Chapter 6 - Rightly Handling the Word of God
Moses did not count the profanation of the worship of God as one of the reasons for the flood; but that would certainly have been noted if it had been prevalent among the people of God.
6. In our English Bibles, marginal references sometimes mention a Greek or Hebrew word indicating that there is some variation in the extant manuscripts of the passage. The correct reading is the one which (i) agrees with the grammatical construction, and with other reliable manuscripts. (ii) makes sense of the context and thrust of the passage and agrees with the analogy of faith.
I mention this as a principle of interpretation, not because I think that our copies of the Hebrew and Greek text were corrupted through the malicious activity of the Jews, as Lindanus (followed by the Roman Church) argues. I mention it simply so that the various readings - which have arisen either through a lack of skill or negligence and oversight on the part of those who made copies of the text - might be scanned and the correct reading determined.
For example, in most copies of the Hebrew text, Psalm 22:16 reads kaari, meaning 'As a lion my hands and my feet.' But in some copies of the Hebrew the reading is different: kaaru, 'They have digged (or pierced) my hands and my feet.' The rule we have adopted would indicate that the latter reading is to be followed since it agrees with (i) the grammatical construction; (ii) the circumstances of the psalm; (iii) some ancient copies, as the Jews themselves recognise.
VI. RIGHTLY HANDLING THE WORD OF GOD
So far we have been considering the interpretation of Scripture.
Now we come to consider the right 'cutting', or 'dividing' of it. Right cutting is the way in which the Word is enabled to edify the people of God: 'Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing [or cutting] the word of truth' (2 Tim. 2:15).
The idea of cutting here is metaphorical language possibly derived from the activity of the Levites, who were required to cut the limbs of the animals they sacrificed with great care. It is of this skill that the Messiah speaks: 'The Lord God has given Me the tongue of the learned, That I should know how to speak a word in season to him who is weary' (Isa. 50:4).
There are two elements in this: (i) resolution or partition, and (ii) application.
Resolution Resolution is the unfolding of the passage into its various doctrines, like the untwisting and loosening of a weaver's web.
Apollos was highly skilled in doing this: 'for he vigorously refuted the Jews publicly, showing from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ'
(Acts 18:28).
Sometimes the doctrine is explicitly stated in the passage. This is already illustrated in New Testament references to the Old
Testament: 'We have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. As it is written: There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one' (Rom. 3:911). Another example is found in Acts 2:24-27.
On other occasions a doctrine not specifically stated is correctly drawn from the text because, in one sense or another, it is implied in what is written. There are many illustrations of how this is done in Scripture itself. For example:
BIBLICAL TEXT
IMPLICATION DRAWN FROM
THE TEXT John 10:34: Jesus answered John 10:35: If He called them them, 'Is it not written in your gods to whom the word of God law, "I said, you are gods"'? came (and the Scripture cannot be broken): 36: Do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming', because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?
1 Corinthians 9:9: For it is 1 Corinthians 9:4: Do we have no written in the law of Moses, 'You right to eat and drink? shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.' Is it oxen God is concerned about?
Galatians 3:10: For as many as Galatians 3:9: So then those who are of the works of the law are are of faith are blessed with under the curse; for it is written, believing Abraham.
'Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.'
Galatians 3:11: For 'the just shall Galatians 3:11: But that no one is live by faith'. justified by the law in the sight of God is evident.
Hebrews 8:8: Because finding Hebrews 8:13: In that He says, 'A fault with them, He says: new covenant', He has made the 'Behold, the days are coming, first obsolete. Now what is says the Lord, when I will make a becoming obsolete and growing new covenant with the house old is ready to vanish away.
Israel and with the house of Judah'.
In elucidating doctrines we must bear in mind that an example that is ethical, economic, political, ordinary or extraordinary has the force of a general rule within its own sphere. The examples of the fathers are patterns for us, as Paul indicates: 'Now all these things ... were written for our admonition' (1 Cor. 10:11). It is a principle in logic that the genus is present in all the species, just as it is a rule in visual perception that the general species of things are perceived before the particular.
Romans 9:7: Nor are they all Romans 9:8: That is, those who children because they are the are the children of the flesh, seed of Abraham; but, 'In Isaac these are not the children of your seed shall be called'. 10:
God; but the children of the And not only this, but when promise are counted as the seed.
Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac . . .
Romans 4:18: Abraham, contrary Romans 4:23: Now it was not to hope, etc. 21: Being fully written for his sake alone that it convinced that what He had was imputed to him. 24: But also promised He was also able to for us. It shall be imputed to us perform. 22: And therefore 'it who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.
was accounted to him for righteousness.'
Note, however, that doctrines ought to be deduced from passages only when it is proper and valid to do so. They must be derived from the genuine meaning of the Scripture. Otherwise we will end up drawing any doctrine from any place in the Bible.
An example of such a mistake is the way in which Proverbs 8:22 has been handled. In this passage Wisdom, that is Christ, is speaking about himself. According to the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) the passage reads: 'The Lord has created me.'
From this translation the Arians perversely argued that the Son was created. But the Hebrew text reads: 'The Lord has possessed me' (the Hebrew verb is qanah). The Father possesses the Son, because he was begotten of the Father from eternity, and because the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father. And so when a son was born to Adam he said he had possessed a man from the Lord' (Gen. 4:1; again the Hebrew verb is qanah). The error here perhaps arose because of a scribal error (accidental or deliberate) in the Greek text.
In the same way, Augustine comments on Psalm 39:10, reading the text: 'I held my peace because thou hast made me: He makes the subtle application that it is a marvel that he - who had been given a mouth to enable him to speak - should hold his tongue. But the word
'me' is in neither the Hebrew nor the Greek text. Again, in his comments on Psalm 72:14 he discusses the question of moneylending for interest and proves that this is sinful. But there is nothing about this in the text! It reads: 'He will redeem their life from oppression and violence; And precious shall be their blood in His sight.'
It is also legitimate to develop analogies or allegories. These are arguments drawn from things that are like each other. Paul used them often (e.g. 1 Cor. 9:9). But they are to be employed with the following caveats:
1. They should be used sparingly and soberly.
2. They must not be far-fetched, but appropriate to the matter in hand.
3. They must be mentioned briefly.
4. They should be used for practical instruction not to prove a point of doctrine.
Any point of doctrine drawn from a text by proper interpretation should be believed on its own authority. This is an adequate basis for believing it. 'Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus ... for he vigorously refuted the Jews publicly, showing from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ' (Acts 18:24, 28). It follows from this that:
1. We should not rest our faith on human testimonies, either from the philosophers, or the Fathers. Augustine comments on Psalm 66 thus: 'If I speak, let no man hear; if Christ speak, woe be to him that does not hear.' Again he says, 'Let us not hear, "these things
I say, these things he says": but let us hear, "These things the Lord says".' Yet with this exception: 'Unless they convince the conscience of the hearer.' It was in this way that Paul appealed to the testimony of Ararus, 'For in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said; "For we are also His offspring.
Therefore, since we are the offspring of God . . ."' (Acts 17:28, 29).