It’s a Matter of Interpretation
Years ago when I was still a boy I remember hearing a particular sermon illustration. I don’t remember what the sermon was about, and I don’t remember exactly how the illustration was presented, but I do remember the gist of it. Two grandsons were talking about their grandfather. The first grandson says, “It’s amazing that grandpa is 90 years old and he still doesn’t use glasses.” The second grandson replies, “Well maybe he just likes to drink from bottles.” The illustration is not particularly funny, but I think you get the point. The first grandson was referring to eyeglasses, and the second grandson thought he was referring to drinking glasses. The first grandson made what he thought was a literal statement. The problem was the second grandson gave a different literal meaning to “glasses.” The second grandson incorrectly interpreted the statement of the first grandson because he had a different primary meaning for “glasses.” Maybe the second grandson always referred to eyeglasses as eyeglasses and drinking glasses as glasses (or drinking glasses). Now I’m sure most of us would have understood “glasses” to mean eyeglasses. The problem, though, is there was not enough context to fully clarify which type of glasses the first grandson was thinking of, and, evidently, there were no other conversations about this particular subject that would cause the second grandson to realize the first grandson was referring to eyeglasses.
So what’s the point? The point is this is why we have differences in interpreting the Bible. One person reads a verse and it means one thing, and another person reads the same verse and comes up with a different meaning. If I’m dependent only on my understanding of what words mean and ignore the context and what other parts of the Bible have to say on the subject, I have a very subjective interpretation. It is subject to my education (secular and religious), my life experiences, my culture, and my version of common sense. In other words, if I interpret the Bible by what I consider to be literal I could easily come up with an incorrect interpretation.
What we are dealing with here is hermeneutics (sounds similar to herman new ticks). For most people, hermeneutics is not an everyday word. Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation. It can be applied in many areas. For example, justices of the Supreme Court of the United States interpret the Constitution. Some justices allow their interpretation of the Constitution to be heavily influenced by today’s culture and thinking. Other justices try to interpret the Constitution with a heavy influence on original intent. (Original intent means interpreting based on the culture and thinking of the original authors.) The former is more subjective, and the latter is more objective. The former is more subjective because the interpretation is influenced (not necessarily determined) by whatever the justice thinks is correct. The latter is more objective because it is not just based on what the justice thinks is correct, but the language of the Constitution is compared with other writings of the founding fathers to see what the founding fathers thought about a particular subject.
Everyone has the right to read and interpret Scripture on his or her own. This is the right of private interpretation. The Reformers fought for this right. Instead of relying solely on the teaching of the church, lay people can and should interpret Scripture on their own. At the time of the Reformation the Catholic Church protested that if people were allowed to interpret Scripture, they would distort Scripture for their own purposes. The Reformers agreed there would be distortion but still insisted on the right of private interpretation. However, with every right comes a responsibility. As R. C. Sproul says, “With the right of private interpretation comes the sober responsibility of accurate interpretation.”[1]
Accurate interpretation requires proper hermeneutics. For some, though, their only hermeneutic is “whatever the Bible says.” What they mean is “Whatever I think the Bible means is what it means.” This is why many in the church are quite comfortable with contradictory interpretations. They begin sharing in their small group with the phrase “What this verse means to me is….” The important thing is not what a verse or passage means to me but what it means. This is why biblical hermeneutics (principles used to interpret the Bible) are so important.
One very important principle for interpreting the Bible is the principle of interpreting according to the literal sense of a passage. Determining the literal sense of a passage considers the normal rules of grammar, speech, syntax, genre (for example narrative or poetry), and context. One goal behind literal interpretation is to reduce subjectivity. Closely related to this is the principle of grammatical-historical interpretation. As the name implies it focuses on the grammatical constructs and historical contexts of Scripture. Grammatical structure determines whether a specific passage should be considered a question (interrogative), command (imperative), or declarative (indicative). Also, this principle seeks what the text meant to the original recipients in order to prevent reading into Scripture our own thoughts from the present (anachronistic interpretation). Unfortunately, though, many think the most important thing is to determine the literal meaning of a biblical passage. This is not the most important task of biblical interpretation. The most important task is to determine the actual meaning.
To get the actual meaning of a passage we need to interpret it in line with the literal sense, and we need to use grammatical-historical interpretation, but there is a most important principle. This principle is “Scripture interprets Scripture.” In other words, the best commentary on a passage of Scripture is Scripture itself. There are several corollaries to this principle.
Interpret the unclear in the light of the clear.
Interpret the implicit in the light of the explicit.
Interpret the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament.
My goal is not to give a full explanation of hermeneutics but to point out the preeminence of “Scripture interprets Scripture” over other principles of interpretation. The other principles are important and must be used when interpreting Scripture, but a literal interpretation that violates “Scripture interprets Scripture” must be rejected.
Let me give an example to demonstrate my point. John 3 gives the dialog between Jesus and Nicodemus. Jesus gives the prerequisites for entrance into the kingdom of God.
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (John 3:3-6 ESV)
Clearly, Nicodemus takes being “born again” very literally as a repeat of physical birth. Jesus does not correct Nicodemus but gives him further clarification when he says Nicodemus must be “born of water and the Spirit.” What does Jesus mean by this, especially the phrase “born of water?” Well if we interpret this strictly literally those who can enter the kingdom of God are born of physical water. Water is used in baptism so Jesus may be saying that one must be baptized to enter the kingdom, and many hold that view. However, since Jesus is speaking of being born, and verse 6 has the phrase “that which is born of the flesh” he could be referring to the release of amniotic fluid that happens before physical birth. We all know this is referred to as a pregnant woman’s water breaking. At this point, though, we have surely left literal interpretation since Jesus said water, not amniotic fluid. Can we legitimately use our current expression of “water breaking” to interpret “born of water?” Did Nicodemus and others of his era use the phrase “water breaking” to refer to the rupture of the amniotic sac? Nicodemus did refer to entering his mother’s womb a second time but that was before Jesus said he must be born of water and the Spirit. Jesus seems shocked that Nicodemus, a teacher, does not understand what he is talking about.
Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? (John 3:9-10 ESV)
Since Nicodemus is a teacher he should understand the Old Testament context of Jesus’s statement. Jesus is not making up doctrine as he goes along. He is fulfilling Scripture, thus, we should look to Scripture to interpret what Jesus said. In Ezekiel 36, God promises that he will cleanse his people and renew them by his Spirit.
I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. (Ezekiel 36:25-27 ESV)
So in Ezekiel, we have a clear reference to water and the Spirit pointing to the new birth (a change of heart in Ezekiel’s terms). Richard Phillips agrees.
The . . . best view observes that in the Greek text the grammatical structure of “water and the Spirit” indicates a single event, not two different births. Moreover, since Jesus chides Nicodemus for his ignorance (John 3:10), he must be referring to things taught in the Old Testament. It turns out that Jesus’ description of “water and the Spirit” corresponds to God’s promise of the new birth in Ezekiel 36:25-27. . . This is a rebirth that a teacher such as Nicodemus should know, involving cleansing from sin as by water, giving us a new and righteous standing with God, and the transforming of the heart by God’s Spirit, giving us new life to live for God. This is what the new birth is all about.[2]
So when Jesus tells Nicodemus that he must be born of water and the Spirit to see the kingdom of God Nicodemus should have been reminded of God’s promise in Ezekiel. Paul confirms this in Titus 3.
But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit. (Titus 3:4-5 ESV)
By using Scripture to interpret Scripture we find Jesus is referring to the sovereign work of God to regenerate his people. But what about verse six where Jesus says, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh?” Surely that indicates physical birth. The problem is the only other place in John where flesh and Spirit are used together indicates otherwise.
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. (John 6:63 ESV)
Jesus is saying the flesh offers nothing when it comes to new life. (The KVJ says the flesh “profits nothing,” and, as Martin Luther said, “‘Nothing’ in this passage not only may, but must be taken to mean, not ‘a little something.’”[3]) So Jesus is saying to Nicodemus we do not have it in ourselves to produce new life. God must do it. What God said through Ezekiel and Paul confirms this.
This example shows the danger of placing literal interpretation above the principle of “Scripture interprets Scripture.” Emphasis is placed on literal interpretation for fear of “spiritualizing” Scripture. That fear traces back to the theological liberalism of the 19th and early 20th centuries and is still a legitimate fear today. However, we cannot equate spiritualizing the Bible with a proper figurative interpretation demanded by the principle of “Scripture interprets Scripture.” Trying to interpret the Bible “literally” can be just as much a wax nose as “spiritualizing” the Bible.
This article is not a comprehensive discussion of the subject, and I certainly do not claim interpretive infallibility. I hope, though, that this will encourage a desire to combine the right of private interpretation with the responsibility of accurate interpretation. Let’s be more concerned with actual interpretation than literal interpretation.
[1] R. C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2009), 39
[2] Richard D. Phillips, John, Reformed Expository Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2014), 1:153
[3] Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 263
Photo by Oladimeji Ajegbile: https://www.pexels.com/photo/eyeglasses-on-top-of-an-opened-book-2908773/