sufficient that the interpreter fixes his attention on the separate
views to ascribe to the conjunction the meaning of dio, (wherefore), though it never occurs in that sense.
It should be borne in mind that the assumption of some of the older exegetes, to the effect that the writers of the New Testament often confounded the conjunctions, and, for example, used de for gar, and vice versa, is altogether unwarranted. Careful study will usually reveal a discriminating choice. Cf. the various grammars of the New Testament.
Moreover, it is necessary to guard against the mistake that a conjunction always connects a thought with the one immediately preceding it. In Matt. 10:31 we read: "Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows." And immediately following this: "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men …" This is an inference, not from the exhortation in the 31st verse, but from all that was said from the 16th verse on. Similarly, in Eph. 2:11–13, the "wherefore" with which the passage begins does not connect the 11th with the 10th verse, but with the propositions in the verses 1–7.
Finally, there are passages that are not connected by conjunctions. In some cases, they are not logically related to one another, as in Luke 16:15–18. Compare 5:16 with Matt. 11:12, 13; 5:17 with Matt. 5:18; and 5:18 with Matt. 5:32. In other instances, however, they are clearly related, as in Matt. 5:2–11; and 1 John 1:8–10. In such cases it is necessary to discover the connection by a diligent study of the course of thought, and of the arrangement of the words in the sentence.
5. THE COURSE OF THOUGHT OF AN ENTIRE SECTION. It is not sufficient that the interpreter fixes his attention on the separate clauses and sentences; he must acquaint himself with the general thought of the writer or speaker. Sometimes it taxes his ability to follow the reasoning of the Biblical authors. We do not refer to the peculiar difficulties encountered in the interpretation of the Prophets. Other parts of Scripture also present cruces interpretum.
The separate thoughts may appear unrelated, while, in fact, they are closely connected. There are cases in which it seems to some that the course of thought is not in harmony with the laws of logic. Sometimes the discourse as a whole apparently suffers from inherent contradiction. A single example may serve to illustrate the difficulty which we have in mind. In John 3, Nicodemus is seen to approach Jesus with the words: "Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God; for no man can do those signs which thou doest, except God be with him." How is Jesus' answer in the 3rd verse related to these words? In the 4th verse Nicodemus declares that he does not understand Jesus. Does the Lord answer his question in the verses 5–8? The Pharisee repeats his question in the 9th verse, and Jesus expresses surprise at his ignorance in verse 10. Why does He now point to the fact that He knows whereof He speaks: to the unbelief of the Jews, including Nicodemus; and to his coming from heaven and his future exaltation on the cross for the salvation of believers? Do the verses 16–21 also contain the words of Jesus? Cf. also John 8:31– 37; Gal. 2:11–21.
The parables deserve special attention. The word "parable" is derived from the Greek paraballo (to throw or place by the side of), and suggests the idea of placing one thing by the side of the other for comparison. It denotes a symbolic method of speech, in which a moral or spiritual truth is illustrated by the analogy of common experience. But while the parable is essentially a comparison, a simile, all similes are not parables. The parable limits itself to that which is real, and in its imagery does not go beyond the limits of probability, or of what might be actual fact. It keeps the two elements of comparison distinct as "an inner and outer," and does not attribute the qualities and relations of the one to the other. In this respect it differs from the allegory, which is really an extended metaphor and contains its interpretation within itself. The Lord had a twofold purpose in using the parables, viz., to reveal the mysteries of the Kingdom of God to his disciples, and to conceal them from those who had no eye for the realities of the spiritual world.
In the interpretation of the parable, three elements must be taken in consideration.
a. The scope of the parable, or the thing to be illustrated. It is of primary importance that the purpose of the parable stand out clearly in the mind of the interpreter. In his attempt to discover it, he should not overlook the important helps that are offered in the Bible.
(1) The occasion on which a parable is introduced may illustrate its meaning and bearing. Matt. 20:1 ff. is explained by 19:27; Matt. 25:14 ff., by verse 13; Luke 16:19–31 by the 14th verse. Cf. also Luke 10:29; 15:1, 2; and 19:11, for the purpose of the following parables.
(2) The object of the parable may be expressly stated in the introduction, as in Luke 18:1.
(3) Certain expressions at the end of a parable may also indicate its bearing. Cf. Matt. 13:49; Luke 11:9; 12:21.
(4) Again a similar parable of similar import may point out the thing to be illustrated. Compare Luke 15:3 ff. with Matt. 18:12 ff. The 14th verse of Matt. 18 contains a valuable hint.
(5) In many cases, however, the interpreter will have to discover the purpose of a parable by the careful study of its context.
b. The figurative representation of the parable. After the scope of the parable is determined, the figurative representation calls for close scrutiny. The formal narrative that is meant at once to reveal and to conceal the truth must be analyzed carefully, and all the necessary geographical, archaeological, and historical light, must be brought to bear upon it.
c. The tertium comparationis. Finally, the tertium comparationis, the exact point of comparison must be detected. There is always some special aspect of the Kingdom of God, some particular line of duty to be followed, or some danger to be shunned, which the parable seeks
to exhibit, and to which all its imagery is subservient. As long as the interpreter has not discovered this point, he cannot hope to understand the parable, and he should not try to explain the individual traits, for these can be seen in their true light only when contemplated in relation to the central idea. Moreover, great care should be taken not to ascribe independent spiritual significance to all the details of the parable. It is impossible to state precisely how far an expositor may go in this respect. The question of just what in the parable belongs to the ethical or doctrinal contents, and what to the mere delineation, does not admit of a clear-cut answer. A great deal must be left to common sense. The interpreter must make it a point to discriminate carefully. Failure to do this often led and is bound to lead to fanciful and arbitrary interpretations. In a general way, the rule laid down by Immer may be of some service: "What ministers to the fundamental thought or the intention of the parable, belongs to the doctrinal contents, but what does not minister thereto, is mere delineation." It will be instructive in this matter to study the explanations which the Lord gave of the parable of the Sower, and of that of the Wheat and the Tares.
EXERCISE: What idiomatic expressions are found in the following passages: Gen. 1:14; 19:9; 31:15; Jer. 7:13; Gal. 2:16; John 3:29; Rev. 2:17; 18:22?
Name and interpret the figures of thought that are found in the following passages: Job 12:2; Ps. 32:9; 102:7; Prov. 14:34; Isa. 42:3; 55:12; Matt. 7:24–27; Acts 4:28; John 21:25; Rom. 9:29; 1 Cor. 4:8; 11:22; 2 Cor. 6:8–10.
What significant change in the order of words is found in the following passages? Ps. 3:5 (Heb.); 18:31 (Heb.); 74:17; Jer. 10:6; Matt. 13:28; John 17:4; 1 Cor. 2:7; 2 Tim. 2:11; Heb. 6:16; 7:4?
Notice the following examples of anacolutha: Gen. 3:22; Ps. 18:48, 49; Zech. 2:11; Rom. 8:3 (Winer-Moulton, p. 718); Gal. 2:6; 2 Pet. 2:4–9.