done, as
in the case of all other writings, in accordance with the acknowledged
laws of interpretation. The general result, then, at which we arrive is,
that in determining the meaning of scriptural terms we must be guided by
the same rules which we follow in the interpretation of other writings.
2. From the signification of particular words we proceed to the
consideration of the _sense_ embodied in the language of the sacred
writers. A knowledge of the words which enter into the composition of a
sentence does not of itself give us a true apprehension of the sense
which the writer seeks to convey. We must know the writer's aim, the
shape and course of his argument, the ideas which he is combating as
well as those which he seeks to establish, the emphatic words of the
sentence, whether he wishes to be understood literally or figuratively,
and various other particulars; all which are to be ascertained by the
same rules which we employ in the interpretation of language generally.
3. The _scope_ or _design_ of the inspired writer may be _general_ or
_special_; the former being his design in writing the whole work in
question, the latter, his design in particular sections of it. "The
scope," it has been well observed, "is the soul or spirit of a book;
and, that being once ascertained, every argument and every word appears
in its right place, and is perfectly intelligible; but if the scope be
not duly considered, every thing becomes obscure, however clear and
obvious its meaning may really be." Horne's Introduct., vol. 2, p. 265,
edit. of 1860. This language is not too strong. It is by a neglect or
perversion of the scope that the meaning of the inspired writers is
perverted, and they are made to contradict one another.
The apostle Paul says, for example: "Therefore we conclude that a man is
justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Rom. 3:28. The apostle
James: "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by
faith only." James 2:24. If one insists on leaving out of account the
separate and distinct design which each of these two writers had in view
respectively, he can easily bring their words into contradiction. Had
the scope of Paul's argument been to show that faith in Christ
_releases_ men from the obligation of obeying the divine law, and thus
makes good works unnecessary; or had James been laboring to prove that
good works are the _meritorious ground_ of men's forgiveness, then the
doctrines of the two apostles would have been irreconcilably at
variance. But we know that neither of these suppositions is true. Paul
was combating the error of the Pharisees "who trusted in themselves that
they were righteous"--righteous on the ground of "the deeds of the
law"--"and despised others." His aim was to show that men receive
forgiveness and salvation neither wholly nor in part on the ground of
the supposed merit of their good works, but wholly through faith in
Christ; as he elsewhere argues that "if it be by grace, then it is no
more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace." Rom. 11:6. We know
also, from the whole tenor of his writings, that he condemned as
spurious that pretended faith which does not manifest itself in good
works. In this very epistle, where the question is not concerning the
meritorious ground of justification, but concerning that character which
God will accept, the apostle lays down the great principle: "Unto them
that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey
unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon
every soul of man that doeth evil; of the Jew first, and also of the
Gentile; but glory, honor, and peace to every man that worketh good; to
the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: for there is no respect of
persons with God." Rom. 2:8-11. If now we turn to the epistle of James,
we find that the faith without works which he condemns as dead is one of
mere empty notions--an inoperative belief _about_ Christ instead of that
hearty trust _in_ him which brings the heart and life into subjection to
his authority. In a word, Paul condemns, as dead, works without faith;
James, faith without works. The one rejects dead works (Heb. 9:14); the
other, dead faith. Between these two judgments there is no
contradiction. We have dwelt somewhat at large upon this example of
alleged contradiction for the purpose of full illustration. The same
mode of reasoning might be applied to many other passages, where a
knowledge of the writer's design is essential to the true apprehension
of his meaning.
Such being the importance of the scope, the question arises: How shall
it be ascertained? Here mechanical rules will be of little avail. The
attentive and judicious reader will be able, in general, to gather it
from the various indications given by the writer himself, or from the
known circumstances in which he wrote, just as in the case of other
writings.
Sometimes an author directly _states_ his general end, or his design in
writing a particular section of his work. An example of the former kind
is John 20:31: "These things are written that ye might believe that
Jesus is the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through
his name;" of the latter kind, 1 Cor. 7:1: "Now concerning the things
whereof ye wrote unto me," etc.; whence we learn that in this particular
chapter the apostle's design is to answer certain inquiries of the
Corinthian Christians in regard to the relation of marriage. More
commonly the writer's scope is indicated indirectly by various
_inferential remarks_, as in the passage already quoted: "Therefore we
conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law,"
which is in fact a statement of the apostle's design in the preceding
argument. See Horne's Introduct., vol. 2, pp. 266, 267, where the author
follows Morus, Hermeneutica, 1.2.2.
Sometimes a clear light is shed upon the design of a writer or speaker
by a knowledge of _historical circumstances_; especially, of his own
position and that of his opponents. The twenty-third chapter of Matthew,
in which the Saviour exposes the wickedness and doctrinal errors of the
scribes and Pharisees, and denounces upon them the judgments of heaven,
cannot be thoroughly understood without a knowledge of the system of
Pharisaism, and the high position of authority and influence which the
Pharisees held; sitting, as they did, in Moses' seat, imposing upon the
people their human traditions in place of God's commandments,
substituting a religion of outward forms for one of inward faith, love,
and obedience, and thus taking away from the people the key of divine
knowledge. It was necessary that the Son of God, to whom the church
belonged, who came to shed his blood for her redemption, and to
establish her in the principles of truth and holiness, should expose
with unsparing severity the wickedness and ignorance of these scribes
and Pharisees, for the instruction of his people in all coming ages. A
knowledge of the same historical circumstances throws a strong light on
the apostle's aim in writing to the Romans and Galatians. Had we fuller
information respecting the false teachers referred to in the epistle to
the Colossians and the pastoral epistles, we should understand more
clearly the apostle's arguments against them.
But the surest means of ascertaining a writer's scope is the repeated
and careful perusal of his words. The biblical student should early form
the habit of reading over with earnest attention a whole book at a
sitting--the epistle to the Romans, for example, or that to the
Hebrews--without pausing to investigate particular questions; his aim
being to throw himself as fully as possible into the general current of
thought, and to be carried forward by it to the writer's final
conclusions. When he has thus made himself familiar with the scope of
the work as a whole, he will be better prepared for the examination of
the particular difficulties that offer themselves in the course of the
author's argument.
4. The word _context_ (Latin, _contextus_) signifies literally _a
weaving together_; and is appropriately used, therefore, to denote the
web of a writer's discourse. The scope is the _end_ which a writer
proposes to accomplish: the context gives the _form and manner of its
accomplishment_. With reference to a given passage, the context has been
loosely defined to be that which immediately precedes and follows. More
accurately, it is the series of statements, arguments, and illustrations
connected with the passage whose meaning is sought, including all the
various connections of thought. The sober interpreter, then, must have
constant reference to the context, as well for the signification of
particular terms as for the general sense of the passage under
consideration. To interpret without regard to the context is to
interpret at random; to interpret contrary to the context is to teach
falsehood for truth.
The necessity of having constant reference to the context for the
determination of the sense, as well as of the particular terms employed,
admits of innumerable illustrations. From these we select a few
examples:
In Rom. 14:23 the apostle lays down the following maxim: "He that
doubteth is damned [literally, _condemned_] if he eat, because he eateth
not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." The context
relates not to the Lord's supper, but to scruples in respect to the use
of particular kinds of food: "One believeth that he may eat all things;
another who is weak"--over-scrupulous in respect to distinctions of
food--"eateth herbs" (ver. 2). Consequently there is no reference here
to the personal qualifications requisite for partaking of that
ordinance, or to the consequence of eating unworthily. The apostle means
to say that whoever has scruples about the lawfulness of using a
particular article of food is condemned if he eat it, "because he eateth
not of faith." He acts contrary to his persuasion of duty. Thus he
violates, in this particular case, that general law of faith which
requires that in all things we keep a conscience void of offence towards
God and man, subjecting ourselves in loving confidence to Christ's
authority, and doing in all things what we believe to be right in his
sight.
Again we read in Gal. 5:4 the words: "Ye are fallen from grace." Taken
out of their connection, these words are ambiguous in their application.
But the context makes all plain. The apostle is addressing those who are
inclined to substitute a system of justification by works for the grace
of the gospel: "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you
are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace"--fallen away from
grace, as the original word means. Ye have abandoned the system of grace
revealed in the gospel for one of works.
The psalmist says: "My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God: when
shall I come and appear before God?" Psa. 42:2. Taken out of their
connection, these words might be understood of his desire to enjoy the
beatific vision of God in heaven. But the context shows that the writer
had in mind God's earthly sanctuary, from which he was banished: "My
tears have been my meat day and night, while they continually say unto
me, Where is thy God? When I remember these things, I pour out my soul
in me: for I had gone with the multitude, I went with them to the house
of God, with the voice of joy and praise, with a multitude that kept
holy-day" (ver. 3, 4).
Again the psalmist says: "The king's daughter is all glorious within"
(Psa. 45:13); words that have more than once been applied directly to
the inward spiritual beauty of the church, the bride of Christ. This is,
indeed, the idea that we gain from a true interpretation of them. But it
comes not directly, but through a beautiful figure. The primary meaning
of the words is, that the royal bride appearing _within the palace_ in
raiment of wrought gold is all glorious to the beholder's view.
Undoubtedly she represents the church espoused to Christ; dwelling, so
to speak, in his kingly mansion, and gloriously adorned with his
righteousness. Rev. 19:8.
The question may naturally occur to the reader: Within what limits is
the context to be consulted? The answer must be, that no definite limits
can be prescribed. The entire web of discourse must be carefully
studied, including the more remote as well as the nearer context; for
the inspired writers do not, as a general rule, proceed according to
formal divisions and subdivisions. The train of argument is often
interrupted by parenthetical remarks, particularly in the writings of
the apostle Paul, or it is resumed in an informal way after extended
digressions. The true connection of thought, then, is to be gathered not
so much from our modern notions of what logical accuracy would require,
as from the repeated and careful perusal of the writing in question. In
this way alone can we place ourselves in the author's position, and look
at the subject under discussion from his point of view; that is to say,
in this way alone can we enter into his modes of thinking and reasoning,
and thus qualify ourselves to be the expounders of them to others.
In some cases no context exists, and none is to be sought. In a large
part of the book of Proverbs, for example, each separate aphorism shines
by its own light. If it have any connection with what precedes or
follows, it is only casual or superficial. In some books, again, like
that of Ecclesiastes, the transitions are rapid, and often difficult to
explain. Here we should be careful not to force upon the author a
logical connection of which he never thought. Systematic arrangement is
good in its place; but the Holy Spirit did not think it needful to
secure it in the case of all who spake as he moved them.
Some religious teachers are fond of employing scriptural texts simply as
_mottoes_, with little or no regard to their true connection. Thus they
too often adapt them to their use by imparting to them a factitious
sense foreign to their proper scope and meaning. The seeming gain in all
such cases is more than counterbalanced by the loss and danger that
attend the practice. It encourages the habit of interpreting Scripture
in an arbitrary and fanciful way, and thus furnishes the teachers of
error with their most effective weapon. The practice cannot be defended
on any plea of necessity. The plain words of Scripture, legitimately
interpreted according to their proper scope and context, contain a
fulness and comprehensiveness of meaning sufficient for the wants of all
men in all circumstances. That piety alone is robust and healthful which
is fed, not by the fancies and speculations of the preacher who
practically puts his own genius above the word of God, but by the pure
doctrines and precepts of the Bible, unfolded in their true connection
and meaning.
It is important to remark, however, that when the _general principle_
contained in a given passage of Scripture has been once fairly
explained, it admits of innumerable applications which are in the
highest sense legitimate and proper. The principle, for example, that
"whatsoever is not of faith is sin," which the apostle Paul announces in
connection with the question of using or abstaining from particular
kinds of food, may be applied to the settlement of cases of conscience
arising in widely different relations and spheres of action. The
preacher's power lies very much in the ability of unfolding to the
understanding and applying to the conscience the general principles
involved in the passage of Scripture which he undertakes to expound.
5. We may next consider the help to be derived from _parallel passages_.
The ordinary division of parallelisms is into _verbal_ and _real_:
verbal, where the same word or phrase occurs; real, where the same
thought is expressed or the same subject discussed. Verbal parallelisms
often shed much light on the meaning of particular words or phrases,
because what is obscure in one passage is made plain in another by some
explanatory addition.
An example is the use of the expression _my glory_ (English version, _my
honor_), in Gen. 49:6: "O my soul, come not thou into their secret"
(their secret conclave); "unto their assembly, my glory, be not thou
united." A comparison of the parallel passages, Psa. 7:5; 16:9; 30:12;
57:8; 108:1, leads to the conclusion that in such a connection the
expression is substantially equivalent to _my soul_, the soul being made
in the image of God, and thus the seat of man's glory. By a like process
of comparison, we arrive at the true signification of the phrase, "_the
righteousness of God_," or more fully, "_the righteousness which is of
God by faith_" when used with reference to the way of salvation through
Christ; at the meaning of the Greek terms translated "_propitiation_,"
etc. In the same way, as already remarked (No. 1, above), the
interpreter ascertains the different significations in which words are
employed, and determines which of these is appropriate to any given
passage.
_Real_ parallelisms are subdivided, again, into _doctrinal_ and
_historic_; doctrinal, where the same truth is inculcated; historic,
where the same event or series of events is recorded. The supreme
importance of doctrinal parallelisms will appear most fully when we come
to look at revelation on the divine side, as constituting a grand system
of truth harmonious in all its parts. At present we regard them simply
as among the means of ascertaining the sense of a given passage.
Presuming that every author means to be self-consistent, it is our
custom to place side by side his different statements which relate to
the same subject, that they may mutually explain each other. The same
reasonable method should be pursued with the writings of Isaiah and
Jeremiah in the Old Testament, and of Paul and John in the New. What is
obscure is to be interpreted by what is clear; what is briefly hinted,
by what is more fully expressed. Different writers, moreover, belonging
to the same age, animated by the same spirit, and confessedly governed
by the same general rules of faith and practice, mutually explain each
other. Thus the prophets Isaiah, Hosea, Joel, Amos, and Micah, who
belong to the same century, and in a less degree Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and
the other prophets of a later age, shed each a light on the pages of all
the rest. The same is true of all the epistolary writers of the New
Testament, notwithstanding their marked differences of style, and the
different aspects also in which they respectively contemplate Christian
doctrine and duty.
Our Saviour says of those who claimed to be, before his advent, the
shepherds and leaders of God's spiritual fold: "All that ever came
before me are thieves and robbers; but the sheep did not hear them."
John 10:8. Yet according to this same evangelist he honored Abraham,
Moses, and the prophets, as true leaders and teachers of God's people.
Chaps. 8:39, 40, 56; 5:45-47; 12:38-41. We know, then, that the
Saviour's words must be restricted to such spiritual thieves and robbers
as the scribes and Pharisees of his day, who under the leadership of
Satan (chap. 8:41, 44) climbed up some other way into the fold.
The apostle Paul says (Rom. 2:7) that God shall render "to them who by
patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory, and honor, and
immortality, eternal life." We know at once, without reference to the
context, that he does not mean, in opposition to the whole tenor of his
epistles, to affirm that men can obtain eternal life by their own
well-doing, without respect to "the righteousness of God, which is by
faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe." But if
we examine the context, this shows that here the apostle is not speaking
of the meritorious ground of justification, but of God's impartial
regard to a righteous character in both Jews and Gentiles.
_Historical_ parallelisms hold of necessity a prominent place in the
interpretation of both the Old and the New Testament. In the Old
Testament we have the two parallel histories of the Hebrew commonwealth,
first in the books of Samuel and the Kings, then in the books of
Chronicles. In the New, the four gospels are four parallel accounts of
our Lord's life and teachings. Then there are several parallelisms of
less extent; as, for example, Isaiah's account of Sennacherib's war upon
Hezekiah, and Hezekiah's sickness (Isa. chaps. 36-39, compared with 2
Kings 18:13-20:21, and the briefer notice of 2 Chron. chap. 32); the
three accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1-22; 22:1-21; 26:1-20); and
other passages which will readily occur to the reader. To the work of
comparing and harmonizing these parallel histories biblical students
have with reason devoted much labor, since they mutually supplement and
illustrate each other in many ways. We understand the books of Samuel
and Kings more fully by comparison with the books of Chronicles, and the
reverse. Each of the four gospels sheds light on the other three. It is
by placing the three accounts of Paul's conversion side by side that we
gain the most perfect knowledge of this event. The numerous coincidences
between the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline epistles, give us a
fuller idea of the apostle's inward life and outward labors than we
could otherwise gain. Without the epistles the biographical notices of
the Acts would be very incomplete; without the narrative of the Acts
many references in the epistles would remain obscure.
Yet these same historic parallelisms, which are the source of so much
light, are the occasion of difficulties also, which require for their
adjustment a comprehensive view of the spirit of inspiration. In respect
to all essential matters of faith and practice, a divine unity pervades
the Holy Scriptures. But this essential unity does not exclude diversity
of conception and representation. Though all the "holy men of God spake
as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," it pleased the divine Spirit to
leave them free to speak each in accordance with his individual
peculiarities of thought and language. A page from the writings of the
apostle John, taken anywhere at random, can be at once distinguished
from a page of Paul or Luke. In relating the same transaction, two
inspired writers often select different materials, or handle them in a
different way. The narrative of each is truthful, but not exhaustive. It
gives a correct view of the thing related, but not all the particulars
connected with it. The omission from two or more parallel narratives of
concomitant circumstances, or the neglect of exact chronological order,
sometimes makes the work of harmonizing them a very difficult matter. We
feel confident that each separate narrative is correct, and that, had we
all the accompanying circumstances in the true order of time, we could
see _how_ they are consistent with each other; but for want of this
light the exact mode of reconciliation remains doubtful. Such
difficulties are incident to all parallel histories. Had the Holy Spirit
seen good, he could have excluded them from the pages of inspiration;
but herein he chose to deal with us not as children, but rather as men
"of full age, even those who, by reason of use, have their senses
exercised to discern both good and evil." It is worthy of special
notice, that where two or more evangelists record the same words of our
Saviour, they are solicitous only about their substance.
In the three parallel accounts of the storm on the sea of Galilee, the
disciples say according to Matthew (8:25): "Lord save us, we perish;"
according to Mark (4:38): "Master, carest thou not that we perish?"
according to Luke (8:24): "Master, master, we perish." And the Lord
answers according to Matthew (v. 26): "Why are ye fearful, O ye of
little faith?" according to Mark (v. 40): "Why are ye so fearful? how is
it that ye have no faith?" according to Luke (v. 25): "Where is your
faith?" On the variations in the words of the disciples Augustine well
remarks (and the same remarks hold good of our Lord's answer): "The
disciples have one and the same meaning in thus awaking the Lord and
desiring salvation. Nor is it necessary to inquire which of these
addresses, rather than the others, contains the exact words spoken to
him. For whether they uttered one of the three, or other words which no
one of the evangelists has mentioned, which yet have the same force in
respect to the truth of the thought, what matters it?" Harmony of the
Gospels 2.24, quoted by Alford on Matth. 8:25.
On the relation of the books of Chronicles to those of Kings and the
difficulties connected with them, see Chap. 20, Nos. 21, 22. On the
relation of the four gospels to each other, see Chap. 29, Nos. 4-10. We
cannot here go into particulars. It must suffice to indicate the general
principle by which the harmonist must be guided.
6. The _external acquirements_ necessary to constitute the
well-furnished expositor of God's word--the "scribe which is instructed
unto the kingdom of heaven"--have been already briefly noticed. Chap.
33, No. 6. Not only are the Scriptures in their original form locked up
in dead languages which the interpreter must thoroughly master, but they
are, so to speak, embedded in ancient history, chronology, and
archæology.
Illustrations of this point are so numerous that the only difficulty is
in the selection. The servitude of the Israelites under the Egyptians,
their captivity in Babylon, their deliverance under Cyrus, and their
subsequent history till the time of our Lord's advent, connect
themselves immediately, as all know, with the general history of the
ancient heathen world. But there are many illustrations of a more
special character. The difficulty of the position in which our Lord was
placed by the ensnaring question of the Pharisees and Herodians
respecting the lawfulness of paying tribute to Cæsar, and the divine
wisdom of his answer (Matt. 22:15-22: Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26)
cannot be perfectly understood without a knowledge, on the one hand, of
the political condition and feeling of the Jews as subjected to the
dominion of the Romans, which they thoroughly detested, and of which
dominion the tribute money daily reminded them; and, on the other, of
the hatred which both Pharisees and Herodians bore towards Christ, and
their anxiety to find a pretext for accusing him to the people or before
this same Roman government.
To apprehend the force of our Lord's argument from the Pentateuch
against the error of the Pharisees: "Have ye not read that which was
spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of
Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the
living" (Matt. 22:31, 32), we must understand the _form_ in which the
Sadducees denied the doctrine of the resurrection. They denied, namely,
the existence of spirits separated from bodies. Acts 23:8. To them,
consequently, the death of the body was the _annihilation_ of the whole
man, which made the very idea of a future resurrection an absurdity. Our
Saviour showed from the writings of Moses, whose authority they
acknowledged, the error of their assumption that the spirit dies with
the body. Thus he demolished the ground on which their denial of a
future resurrection rested.
The psalmist says of those who hate Zion: "Let them be as the grass upon
the house-tops, which withereth before one plucketh it" (Eng. version,
"before it groweth up"): "wherewith the mower filleth not his hand, nor
he that bindeth sheaves his bosom." Psa. 129:6, 7. For the illustration
of these words we need a double reference, (1) to the oriental custom of
constructing flat roofs covered with earth, on which grass readily
springs up; (2) to the division of the year into two seasons, the rainy
and the dry, upon the commencement of which latter such grass speedily
withers. Another reference to the same oriental roofs we have in the
words of Solomon: "The contentions of a wife are a continual dropping;"
"a continual dropping in a very rainy day and a contentious woman are
alike" (chaps. 19:13; 27:15), where we are to understand a continual
_dropping through_ of water from the roof, which makes every thing
within uncomfortable.
Our Lord's parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13) requires for its
illustration a knowledge of the oriental customs connected with
marriage: the transaction recorded by Luke, where a woman came behind
Jesus as he reclined at the table, washed his feet with her tears, and
wiped them with her hair (Luke 7:37, 38), and the position of John when
at the last supper he leaned on Jesus' bosom (John 13:23, 25), cannot be
made intelligible without a knowledge of the reclining posture in which
meals were then taken: one familiar only with the use of glass or
earthen bottles cannot comprehend the force of our Lord's maxim
respecting the necessity of putting new wine into new bottles (Matt.
9:17), till he is informed that oriental bottles are made of leather. We
might go on multiplying illustrations indefinitely, but the above must
suffice. We may affirm, without fear of contradiction, that the study of
the Holy Scriptures has contributed more than all other causes to the
diffusion among the masses of the community of a knowledge of ancient
history and antiquities. To say that a congregation has a thorough
knowledge of the Bible is equivalent to affirming that it has an
enlarged acquaintance with the ancient world in its spirit as well as in
its outward institutions and forms.
7. That the interpreter may make a wise and effective use of all the
helps that have been enumerated, he needs especially that sound and
practical judgment which is called in ordinary discourse _good sense_.
Investigations respecting the meaning of terms, inquiries concerning the
scope, reasonings from the context, the comparison of parallel passages,
the use of ancient history, chronology, and archæology--that any one or
all of these processes combined may lead to valuable results they must
be under the guidance of that sound judgment and practical tact by which
the interpreter is enabled to seize the true meaning of his author and
unfold it with accuracy, or is at least kept from far-fetched and
fanciful expositions where the author's real sense is involved in
obscurity.
(1.) This quality of sound judgment will preserve the interpreter from
_inept_ expositions for which a plausible reason many be assigned.
Thus, when the Saviour says to Martha, who "was cumbered about much
serving:" "One thing is needful," these words have been interpreted to
mean _one dish_--not many and elaborate preparations, but a single dish.
A sound judgment rejects at once this interpretation as below the
dignity of the occasion, and not in agreement with what immediately
follows: "Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away
from her." The one thing needful is such a devotion of the soul to
Christ as Mary manifested. So the words: "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest
thou me more than these?" (John 21:15), have been explained to mean:
more than these _fish_, or the employment and furniture of a
fisherman--an ingenious substitution, one must say, of a low and trivial
meaning for the common interpretation: more than these thy
fellow-disciples love me, which accords so perfectly with Peter's former
profession: "Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will
I never be offended." Matt. 26:33; Mark 14:29.
Interpreters who ordinarily manifest sound judgment and skill are
sometimes betrayed into inept expositions through the influence of some
preconceived opinion. The psalmist says, for example (Psa. 17:15): "As
for me, in righteousness shall I behold thy face: I shall be satisfied
upon awaking with thy likeness;" that is, with the contemplation of thy
likeness, with apparent reference to Numb. 12:8: "The likeness of the
Lord shall he behold." This passage is ordinarily interpreted correctly
of the vision of God upon awaking in the world to come. And this view is
sustained by other like passages: "In thy presence is fulness of joy; at
thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore" (Psa. 16:11); "Truly
God shall redeem my soul from the power of Sheol; for he shall take me,"
(Psa. 49:15), where Tholuck well says: "He who took an Enoch and a Moses
to himself, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, will also take me to
himself;" "Thou shalt guide me by thy counsel, and afterwards take me to
glory. Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that
I desire besides thee. My flesh and my heart faileth: God is the
strength of my heart, and my portion for ever" (Psa. 73:24-26)--words
that are inexplicable except as containing the anticipation of a blessed
immortality with God in heaven; "The wicked is driven away in his
wickedness; but the righteous hath hope in his death" (Prov. 14:32);
etc. But there is a class of interpreters who, having adopted the maxim
that the Old Testament, at least in its earlier writings, contains no
anticipations of a blessed life with God after death, are constrained to
give to the passage in question the frigid meaning: I shall be satisfied
with thy likeness when I awake to-morrow, as if the psalm were intended
to be an evening song or prayer; or, whenever I awake, that is, from
natural sleep.
(2.) A sound judgment will also keep the biblical scholar from
interpretations that are _contrary to the known nature of the subject_.
A familiar example is the declaration made by Moses of God's view of
man's wickedness: "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the
earth, and it grieved him at his heart." Gen. 6:6. The robust common
sense of any plain reader will at once adjust the interpretation of
these words to God's known omniscience and immutability; just as he will
the prayer of the psalmist: "Search me, O God, and know my heart; try
me, and know my thoughts; and see if there be any wicked way in me, and
lead me in the way everlasting." Psa. 139:23, 24. The immutable God does
nothing which is not in accordance with his eternal counsels. The
omniscient God, to whom all truth is ever present, does not literally
institute a process of searching that he may know what is in man. But in
these and numberless other passages, he condescends to speak according
to human modes of thought and action.
When it is said, again, that "the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh;"
that "God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem"
(Judg. 9:23); that he sent a lying spirit to deceive Ahab through his
prophets (1 Kings 22:21-23); that he sent Isaiah with the command: "Make
the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their
eyes" (Isa. 6:10); that he made the covenant people to err from his
ways, and hardened their heart from his fear (Isa. 63:17), we
instinctively interpret these and other like passages in harmony with
the fundamental principle announced by the apostle: "Let no man say when
he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted of evil,
neither tempteth he any man. But every man is tempted, when he is drawn
away of his own lust, and enticed." Jas. 1:13, 14. The Scriptures
ascribe every actual event to God in such a sense that it comes into the
plan of his universal providence; but they reject with abhorrence the
idea that he can excite wicked thoughts in men, or prompt them to wicked
deeds.
When it is said, once more, that men are _drawn_ to Christ (John 6:44),
or _driven_ to worship the heavenly bodies (Deut. 4:19), we understand
at once a drawing and a driving that are in accordance with their free
intelligent and responsible nature. Other illustrations of this
principle will be given in the following chapter, which treats of the
figurative language of Scripture.
(3.) The same quality of good sense will enable the interpreter to make
those _limitations_ in the language of the sacred writers which are
common in popular discourse. In the language of daily life many
statements are made in general terms that require for their exact
truthfulness various qualifications which the readers or hearers can
readily supply for themselves. Honest men, addressing honest men, are
not in the habit of guarding their words against every possible
misconstruction. It is enough if they speak so that all who will can
understand them.
It is said, for example (Gen. 41:57), that "all countries (literally,
_all the earth_) came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because the
famine was sore in all the earth." It would be only trifling to ask
whether "all the earth" included the people of Europe and India. The
reader naturally understands all the lands around Egypt, since they only
could come thither for corn. So when it is said in the account of the
deluge that "all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were
covered" (Gen. 7:19), it is straining the sacred writer's words to give
them a rigid geographical application, as if they must needs include the
mountains about the North pole. "All the high hills under the whole
heaven" were those where man dwelt, and which were consequently known to
man. "The Holy Ghost," says John, "was not yet given, because that Jesus
was not yet glorified." John 7:39. Yet David prayed ages before: "Take
not thy Holy Spirit from me" (Psa. 51:11); Isaiah says of ancient Israel
that "they rebelled and vexed his Holy Spirit" (Isa. 63:10); the
Saviour, long before his glorification, promised the Holy Spirit to all
that should ask for him (Luke 11:13); and it is a fundamental article of
our faith that from Abel to the archangel's trump all holiness is the
fruit of the Spirit. But John's readers, who lived after the plenary
gift of the Holy Spirit from the day of Pentecost and onward, could not
fail to understand him as referring to the gift of the Spirit in that
special sense. The apostle Paul says (1 Tim. 2:4) that God "will have
all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." Yet
the same apostle teaches that some will remain in ignorance of the
truth, and thus perish. 2 Thess. 1: 8, 9; 2:11, 12. The reader's good
sense readily reconciles the former with the latter passages. He
understands God's will to have all men saved as the will of _benevolent
desire_; just as God says of ancient Israel (Psa. 81:13). "Oh that my
people had hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways!" but
because they would not do this, he "gave them up to their own heart's
lust, and they walked in their own counsels" (ver. 12). Many like
illustrations might be added.
(4.) Hence we readily infer the office of a sound judgment in
_reconciling apparent contradictions_, since these arise mainly from the
neglect, in one or both of the passages between which the contradiction
is said to exist, of reasonable qualifications and limitations.
A striking illustration of this is found in the two accounts of the
creation. Gen. chaps. 1-2:3 and chap. 2:4-25. In the former narrative
the order of time is an essential element. Not so in the latter, where
man is the central object, and the different parts of creation are
mentioned only as the writer has occasion to speak of them in connection
with him. Hence we have in this latter passage the creation of the man
(ver. 7), the planting of the garden for his use with its trees and
rivers (ver. 8-14), the placing of the man in the garden and the law
imposed upon him (ver. 15-17), the defective condition of the man (ver.
18), the notice in connection with this of the creation of beasts and
fowls and their being brought to the man to receive names (ver. 19, 20),
the creation of the woman and the primitive condition of the pair (ver.
21-25). This simple statement of the course of narration sufficiently
refutes the allegation that the second account is inconsistent with the
first.
In the first account of Paul's conversion it is said that "the men which
journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no man."
Acts 9:7. In the second Paul says: "They that were with me saw indeed
the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that
spake to me." Acts 22:9. There is no valid ground for doubting that the
first narrative, as well as the other two, came from the lips of the
apostle himself, and the assumption of any essential contradiction is
unreasonable and unnecessary. In regard to the _light_, it is certain
that Paul saw the _person_ of the Saviour, and was made blind by the
glory of the vision (Acts 9:17, 27; 22:14; 1 Cor. 9:1), while his
companions saw only the light that shone around them, which did not make
them blind. In regard to the _voice_, it is a fair interpretation that
they heard a voice only, but no intelligible words. _How_ this
difference of perception between Paul and his companions in regard to
both the light and the voice was effected we do not know, nor is it
necessary that we should. The first account, again, represents Paul's
companions as having "stood speechless," while in the third the apostle
says: "When we were all fallen to the earth," Acts 26:14. The most
natural explanation here is that the third narrative gives the posture
with accuracy, while the first lays stress only upon the amazement which
fixed them in a motionless attitude. The apparent discrepancies in these
three parallel histories are peculiarly instructive, because they all
proceed from the pen of the same author, and must all have been derived
from the same source. Such circumstantial differences have the stamp of
reality. Instead of throwing any discredit upon the transaction, they
only establish its truth upon a firmer basis. Many like illustrations
might be added.
(5.) Finally, where the means of reconciling discrepancies are not
apparent, the same quality of a sound judgment will keep us from the two
extremes of _seeking_, on the one hand, _forced and unnatural
explanations_, and, on the other, of _discrediting well-attested
transactions_ on account of these discrepancies. In the scriptural
narratives there are some difficulties (relating mostly to numbers,
dates, and the chronological order of events) which we find ourselves
unable, with our present means of knowledge, to solve in a satisfactory
way. It is the part of sober reason to reserve these difficulties for
further light, not to set aside, in view of them, facts attested by
irrefragable proof.
Nothing in the evangelic record is more certain, for example, than the
fact of our Lord's resurrection. Yet to harmonize the four accounts
which we have of it in all their details is a work of extreme
difficulty. "Supposing us to be acquainted with every thing said and
done, in its order and exactness, we should doubtless be able to
reconcile, or account for, the present forms of the narratives; but not
having this key to the harmonizing of them, attempts to do so in minute
particulars carry no certainty with them." Alford on Matt. 28:1-10. The
same general principle applies to other difficulties--in the Old
Testament, that respecting the duration of the sojourn in Egypt, and
other chronological questions; in the New, that of the two genealogies
given of our Lord by Matthew and Luke, that of the day when our Lord ate
the passover with his disciples, etc. See further in Chaps. 19, Nos. 6
and 8; 20, No. 22; 29, Nos. 8-10.
8. In bringing this chapter to a conclusion, we add a few words on _the
office of reason_ in the interpretation of Scripture. It is admitted by
all that we have certain primitive intuitions which lie at the
foundation of all knowledge. That an immutable obligation, for example,
rests on all men to be truthful, just, benevolent, and grateful, is a
truth which we see by the direct light of conscience. There are certain
moral axioms, also, outside of the direct sphere of conscience, which
shine by their own light. Such is that fundamental truth of theology
thus announced by the apostle John: "God is light, and in him is no
darkness at all" (1 John 1:5); where light and darkness are both taken
in a moral sense, as the context shows; and thus by the apostle James:
"God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man" (Jas.
1:13); and thus, ages before, by Moses: "He is the Rock, his work is
perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without
iniquity, just and right is he" (Deut. 32:4); and still earlier by
Abraham: "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Gen. 18:25).
We are sure that no declaration of God's word, properly interpreted,
will contradict these necessary and universal convictions. But there are
many weighty truths that lie wholly above the sphere of our direct
intuitions on which the infinite understanding of God is alone competent
to pass an infallible judgment. Such are the following: If it be God's
will to create a race of intelligent beings, what shall be the compass
of their faculties, moral, intellectual, and physical? In what
circumstances and relations shall he place them, to what probation shall
he subject them, and what scope shall he allow to their finite freedom?
If they sin, what plan shall he devise for their redemption, and by what
processes shall he reveal and execute this plan? These, and many other
questions involving man's highest interests, lie above the sphere of
simple intuition. God alone, who looks through eternity at a glance, can
fully comprehend them, for they are all constituent parts of his eternal
plan. That human reason, which cannot see the whole of truth, should
affect to sit in judgment upon them, and to pronounce authoritatively
what God may, and what he may not do, is the height of presumption and
folly.