http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1242
The Bible is its Own Best Interpreter
Many excellent books have been written that discuss the principles
involved in understanding the Bible. Within churches of Christ, for
example, several fine volumes have been produced to assist the Christian
in comprehending the Bible’s intended meanings (e.g., Dungan, 1888;
Lockhart, 1901; Kearley, et al., 1986). One feature of the process of
interpreting the Bible is the Bible’s own ability to shed light on its
meaning. The Holy Spirit caused the Bible to be written with the
specific intention that people would be able to understand its message.
Consequently, the Bible shares in common with other books the basic
characteristics that one might expect any piece of written communication
to possess. It utilizes the same laws of thought and language, and it
assumes that the honest, sincere, dedicated student can arrive at the
meanings intended by the Author.
Perhaps the greatest deterrent to a proper interpretation of the Bible
is the widespread and growing sense of uncertainty in the acquisition of
absolute truth. American civilization has been inundated with
pluralism, and has been brow-beaten into accepting the notion that one
belief is as good as another, and that it really does not matter what
one believes. Since so many people hold to so many conflicting beliefs,
it is commonly thought that no one should be so intolerant, arrogant,
and mean-spirited as to think that
he has a corner on truth. One
belief is as good as another, so we are told. And the same principle
applies to religion, ethics, and virtually every other facet of human
existence. Agnosticism (the philosophical posture that insists that one
cannot
know) has literally come to dominate our society. Perhaps
the majority of Americans now feel that one cannot know whether the God
of the Bible exists, whether the Bible is the one and only Word of God,
whether Christianity is the only true religion, or whether New Testament
Christianity is distinguishable from denominationalism.
TRUTH, LOGIC, AND KNOWLEDGE
At the heart of the issue of how the Bible should be interpreted, and
whether the Bible is its own best interpreter, lies the deeper question
of whether we humans are capable of
knowing anything for certain, whether we can use logic to
reason correctly, and whether we can arrive at
truth.
These preconditions for understanding the Bible may seem obvious and
self-evident to Christians. But we are living at a time in which most
people have been influenced to think that we cannot be
certain about knowing anything. It goes without saying that this viewpoint is self-contradictory. Yet many continue to believe it.
Of course, the Bible is filled with statements that presuppose (and, in
fact, absolutely demand) that we reason correctly, weigh evidence, and
come to correct conclusions regarding God’s will. Through Isaiah, God
beckoned: “Come now, and let us reason together” (1:18), and “State your
case, that you may be acquitted” (43:26). The noble Bereans “searched
the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” (Acts
17:11). Paul said he was appointed for “the defense of the gospel”
(Philippians 1:17). He insisted that the Thessalonians “test all things;
hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). He told Timothy to
rightly divide the word of truth and to correct those who were in
opposition (2 Timothy 2:15,25). Peter urged us to “always be ready to
give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in
you” (1 Peter 3:15). John warned: “Beloved, do not believe every
spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many
false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). And Jude said
that we must “contend earnestly for the faith” (Jude 3). Every single
one of these verses, and many, many more, demand that the individual
engage in a process of assessing facts, investigating circumstances,
weighing evidence, diligent thinking, and reasoning, in order to arrive
at the truth.
Yet, the
magnitude of disagreement that exists in the world is
astonishing. It is frustrating, depressing, heart-rending, and
mind-boggling. For example, in American
politics, a wide range of
viewpoints exists with a multiplicity of variations and shades. How can
so many politicians adamantly insist that abortion is absolutely right
and good, while many other politicians, with equal vigor, insist that
abortion is evil and wrong? How can people be so diametrically opposed
to each other’s viewpoints? In
religion, the diversity and
cleavage is incredible. Christendom is hopelessly divided due to
differing doctrinal views. The vast majority of those who claim to be
following Christ adamantly maintain that water immersion is not
necessary to salvation. Millions believe that it is appropriate to
sprinkle infants, or to worship God with instruments of music, or that
you cannot fall from grace. The religious division that exists in the
entire
world is even more staggering, since, for example, Islam
(representing over a billion people) and Hinduism (representing about a
billion people) are in absolute and complete contradiction to each
other. By the very nature of their views, they cannot possibly “agree to
disagree.” Atheism maintains that
all religion is crazy. Karl
Marx said that religion is the “opiate of the people.” So to the
communist, evolutionist, and atheist, religion is actually
harmful and detrimental to society.
With such irreparable, irreversibly deep diversity, no wonder so many
have thrown up their hands and concluded that we cannot know for sure
who is right and who is wrong (or perhaps more commonly, it really does
not matter what is right and wrong). But after surveying the
disconcerting, discouraging condition of the world’s lack of interest in
ascertaining spiritual reality, one can return once again to the Bible,
bring the entire state of affairs back into focus, and make perfect
sense of the situation. It has ever been this way! The vast majority of
humanity has always chosen to go its own way—for a variety of reasons
and motivations. But
the truth can be ascertained! Hence, they are
all without excuse (cf. Romans 1:20).
The notion that the Bible is its own best interpreter was articulated
during the Reformation as a reaction to the Catholic notion that the
church was the final interpreter of God’s Word. The reformers took issue
with this claim, and insisted instead that “Scripture is its own
interpreter” (
Scriptura sacra sui ipsius interpres). What they
meant was that the totality of the Bible must be allowed to interpret
every part of the Bible. Thus, “no part of Scripture can be so
interpreted as to deform the teaching of the whole of Scripture” (Ramm,
et al., 1987, p. 23). As Milton Terry observed: “God’s written word,
taken as a whole, and allowed to speak for itself, will be found to be
its own best interpreter” (n.d., p. 162; cf. p. 222).
There is much to be said for the recognition that to really understand the Bible—to really
know
the Bible—one must study the Bible book by book, giving attention to
the contextual variables that characterize each individual book, and
grasping the overall argument and line of reasoning inherent in each
book. Clinton Lockhart, a Christian who authored a textbook on
hermeneutics in 1901 that, by some estimations, surpasses the work of
Dungan, pointed out that “no man that reads the Bible merely as a
collection of proverbs or disconnected texts can ever understand the
real nature of the sacred volume” (p. 233). Indeed, there is no
substitute or shortcut to Bible interpretation. One must develop a broad
and thorough familiarity with the entire Bible
THE BIBLE:
ITS OWN BEST INTERPRETER ON HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM
The Scriptures contain within them the keys to their own
interpretation. Take, for example, the question of Holy Spirit baptism.
The charismatic community typically associates the expression “Holy
Spirit baptism” with the phenomenon that enables the believer to speak
in tongues, heal someone, or work other miracles. In other words, Holy
Spirit baptism is simply a
generic reference to miraculous
empowerment. Anyone who can speak in a tongue or perform any other
miraculous action is said to have been baptized in the Holy Spirit. He
is said to be “Spirit-filled.” However, the Bible actually alludes to
Holy Spirit baptism in a very narrow, specialized, even technical sense
(see
Miller,
2003). Just because a person could speak in tongues or work miracles did
not necessarily mean he or she had been baptized in the Holy Spirit.
The principle of the Bible being its own best interpreter is well
illustrated in the verses that allude directly to Holy Spirit baptism:
Matthew 3:11; Acts 1:5; and Acts 11:16. In all three verses, Holy Spirit
baptism is mentioned by name, and the language that is employed links
the three occasions together. Thus, one critical principle involved in
allowing the Bible to interpret itself is to recognize and accept the
explicit explanations that verses often give on a particular subject.
THE BIBLE:
ITS OWN BEST INTERPRETER ON BAPTISM AS A SYMBOL
Another example where we see the Bible being its own best interpreter
pertains to baptism. The Protestant world has insisted that water
baptism is a secondary and subsequent action to salvation. Various
religionists have maintained that it serves as “an outward sign of an
inward grace.” They claim that baptism is a
symbol—a visible
expression of the forgiveness already received at the point of faith.
But the Bible nowhere articulates this provocative, illicit concept. It
is the figment of someone’s vivid imagination that has been taken up and
repeated so often that it sounds “biblical.” When Ananias prodded Paul
to “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name
of the Lord” (Acts 22:16), he said nothing about an alleged symbolic
cleansing or post-forgiveness washing. He uttered not one word that
would lead the unbiased reader to even remotely conclude that Paul’s
sins were washed away
before he was baptized.
The grammar that the Holy Spirit selected by which to express Himself
is very often a key to allowing the Bible to interpret itself. In Acts
22:16, the grammar further militates against the denominational
interpretation so often placed on Paul’s baptism. The Holy Spirit
utilized two participles and two verbs in verse 16 that clarify His
intended meaning:
anastas is an aorist active participle: “having arisen” or “rising”
baptisai is an aorist middle imperative verb: “get yourself baptized”
apolousai is also an aorist middle imperative verb: “get your sins washed away”
epikalesamenos is an aorist middle participle: “you will have been calling”
An adverbial participle is a participle that is used as an adverb to
modify the verb. “Calling” is an adverbial participle of manner. It
shows the
manner in which the main verbs are accomplished. The
verbs (“baptized” and “wash away sins”)—joined by the coordinate
conjunction “and” (
kai)—are “causative middles” (Robertson, 1934,
p. 808) in the aorist tense, and so relate to the aorist middle of the
participle that follows (“calling”). Hence, a literal translation would
be: “Having arisen, get yourself baptized and get your sins washed away,
and you will have been calling on the name of the Lord.” In other
words, Ananias was telling Paul that the way to accomplish “calling on
the Lord” was to be baptized and have his sins washed away. The Holy
Spirit deliberately formulated the grammar of every passage in the Bible
so that His writing would interpret itself!
But doesn’t the Bible teach that baptism is, in fact, a
symbol?
Doesn’t baptism have “symbolic” significance? Yes, the Bible assigns
symbolic significance to baptism in regard to at least three distinct
features. Paul said that water baptism symbolizes the death, burial, and
resurrection of Jesus. He used the terms “likeness” and “form” to
pinpoint this symbolism (Romans 6:5,17). He later identified a symbolic
link between baptism and Old Testament circumcision—the idea that as
skin was cut off by circumcision, so sins are cut off at baptism
(Colossians 2:11-12). Peter added a third instance of baptism’s symbolic
value. He compared a person passing through the water of baptism in
order to be saved (by Christ’s resurrection) with the eight persons who
were saved “by,” i.e.,
through (
dia) the water of the
Flood of Noah’s day (1 Peter 3:20-21). Notice carefully how the Bible is
its own best interpreter: baptism symbolizes: (1) Christ’s death,
burial, and resurrection; (2) the “cutting off” of circumcision; and (3)
the waters of the Flood. How in the world could anyone get out of this
that baptism symbolizes
past forgiveness that was achieved
prior to being baptized?
THE BIBLE:
ITS OWN BEST INTERPRETER ON THE NEW BIRTH
The account of Jesus’ encounter with Nicodemus has certainly spawned a
great deal of resistance to the role of water baptism in God’s scheme of
redemption. While the bulk of Christendom for most of the last 2,000
years has recognized that “water” in John 3:5 is an allusion to water
baptism (Shepherd, 1894, pp. 320-338), in the last few decades, many
have attempted to assign a different meaning to the word—everything from
“blood,” “sperm,” and the “Spirit” to the “water” that accompanies the
physical birth of a child (i.e., amniotic fluid). However, once again,
the Bible is its own best interpreter.
The context yields three useful factors. In the first place, Nicodemus
thought being “born again” entailed physical birth (vs. 4). Jesus would
not have followed up that misunderstanding by confirming it! If “water”
in verse five refers to physical birth, then the flow of thought was
that when Nicodemus asked if Jesus was referring to physical birth,
Jesus responded that He was: “Do I have to be born physically a second
time from my mother’s womb?” “Yes, you must be born of water….” In the
second place, Jesus would not have told Nicodemus that one of the
prerequisites for getting into the
spiritual kingdom is physical
birth. That would have Jesus making the redundant and ridiculous
statement: “Before you can get into My kingdom, you first have to become
a human being.” To frame such a statement would not only make Jesus
appear oblivious to the fact that Nicodemus was
already a human
being, but also would put Jesus in the absurd position of thinking He
needed to inform all non-humans (i.e., the animals) that they are
not permitted entrance into the kingdom.
In the third place, while multiple occurrences of the same word in the
same context can have different meanings, attendant extenuating
circumstances would be necessary in order to realize the distinction. No
such factors are evident, especially since, eighteen verses later, the
writer informs us that John the baptizer “was baptizing in Aenon near
Salim, because there was much
water there” (John 3:23, emp. added). Was John baptizing in that location because there was much
amniotic fluid there? Or because there was much
blood there? Or because the
Holy Spirit was there? The Bible is indeed its own best interpreter!
THE BIBLE:
ITS OWN BEST INTERPRETER ON THE KINGDOM
Premillennialists are fond of calling attention to the concluding
prophetic remarks of Amos: “‘On that day I will raise up the tabernacle
of David, which has fallen down, and repair its damages; I will raise up
its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old; that they may possess
the remnant of Edom, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name,’
says the Lord who does this thing” (Amos 9:11-12). They insist that the
fulfillment of this prophecy is yet future. They say the Temple, which
was destroyed in A.D. 70 by the Romans (Matthew 23:37-24:35), will be
rebuilt on the Temple platform in Jerusalem (a site currently occupied
by the third most holy shrine of Islam—the Dome of the Rock). They say
that Jesus will return after the Rapture, the Tribulation, and
Armageddon, and set up His millennial kingdom. They say He will reign on
a literal throne for a thousand years, and incorporate the Gentiles, in
addition to the nation of Israel, into His kingdom. On the face of it,
this prophecy certainly possesses terminology that fits the millenarian
interpretation placed upon it.
However, two Bible passages dispute this interpretation, and settle the
question as to the proper application of Amos’ prophecy. The first is
the great Messianic prophecy uttered by the prophet Nathan to King David
regarding David’s future lineage and royal dynasty (2 Samuel 7:12-16).
Nathan declared that God would establish and sustain the Davidic
dynasty. Even though he also noted that a permanent form of the
Tabernacle (that God refused to allow David to build [2 Samuel 7:1-7])
would be built by David’s son (i.e., Solomon), God, Himself, would build
David a house, i.e., a dynasty, a kingly lineage. It is this
lineage to which Amos referred—not a physical temple building.
The second passage that clarifies Amos’ prophecy is the account of the
Jerusalem “conference” (Acts 15). Following Peter’s report regarding
Gentile inclusion in the kingdom, James offered the following
confirmatory comment: “Men and brethren, listen to me: Simon has
declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a
people for His name. And with this the words of the prophets agree,
just as it is written” (Acts 15:13-15). James then quoted Amos 9:11-12.
In other words, on that most auspicious occasion, James was noting two
significant facts that had come to pass precisely as predicted by Amos:
(1) after the downfall of the Jewish kingdom, the Davidic dynasty had
been reinstated in the person of Christ—the “Son of David” (Matthew
22:42)—Who, at His ascension, had been enthroned in heaven, thereby
“rebuilding the tabernacle of David that had fallen down”; and (2) with
the conversion of the first Gentiles in Acts 10, as reported on this
occasion by Peter, the “residue of men,” or the non-Jewish segment of
humanity, was now “seeking the Lord.” I repeat: the Bible is its own
best interpreter.
A fitting conclusion to this feature of God’s amazing Word might be the
remark made by Peter on the occasion of the establishment of the church
of Christ on Earth. You no doubt remember how he and his fellow
apostles, empowered by the Holy Spirit to speak foreign languages to the
international audience gathered on that occasion were nevertheless
accused of being intoxicated. After noting it was too early in the day
for such an explanation to be plausible, he prefaced his quotation of
Joel with the following words: “This is that….” Much of the effort that
we expend in coming to a correct understanding of God’s Word will be
directed toward that very goal. Peter was telling his Pentecost
audience: the Bible is its own best interpreter.
REFERENCES
Dungan, D.R. (1888),
Hermeneutics (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).
Kearley, F. Furman, Edward P. Myers, and Timothy D. Hadley, eds. (1986),
Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Lockhart, Clinton (1915),
Principles of Interpretation (Delight, AR: Gospel Light), revised edition.
Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation,” [On-line],
URL:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2572.
Ramm, Bernard, et al. (1987),
Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Robertson, A.T. (1934), A Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman).
Shepherd, J.W. (1894),
Handbook on Baptism (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1972 reprint).
Terry, Milton (no date),
Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), reprint.
