Based on:

Carson, D. A. ―Must I Learn How to Interpret the Bible?  Modern Reformation 5:3 (May/June
1996): 18–22. Updated 2003.

What parts of the Bible are binding mandates for us, what what parts are not?

• Should we ‘greet one another with a holy kiss’?
• Should we wash one another’s feet?
• If the answer to the preceding question is ‘No’, why do we follow the Lord’s command, ‘Do this in remembrance of me’?
• Should we execute adulters by stoning?
• If Jesus’ words to Nicodemus (‘You must be born again’) are applicable to all, is his command to the young man to sell all he has also universally applicable?

Question such as these highlight the importance of interpreting Scripture correctly.

1. Seek the balance of Scripture

Possible disjunctions abound:

• Jesus verses Paul.
• Paul versus James.
• Gal 3:38 versus 1 Tim 2:12.
• Sovereign grace versus the free offer of the gospel.

There are different kinds of ‘balance’ in Scripture:

• Balancing different responsibilities: ‘e.g. praying, being reliable at work, being a biblically faithful spouse and parent, evangelizing a neighbor, taking an orphan or widow under our wing, and so forth.’
• Balancing specific instructions with the overall plot-line of the Bible
• Balancing truths which we cannot at present reconcile (such as Christ as truly God and truly man, divine election and human responsibility).

2. Recognise the antithetical nature of some parts of the Bible

Often, these are intended to be understood as rhetorical devises, not as absolutes:

‘For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings’ (Hos. 6:6)

Lk 14:26 does not sanction raw hatred of parents.

The ‘clash’ between Mt 6:7 (pagans think they are heard because of their many words) and Lk 18:1-8 (persevering in prayer, is resolved by consideration of Jesus’ teaching style and the pastoral situation occasioned by each of the sayings.

3. Be cautious about absolutising what is said or taught only once

Baptism for the dead (1 Cor 15:29) and foot-washing, being mentioned only once each, should not form major planks of our belief system.

4. Examine the biblical rationale for any saying or command

We must pay due attention to the language used, and the cultural context of the saying or command.

We do not necessarily rend our clothes and put on sackcloth and ashes in order to show true repentance.

Greeting one another with a holy kiss lends itself to culturally appropriate alternatives.

5. Understand that proverbial sayings are rarely absolute, or universal in scope

Mt 12:30 and Mk 9:40, though formally contradictory, are not actually so ‘if the first is uttered to indifferent people against themselves, and the second to the disciples about others whose zeal outstrips their knowledge.’

In the case of Prov 26, verses 4 and 5, the second line of each explains the circumstances in which it becomes applicable.

“Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it” offers guidance and encouragement, but not an unconditional promise.

So then:

‘Aphorisms and proverbs give insight as to how culture under God works, how relationships work, what are priorities should be; they do not put in all the footnotes as to whether there are any individual exceptions, and under what circumstances, and so forth.’

6. Recognise how fundamental changes in social structures affect the application of certain biblical teachings

NT teaching on submission to the ruling authorities (e.g. Rom 13:1f) assumes a totalitarian regime or an oligarchy.  Paul cannot have foreseen a modern democracy, and so we have to work rather hard if we are to apply his teaching faithfully.

7. Understand not only how symbols, customs, metaphors and models function in Scripture, but also to what else they are tied

What does ‘white as wool’ (Isa 1:18) communicate to people familiar only with the wool of the village goat?

How binding is the requirement to use bread and wine at the Lord’s table?  Does its use in, say, Papua New Guinea signal white superiority?  Or, what would be the effect of replacing ‘bread’ with ‘yam’ to avoid cultural imperialism?  Can we speak of ‘unleavened yams’, or ‘the yam of life’?

What can be said in favour of using chips and coke instead of bread and wine in a celebration of the Lord’s Supper in California.  Almost nothing! –

‘What this represents is the whimsy of what is novel, the love of the iconoclastic, the spirituality of the cutesy—with no connections with either the Lord‘s words or with two thousand years of church history.’

8. Do not overstretch comparisons and analogies

Quoting Heb 13:8 (‘Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever’ does not settle the question of whether Jesus still miraculously heals the sick today.

Comparisons and analogies work because they set two things side by side that are similar in some (but not all) respects.

We are to imitate Christ.  But in what respects?  Walking on water?  Cleansing the local temple with a whip?  Miraculously feeding 5,000 people.  Dying by crucifixion?

‘It is worth observing that most of the injunctions in the Gospels to follow Jesus or to do what he does are bound up with his selfabnegation: e.g. as he is hated, so we must expect to be hated (Jn.15:18); as he takes the place of a servant and washes his disciples‘ feet, so we are to wash one another‘s feet (Jn.13); as he goes to the cross, so we are to take our cross and follow him (Mt.10:38; 16:24; Lk.14:27). Thus the answer to the question, ―Should we be crucified?‖, is surely ―yesand ―no no, not literally, most of us will have to say, and yet that does not warrant complete escape from the demand to take up our cross and follow him. So in this case the answer is ―yes,but not literally.’

9. Many commands are limited by the occasion or people being addressed

Jesus says, “Do not swear at all…Simply let your ‘Yes‘ be ‘Yes,‘ and your ‘No.‘”  But Paul goes well beyond this command (Rom. 9:1; 2 Cor. 11:10; Gal. 1:20).

But Jesus’ command is clarified by the context, which shows that Jesus was prohibiting was the use of oaths as a cloak for evasive lying (as when the child tells a fib with fingers crossed behind his back).

Wheneven God puts himself under and oath (Heb 6:17f), it is not because he otherwise might lie, but rather to offer special reassurance to those of weak faith.

The pastoral context is key.  Paul can agree that it is good for a man not to touch a woman (1 Cor 7:1), but also to commend marriage, and then to conclude that both marriage and celibacy are charismata – gifts from God (1 Cor 7:7).

10. Be careful how you apply narratives

Biblical narrative are easily exploited by those with a postmodern mindset.  Especially when taken out of context, they can be made to mean what the reader wants them to mean.

Taken on its own, the account in Gen 39 of Joseph’s early years in Egypt lends itself to reflection on resisting temptation.  But the beginning and ending of that chapter reveals the theme that God is with Joseph, and blesses him even in the midst of appalling circumstances.  In the context of the preceding narrative Judah is seen as a foil for Joseph: the one succumbs to temptation in circustances of plenty, while the other resists temptation in circumstances of adversity.  In the context of the entire book of Genesis, the Joseph story is bound up with God’s providential famine relief for many, not least the covenant people of God themselves.  In the context of the Pentateuch, the story provides the explanation of why the Israelites find themselves in Egypt, and is thus a precusor to the exodus.  In the context of the entire canon, and

‘Joseph‘s fidelity in small matters is part of the providential wisdom that preserves the people of God, leads to the exodus that serves as a type of a still greater release, and ultimately leads to Judah‘s (!) distant son David, and his still more distant son, Jesus.’

11. Remember that you, too, are culturally and theologically located

We are not neutral and dispassionate observers.  We are awash with

‘specific language, unacknowledged assumptions, perspectives on time and race and education and humor, notions of truth and honor and wealth.’

Lifelong habits of reading the Bible ‘meditatively, self-critically, humbly, honestly’ can help a lot in this regard.

Does our modern stress on individualism lead us to forget that God judges entire cultures and nations?

Are the interpretatons advanced by evangelical feminists too influenced by secular feminism?  Or are traditions interpretations too much in debt to inherited notions of patriarchy?

Do we overlook the Bible’s teaching on poverty because we ourselves are comparatively affluent?

As society becomes more secular, there is an increased need to examine our assumptions and biases.

12. Admit that many interpretations are influenced by a wider theological system, which must itself be open to correction and modification

Our exegesis is influenced by our theology, perhaps more than we realise.  Theological systems are not inherently evil.  They can help to simplify and clarify our thinking.  They can render it uneccessary for us to return to first principles every time we approach a text of Scripture.  But systems – be they dispensational, reformed, Lutheran, or whatever – predispose us to certain interpretations, and can lead to unacknowledged bias.  The key thing is that our system must be brought to the Bible, and not vice versa.

Topics that have traditionally divided Christians – baptism, the meaning of Holy Communion, covenant, Sabbath observance, for example – as well as more recent areas of debate – e.g. charismatic gifts – are all affected by such considerations.