Jesus’ Hermeneutical Principles
We live in a pluralistic society where differing, even conflicting,
viewpoints are seen as equally valid. This attitude has become very
prevalent in our culture since the 60s. Television and radio talk shows
continually stress that no absolutes exist. Many consider truth to be
subjective and relative. They insist that there are very few, if any,
definites—very little black and white, but a lot of gray. The matter is
further muddled by the fact that on any religious or moral question,
there are knowledgeable, sincere authorities on both sides of the issue.
The general American mindset is that since truth is so elusive, no one
should judge anyone else. No one should be so arrogant or dogmatic as to
insist that a certain viewpoint is the only correct viewpoint. Truth to
one person is not truth to another.
But without even examining God’s Word, we ought to be able to see that
such thinking is self-contradictory and unacceptable. Why? Because those
who espouse it insist that they are correct. They are dogmatic in their insistence that “no one should be dogmatic.” They hold as absolute and certain truth the fact that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, they have to deny their viewpoint in order to hold it!
Especially in religion, people tend to take the foolish position that
truth is elusive and unattainable. Only in the task of interpreting the
Bible do people take the position that truth is relative, always
changing, and something of which we can never be sure. We reason in
religion in a way that differs from the way we reason in every other
facet of our lives.
For example, when we visit the doctor, we communicate to him our
symptoms and expect him to understand us. We expect him to gather all
the relevant evidence (the verbal information we give as well as the
signs our bodies manifest) and then properly interpret that evidence to
draw the right conclusions concerning our ailment and proper treatment.
He then writes down a prescription that we take to the pharmacist and,
once again, we expect the pharmacist to interpret properly the doctor’s
instructions. We take the prescription home and read the label, fully
expecting to understand the directions. The fact that doctors and
pharmacists may sometimes make mistakes by drawing unwarranted
conclusions from the evidence they gather about our physical condition
does not change the fact that if they gather sufficient evidence and reason properly about the information, they can arrive at truth regarding our medical condition.
Everyday we interpret thousands of messages accurately. We read the
newspaper, fully expecting to understand what we are reading. We read
novels with the same expectation. We watch the news on television, we go
to the mailbox and get our mail and browse through it, fully expecting
to interpret properly the messages being conveyed to us. The fact that
misunderstanding sometimes occurs, does not negate the fact that more
information can be examined in order to draw the right conclusions and
arrive at correct interpretations.
We go through this process constantly—every waking hour of the day, day
in and day out, year after year. We give ourselves credit for having
the ability to operate sensibly and communicate with one another
intelligibly. Yet we turn right around and imply that the God of heaven,
the One Who created our minds and our thinking capacity, the One Who is
infinitely wiser and more capable than humans, is incapable of making
His will known to humanity in a clear and understandable fashion! When
we come to the Bible, we do a sudden about-face and insist that we can’t
be sure what God’s will is, we must not be dogmatic on doctrine, and we
must allow for differing opinions on what is spiritually right and
wrong!
Did God author the Bible through inspired men with the purpose of
making known His will for us? Did God have the Bible written in such a
way that we can grasp the meanings that He intended to convey? The Bible
declares, “yes.” God has given man written revelation with the
understanding that it can be comprehended correctly. This means that for
every teaching, for every passage, for every verse, for every word in
the Bible, there is a meaning that God intended to convey. That’s what
Peter meant when he wrote: “No prophecy of Scripture is of any private
interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20). He meant that men did not decide what information to include in inspired material—God
did. God has given every responsible human being the task of
ascertaining that one correct interpretation. There is only one correct
interpretation to any given passage—the right one: God’s view!
Let us return to the New Testament and Jesus Christ Himself. Let us
examine the very approach that Jesus took in interpreting Scripture. Let
us discover Jesus’ attitude toward truth and revelation. Let us
consider how He employed Scripture to face the assaults of those who
would deter Him from conformity to the will of God. Then let us “go and
do likewise.” Jesus’ own approach to interpretation may be viewed in
terms of His attitude toward Scripture and His actual use of Scripture.
Jesus’ Attitude Toward Scripture
Concerning His attitude toward Scripture, several elements emerge from His life on Earth.
1. Jesus clearly considered Scripture to be divinely inspired through
human instrumentality. He attributed David’s words in Psalm 110:1 to the
Holy Spirit (Mark 12:36). He treated Daniel’s prophecy in Daniel 9:27
as an inspired prediction that most certainly would come true (Matthew
24:15). On the very day He visited the synagogue in Nazareth and read
aloud from Isaiah 61, He declared the passage fulfilled in their hearing
(Luke 4:21). He maintained that Scripture’s affirmation that Elijah was
to precede the Messiah’s appearance (Malachi 4:5) was exactly what
transpired (Mark 9:11-13).
At His arrest, He asked Peter two questions, the second of which
further confirmed His belief in the inspiration of Scripture: “How then
could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?” (Matthew
26:54). He attributed His selection of Judas to the inevitable
fulfillment of Psalm 41:9 (John 13:18). Indeed, He was so sure of the
inspiration of the Old Testament that even at His death, He quoted Psalm
22:1 (Matthew 27:46). Clearly, Jesus recognized Scripture as
originating in the mind of God, thus imparting a controlling unity to
the whole of Scripture. To Jesus, the Old Testament from beginning to
end is inspired of God.
Jesus consistently approved the idea that Scripture has been preserved
from error and is the Word of God in all of its parts. Not only did He
receive the predictive elements of Old Testament Scripture, but also He
acknowledged the credibility of the didactic and historical portions as
well. Daniel’s historicity (Mark 13:14), Jonah’s fish experience
(Matthew 12:40), the divine creation of Adam and Eve (Matthew 19:4), the
reality of Noah and the Flood (Luke 17:26-27), Lot and the destruction
of Sodom as well as the fate of Lot’s wife (Luke 17:29,32), the widow,
famine, and drought of Elijah’s day (Luke 4:25-26), and the leprous
Syrian commander, Naaman (Luke 4:27)—all attest to His conviction that
Scripture is inspired fully “in all of its parts.” The credibility of
the inspired writers was unquestioned and their literary productions
contained no mistakes.
For Jesus, Old Testament inspiration extended to the verbal expression
of the thoughts of the sacred writers. Jesus clearly embraced this
understanding of the matter. He based His powerful, penetrating defense
of the reality of the resurrection of the dead upon the tense
of the grammar of Exodus 3:6. If God was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob at the very moment He was speaking to Moses, though the three had
already died, then they must still exist beyond the grave (Matthew
22:32). [NOTE: The claim that Jesus made an
argument based upon the “tense” of Old Testament language needs
clarification. Actually, Hebrew has no past, present, or future tenses.
Rather, action is regarded as being either completed or incomplete, and
so verbs occur in the Hebrew Perfect or Imperfect. No verb occurs in
God’s statement in Exodus 3:6. Consequently, tense is implied rather
than expressed. In this case, the Hebrew grammar would allow any tense
of the verb “to be.” Of course, Jesus clarified the ambiguity inherent
in the passage by affirming what God had in mind. Matthew preserves
Jesus’ use of the Greek present tense: “Ego eimi.”] The argument depends on God having worded His statement to convey contemporaneity.
When Jesus challenged the Pharisees to clarify the identity of the
Messiah, He focused upon David’s use of the single term “Lord” in Psalm
110:1—“If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his son?” (Matthew
22:45). His whole point depends upon verbal inspiration. On yet another
occasion, Jesus was on the verge of being stoned by angry Jews because
He identified Himself with deity. His defense was based upon a single
word from Psalm 82:6—“gods” (John 10:34-35). His whole point depends
upon verbal inspiration.
Jesus’ allusion to the “jot and tittle” constituted a tacit declaration
of belief in verbal inspiration (Matthew 5:18). Not only the thought of
Scripture, but also the words themselves and the letters that formed
those words, were viewed as inspired. The same may be said of Jesus’
quotation of Genesis 2:24 in His discourse on divorce. Notice the
wording: “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made
them male and female,’ and said...” (Matthew 19:4-5). The verse to
which Jesus alludes occurs immediately after a statement made by Adam.
No indication is given in the text that the words are a direct quote of
God. In fact, the words seem to be more authorial, narratorial comment
by Moses, the author of the Pentateuch. Yet Jesus attributed the words
to God. In other words, God was the author. The Genesis passage is not a
record of what God said; it is what God said.
2. On the basis of this divine origin, Jesus also clearly demonstrated
His attitude that Scripture is authoritative and that men are obligated
to follow its precepts. When He described Abraham’s chat with the rich
man in Hades, He quoted Abraham’s remark, “They have Moses and the
prophets; let them hear them” (Luke 16:29). In so doing, He manifested
His high regard for the authority of the Old Testament as the ultimate
voice and guide for Israel.
To Jesus, Scripture is the foundation of belief. He declared, “O
foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have
spoken!” (Luke 24:25). He told the Jews, “You search the Scriptures,
for in them you think you have eternal life.... [H]ad you believed
Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not
believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” (John 5:39,46-47).
Jesus asserted that the Old Testament bore authoritative divine witness
to Himself and, in so doing, bore witness to the authority of the Old
Testament itself.
Many instances demonstrate Jesus’ recognition of the authority of
Scripture. In Matthew 12:39-40, Jonah’s experience (Jonah 1:17)
foreshadowed Jesus’ own burial: “For as Jonah became a sign to the
Ninevites, so also the Son of Man will be to this generation” (Luke
11:30). In Matthew 4:17ff. Jesus opposed Jewish traditions and scribal
commentary for making void the Word of God. In Mark 12:10, to confirm
the point of His parable, Jesus introduced an authoritative Scripture
with the rhetorical query, “Have you not read this Scripture?” In Luke
4:21, Jesus declared Isaiah 61:1-2 to be applicable to those who were in
His presence on that occasion. In Luke 24:27,44, Jesus expounded the
Old Testament Scriptures and declared the necessity of their
fulfillment—a superfluous, futile exercise unless they were
authoritative for His listeners. In John 15:25, words from a Psalm are
described as “law.”
Perhaps the most striking proof that Jesus viewed Scripture as
authoritative is the occasion when He ascribed legal authority to the
entirety of Scripture—a view also held by the Jews (John 12:34). By
maintaining that “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), Jesus
asserted that its authority could not be annulled, denied, or withstood.
Scripture’s authority is final and irrevocable. It governs all of life
and will be fulfilled, come what may. Clearly, Jesus’ uniform attitude
toward Scripture was one of complete trust and confidence in its
authority.
3. Jesus also viewed Scripture as propositional, absolute, and
objective. Phrases such as “it is written,” “God said,” “through the
prophets,” and “Scripture says” show that Jesus and His apostles
esteemed the Old Testament as divine and regarded its precepts as
absolute truth. Its objective and absolute quality is seen in His
frequent allusion to the Jewish writings as a unit—a well-defined,
sacred totality (Matthew 5:17-18; Luke 24:44; cf. Matthew 24:35). The
apostles and gospel writers agreed with Jesus’ view that Scripture must
be fulfilled (cf. Matthew 26:26; Luke 3:4; 22:37; John 12:38).
Even as a boy of 12, Jesus’ handling of Scripture as an objective body
of truth was evident as He dazzled the doctors of the law with “His
understanding and answers” (Luke 2:47). This characteristic continued
throughout His earthly habitation. He contradicted His antagonists
(e.g., the chief priests, scribes, and Sadducees) by pinpointing
ignorance of the Scriptures as the cause of their religious error
(Matthew 21:16; 22:29). He as much as said: “If you knew Scripture, you
would not be in error” (cf. Mark 12:24). He prodded the Pharisees to
consult Hosea 6:6—“go and learn what this means” (Matthew 9:13). On the
other hand, Jesus knew Scripture (He ought to, He wrote it!), and used
it as the basis of objective perception.
The propositional nature of Scripture is particularly apparent in
Christ’s frequent use of isolated Old Testament statements (i.e.,
propositions) to prove various contentions. He used Psalm 110:1 to prove
His lordship (Mark 12:36). He proved His Messianic identity and
impending resurrection by alluding to an apparent conflation of Psalm
110:1 and Daniel 7:13 (Mark 14:62). He proved His death and resurrection
were imminent by referring to Psalm 118:22 (Mark 12:10-22; cf. Acts
4:11).
Jesus’ Use of Scripture
Not only does the New Testament enlighten us as to Christ’s attitude toward Scripture, it also gives us many striking samples of Jesus’ pragmatic use of Scripture in day-to-day life. At least three observations emerge from an examination of Jesus’ actual handling of Scripture.
1. He relied very heavily upon Scripture. He quoted from the Old
Testament frequently. He constantly reiterated to His disciples how the
written Word of God should permeate life (e.g., Luke 24:27). He
consistently affirmed the certainty of Scripture’s fulfillment in the
world (e.g., Luke 24:44-46). He possessed a sense of the unity of
history and a grasp of its wide sweep (e.g., Luke 11:50-51).
Preachers were once distinguished by their “book, chapter, and verse”
approach to preaching. This very quality was typical of Jesus’ own
approach to life. Yet preachers and members today are far more impressed
by the theologians and latest popular authors than with the words of
John, Jesus, Peter, Paul, and Moses. We have abandoned the primary
sources in exchange for secondary, inferior, and in many cases,
erroneous sources. We are now the most academically educated generation
the church has ever known—yet we are the most ignorant when it comes to
plain Bible knowledge. It is time to abandon the heart-warming anecdotes
and reacquaint ourselves with the divine text. It is time to emulate
Jesus’ own extensive reliance upon and allusion to Scripture.
2. In addition to a heavy reliance upon scriptural quotation, Jesus
repeatedly demonstrated incredible proclivity for rationality in His
sharp, potent, penetrating use of logic and sound argumentation. His
first recorded responsible activity consisted of logical dialogue
between Himself and the Jewish theologians at the age of 12. His logical
prowess was evident not only to the doctors of the law, but to His
parents as well (Luke 2:45-51). On the occasion of His baptism, He
reasoned with John in order to convince John to immerse Him (Matthew
3:13-15). He advanced a logical reason to justify the action.
Immediately after this incident, Jesus faced Satan in the desert
(Matthew 4:1-11). Satan posed three arguments, urging Christ to act on
the basis of erroneous reasoning. The sequence of the disputation
between the two demonstrates Christ’s superior (i.e., accurate) use of
logic to defeat His opponent. Jesus used direct statement, account of
action, and implication. His allusion to the behavior of the Israelites,
His use of direct statements from Deuteronomy, and His implied
applications to the situation He was facing, all demonstrate a
hermeneutic analogous to the traditional one that calls for “command,
example, or necessary inference” as authority for belief and practice.
This incident also provides a marvelous demonstration of Christ’s
mastery of debate and logical disputation. The example is not an
isolated instance. Jesus employed logic and reason throughout His
earthly sojourn. He responded to His contemporaries with piercing,
devastating logic. He continually was besieged with questions and verbal
tests to which He consistently displayed rational, reasoned response
(Luke 11:53-54). Consider these few examples:
The exchange with the Pharisees over eating grain (Matthew 12:1-9);
The dialogue with chief priests and elders over authority (Matthew 21:23-27);
The interaction with the Pharisees over taxes (Matthew 22:15-22);
The response to the Sadducees concerning marriage and the resurrection (Matthew 22:23-33);
The argument posed to the Pharisees over the identity of the Messiah (Matthew 22:41-46);
The demonstrations of healing on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1-6; Luke 13:14-16; 14:1-6);
The response to the lawyers concerning the source of His miraculous power (Luke 11:14ff);
The answer to the scribes and Pharisees concerning fasting (Luke 5:33-39);
The handling of Simon’s disgruntled view of the sinful woman (Luke 7:36-50);
The exchange with the Pharisees concerning His triumphal entry (Luke 19:39-40);
The comments upon the occasion of His arrest (Luke 22:47-53).
Jesus was so sensible and rational in His discourse that when
hard-hearted Jews declared Him to be mad or demon-possessed, others
countered: “These are not the words of one who has a demon” (John
10:21). Indeed, Jesus consistently provided evidence, even empirical
evidence, to substantiate His claims (John 10:24-26,36-38). How could
anyone possibly question the fact of Jesus’ uniform use of logic and
correct reasoning? He was and is the Master Logician who created the
human mind to function rationally as well! His inspired followers were
no different.
3. Closely related to Jesus’ emphasis upon logic is His virtually
constant use of implication. Modern scholars are surely uncomfortable
with Jesus’ use of what many have called “necessary inference.” Indeed,
cries that call for an abandonment of implication in
interpreting the Scriptures have grown louder. Not only is such thinking
self-contradictory, it is patently foolish in light of Jesus’ own
frequent and accurate use of implication.
Over and over, Jesus used implication. In Matthew 4:1-11, every case of
Jesus’ use of Old Testament Scripture to counter Satan’s arguments
requires proper reasoning and drawing of correct conclusions implied
by the explicit statements. In Matthew 12:1-9, Jesus implied that if
the Pharisees accepted David, who clearly violated Old Testament law,
they should have no problem accepting the disciples, who did not violate
Old Testament law. In Matthew 21:23-27, Jesus implied that if the chief
priests and elders believed John’s baptism to be from Heaven, they
should have submitted to John’s teaching—and to Jesus’ teaching as well.
He further implied that if they believed John’s baptism to be from men,
they ought to have been willing to face the peoples’ displeasure. The
chief priests and elders had enough sense to infer precisely what Jesus
implied and so refused to answer.
In Matthew 22:23-32, Jesus implied that if God declared Himself to be
presently the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then they were still in
existence. He also implied that if they were still in existence after
their physical deaths, then resurrection of the dead is factual.
Further, in context, Exodus 3:6, 13-16 are intended to identify the One
who sent Moses to Egypt. However, in making this point, God implied that
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were still in existence. Jesus, in fact, was
basing His point on a minor side point of the Exodus passage, but a
point that is nevertheless clearly and divinely implied.
In Matthew 22:41-45, in response to Jesus’ question, the Pharisees
identified the Christ as David’s son, no doubt alluding to 2 Samuel
7:11-17. Jesus cited Psalm 110:1 in order to encourage the Pharisees to
fit two distinct concepts together by reasoning correctly about them and
inferring what they clearly implied. Notice also that in its original
context, Psalm 110:1 referred to the supremacy and conquest of the
Messiah over the world. But Jesus focused upon an implication of the passage—that the Messiah would be both physically descended from David and yet Lord over David.
CONCLUSION
The Bible presents itself in terms of principles by which its truth may
be ascertained. We can transcend our prejudices and presuppositions
sufficiently to arrive at God’s truth—if we genuinely wish to do so.
There is simply no such thing as “my interpretation” and “your
interpretation.” There is only God’s interpretation.
There is only God’s meaning—and with diligent, rational study, we can
arrive at the truth on any subject that is vital to our spiritual
well-being.
Rather than shrugging off the conflicting views and positions on
various subjects (such as baptism, music in worship, miracles, how many
churches may exist with God’s approval, etc.), rather than dismissing
religious differences as hopeless, irresolvable, and irrelevant—we must
study and search God’s book, cautiously refraining from misinterpreting
and misusing Scripture. If we give diligent and careful attention to the
task with an honest heart that is receptive to the truth, we will know
God’s will. We will be prepared, as Jesus said in John 12:48, to stand
before God at the Judgment and be judged by His words.
It is evident that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, demonstrated several
significant hermeneutical principles in His own attitude toward and use
of Scripture. He approached Scripture with the abiding conviction that
the Old Testament is the authoritative, absolute, propositional,
plenary, verbally inspired Word of God. In His handling of Scripture, He
relied heavily upon extensive Scripture quotation, proper logical
reasoning, and implication.
As American civilization jettisons the Bible from public life, so many
in the church are participating in the culture-wide devaluation of God’s
Word. They are accomplices in the sinister dissolution of Christianity
in American culture. May God bless us in our efforts to conform
ourselves to the hermeneutical principles of Jesus.
Jesus
was undoubtedly the Master Logician. He demonstrated unsurpassed
logical prowess on every occasion. One such incident occurred when He
was preaching to a group that had gathered in a house. So many people
were crammed into the house that four men were unable to bring a
paralytic into contact with Him, so they carried him onto the roof,
punched a hole through the ceiling, and lowered him down through the
hole into the presence of Jesus. The text then reads:
Most
within Christendom see Jesus as One Who expects people to accept Him
“by faith.” What they mean by “faith” is that people ought to accept
Jesus as the Son of God without any proof, evidence, or rational
justification—simply because He claimed to be divine.
Most, in fact, see faith and proof as opposites. They think one must
have faith in those areas where proof is unavailable. To them, “faith”
is blindly accepting what you cannot prove, and deciding to believe what you cannot know.
