SEEKING THE
INTENDED MEANING
OF GOD'S WORD
“He
who has my Word, let him speak my Word faithfully.”
(Jeremiah 23:28)
As Christians, we are not
free to make God’s Word say anything we please, or to interpret it
according to
our own whims. On the contrary, we have an obligation to be honest and
truthful
about what is said, and a responsibility to search out the intended
meaning of
the words (2Peter
Because our God is a God of
light, not darkness, the meaning that He intends for us to get from His
Word is
not hard to find. Far from it, He plainly tells us that the message He
wants us
to get from His Word is nothing other “than what you read”
(2Corinthians
Because the meaning that God
intends for us to get from His Word is nothing other “than what you
read,” the
intended meaning is the plain grammatical meaning of the words
(2Corinthians
In
past centuries the grammatical meaning of the words has been called the
“literal” meaning. However, today the word “literal” is often confused
with the
surface meaning, or the nonfigurative meaning of the words. Therefore,
let me
make it clear that the “literal” meaning, in the historical sense of
the word,
does not exclude figures of speech but is the meaning that the words
would have
in everyday conversation. The meaning intended by
the writer
according to the natural rules of grammar and usage. As Robert Preus put it, “Only the literal sense of
Scripture is valid
for establishing doctrine and teaching in the church… The literal sense
of
Scripture is the meaning, or tenor, that the words directly and
obviously
convey… The literal sense of a Scripture passage or pericope
is not necessarily identical with the surface meaning of the words, but
the
genre of the text or the tropes therein must also be ascertained, when
necessary, to determine the literal sense of a text.” (The Theology of
Post-Reformation Lutheranism, page 321-322.)
In order to illustrate what
I mean consider Jesus’ reference to King Herod as a “fox” (Luke
Our ability to speak and
communicate with one another is a gift from God, and the natural
grammatical
meaning of the words that we use is the meaning that we all recognize
when we
hear those words in everyday conversation. Nevertheless, because
classical
scholars have in the past imposed some elements of Latin grammar upon
the
English language, many English-speaking people have come to think of
grammar as
a set of rules that scholars impose on the words. However, that is
totally
wrong! The grammatical meaning is the natural meaning, the accepted
meaning,
the meaning that words have in everyday conversation. For example, in
English
the natural grammatical meaning of the double negative, “Ain’t no way I’m going to do it” is an emphasized
negative, even
though in Latin it would be an emphasized positive.
God uses the linguistic ability that He has
given us, to communicate
with us through His Word. Therefore, whenever a figure of speech is
used, the
literal meaning of the text is the meaning that the figure of speech
would
convey in everyday conversation. I am talking about the objective
meaning of
the words, not opinion. Serious theology has no room for subjective
opinions.
Even though some statements are ambiguous, most are not. And, every
sentence
has its plain grammatical meaning. If that was not true, you would not
be able
to understand what I am saying, or what Shakespeare said, or what any
school
textbook says.
To further clarify what I am
saying, consider the words, “As the bride walked down the aisle, her
train
followed her.” As you read those words, I am sure that every one of you
knows
exactly what is meant by the word, “train”. There is nothing mysterious
about
that statement, for its meaning is determined by the context in which
it is
used. However, suppose that a person who knew little English found out
that the
word “train” could be used to describe the process of learning a skill.
Then,
on the basis of that knowledge, interpreted the sentence to mean that,
“After
the bride walked down the aisle (was married) her training in married
life
began.” While he might think that his interpretation is just as good as
anyone
else’s, it would be obvious to us that it is not. Nevertheless, I often
meet
people who interpret Scripture just that way. They look up a Greek or
Hebrew
word, see that it could have a certain meaning, and then read that
meaning into
a passage when it does not fit the context.
Those who read false
meanings into the text (as in the above example) while ignoring the
natural
grammatical meaning of the words are rebelling against God by changing
the
meaning of His words. Sometimes they invent bogus figures of speech,
because
they are unwilling to accept what the words of Scripture actually say.
At other
times, they place non-figurative meanings on passages that are clearly
figurative. However, in order to be true to God’s Word it is important
to allow
the literal meaning of the words to stand unless Scripture itself
indicates
otherwise, and to only call something a figure of speech if it actually
is a
known figure of speech. [Isaiah 66:2, Psalm 107:11]
Bible interpretation would
be far simpler if we could all speak Hebrew and Greek like a native.
However,
since that is not the case, we need to know how we can use the
resources
available to us to determine the intended meaning. At the same time, we
need to
distinguish between those parts of the Bible that are prose, those that
are
poetry, and those that are describing dreams and visions.
PROSE:
Since the writer of prose is
recording a train of thought, you need to follow that train of thought
in order
to understand what is being said. To that end, it is important to be
objective
and pay close attention to the words, without reading your own ideas
into the
text. As an example, let us examine Philippians 3:7, “But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for
Christ.”
As we study the context of
that statement, we find that in verses five and six Paul lists several
things
that are highly esteemed by Jews. He had been circumcised the eighth
day, was a
descendant of
POETRY:
In poetry the train of
thought is not quite so direct, and Hebrew verse generally takes the
form of
couplets in which a thought is given and then repeated in different
words. This
repetition clarifies the original thought by rephrasing, contrasting,
or
enlarging on it. Therefore, when David says, “I acknowledge my
transgressions,”
and then says, “My sin is ever before me,” he is repeating the same
thought,
not stating two different things (Psalm 51:3). And, because he is
repeating the
same thought his two statements explain each other. Likewise, when Mary
says,
“My soul does magnify the Lord,” and then says, “my spirit has rejoiced
in God
my Savior,” she is repeating the same thought. Moreover, the fact that
she used
the words “soul” and “spirit” as synonyms, gives us insight into the
original
language.
APOCALYPTIC IMAGERY:
In the Bible, dreams and
visions often convey prophetic truth with highly symbolic imagery. The
Book of
Revelation is an example of this, but so are the dreams of Joseph,
Pharaoh, and
Daniel. However, one mistake that people make when they read those
portions of
Scripture is to assume that the words of Scripture which describe those
dreams
and visions cannot be taken literally. This is a mistake because it is
the
dreams and visions, not the words of Scripture, which are figurative.
For
example: In a dream Pharaoh saw seven fat cows come up out of the
river. Those
fat cows were then followed by seven thin cows, which ate the seven fat
cows
(Genesis 41:18-27). Now, because the Bible explains this dream, we know
that it
was highly figurative. However, the words that describe that dream are
not
figurative at all. On the contrary, those words give us a literal
description
of the dream. The Bible tells us that Pharaoh saw seven fat cows
because that
is what he literally saw. The figurative imagery is in the dream, not
in the
words of Scripture. The point I want to make is that we need to clearly
distinguish
between 1- dreams and visions and 2- the words that the Bible uses to
describe
those dreams and visions. This holds true, not only for Pharaoh’s
dream, but
for the Book of Revelation as well.
In Chapter twelve of the
Book of Revelation, we are told that John saw “a woman clothed with the
sun,
with the moon under her feet”. Those words are to be taken literally,
because
that is exactly what John saw! However, that does not mean that the
vision
itself is to be taken literally. On the contrary, because the vision is
figurative, we can only know what it means if the Bible tells us what
it means.
That was true of Pharaoh’s dream, and it is true of the Book of
Revelation as
well. Having said this, I want to make it clear that we can be
absolutely certain
of what the Bible says. Just because some people cannot agree as to
what the
woman represents does not mean that the Bible is not perfectly clear.
On the
contrary, if they cannot agree it is not because the Bible is unclear,
but
because Revelation 12:1 does not tell us who the woman is. In other
words, they
are disagreeing over what the Bible DOES NOT SAY, not over what it does
say. We
can be absolutely certain that it says that John saw “a woman clothed
with the
sun, with the moon under her feet”. And, the words, “we have not
written to you
anything other than what you read,” tell us that is all that God
intended for
us to learn from that passage.
Now, having said this, I
want to point out that there are other passages of Scripture that give
us more
information about the woman in Revelation 12:1. For example: In
Revelation
12:17 we are told that those who trust in Christ are “her children”.
When we
compare that information with the words, “The Jerusalem above is… the
mother of
us all,” we learn that the woman signifies the heavenly
Because the Book of
Revelation is describing a highly figurative series of visions, it
would be
dishonest for us to just make up explanations, and then teach them as
fact as
if they were the Word of God. Yea, it would be more than dishonest it
would be
satanic! Yet that is what we find going on all around us. American
churches are
full of man-made explanations/interpretations. Nevertheless, the words,
“No
prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation,” tell us that
any
explanation not given to us in Scripture itself, is not of God (2Peter
We know that the dragon that
is mentioned in Revelation 12:3 is the devil, because Revelation 12:9
plainly
tells us that he is. We know that the first resurrection (mentioned in
Revelation 20:6) is the resurrection from being dead in our trespasses
and sins
to new life in Christ, because the Bible says, “he has given you life,
who were
dead in trespasses and sins… and has raised us up together with him”
(Ephesians
2:1,6). And, we know that Christ will never physically reign as a king
on this
earth, because He plainly said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John
I
have just given you some examples of how the Bible interprets itself.
The clear
statements cast light on what is unclear, and we reject as false any
interpretation that contradicts what the Bible explicitly says. This
rule seems
simple enough. However, never underestimate the deceitfulness of the
human
heart (Jeremiah 17:9). I have run into people who claim to be letting
Scripture
interpret itself, when in reality they were interpreting one passage in
the
light of their own private interpretations of other passages. As I
pointed out
before, we need to be our own worst critic. And, as we seek to find and
eliminate our mistakes we need to be honest with ourselves.
Often one passage does not explain, but simply
supplements, what other passages have said. For example: The words, “a
man is
justified by faith without the works of the law,” tell us that we are
justified
by faith (Romans
Since our aim in studying
the Bible is to learn the message that God intended it to convey, study
guides
written by those who have a thorough knowledge of the original Hebrew
and Greek
can be a great help. However, because there is no guarantee that
everyone who
knows (or professes to know) Hebrew and Greek is
free
of the spirit of error, we need to check a variety of sources. It is
also a
good idea to beware of pop-theology, for some of the most popular Bible
study
guides are the worst (Luke
R.C.H. Lenski, was a
meticulous
student of the Greek. His commentary gives good insight, and, in my
opinion,
every serious Bible scholar needs to have a copy. The Keil
and Delitzsch commentary on the Old
Testament is also
good. Kittel’s Theological Dictionary is
an excellent
work, but it is not easy to use, at least for someone who does not know
Greek.
However, you will need a good Bible dictionary.
Another book worth having is
“Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible.” As you look up English
words it
will tell you which Greek or Hebrew word they are translated from,
provide a
brief definition, and help you to find other verses that use that same
Greek or
Hebrew word. However, as long as your knowledge of Greek and Hebrew is
limited,
you need to look at more than one translation of the Bible. Since every
translation should be saying the same thing, namely what the original
text
says, if you compare different translations as you would compare
parallel passages
in the Bible, you will gain insight into the intended meaning.
In saying this, I realize
that translators are not perfect, and because they are not perfect we
need to
compare the newer translations with the ones that have stood the test
of time.
And, we need to compare all of them to the original text. Now, I
realize that
some people are opposed to any translation other than the King James.
The King
James is a good reliable translation that has stood the test of time,
and gives
us an objective rendering of what the original text says. However, many
of its
statements have become obscure, and some that seem perfectly clear have
changed
meaning. Therefore, we need to compare it to other translations. In
fact,
anyone who has a limited knowledge of Hebrew and Greek needs to compare
different translations in order to get a better grasp of the intended
meaning.
Nevertheless, there are some
problems you need to look out for. One of these has to do with
differences in
manuscripts. Another with the fact that some translators have worded a
verse
here and there to say what they think it should say, rather than what
it
actually says. Nevertheless, the differences in manuscripts only affect
a small
percentage of the readings. And, most translations will be will be trying
to say
the same thing, but saying it in different ways. Therefore, just as we
sometimes clarify what we mean by rephrasing what we have said, we can
get a
clearer understanding of God’s Word by seeing the same thought
expressed in
different ways.
In saying this, I want to
make it clear that as we compare different readings it is important
that we do
not put them in opposition. We can only profit from comparing
translations if
we look for what they agree on, rather than trying to pit them against
each other.
Therefore, instead of magnifying their differences, and interpreting
them to
contradict each other, look for what they have in common. Look for the
same
thought expressed in different words. Just as we interpret the parts of
a
Hebrew couplet to agree, and interpret parallel accounts in Matthew
with Mark
to agree, we should look for what the translations agree on. We are
certainly
not going to learn anything by interpreting them to contradict each
other. In
fact, whenever a number of translations agree on the essential meaning
of a
passage [even if they word it differently], their agreement probably
reflects
the original meaning of the words. In contrast, an oddball translation
may
reflect a private interpretation.
Now, there will be times
when translations do not agree. However, that does not mean that one is
right
and the other is wrong. The disagreement may stem from the fact that we
are
unsure of the meaning of a particular Greek or Hebrew word or phrase,
or from
the fact that it can be interpreted both ways. For example: In
2Corinthians
For that reason, focus on
what the Bible plainly says. Even though translations may vary, as long
as the
translator has not deliberately tried to alter what the Bible says, it
will
convey the message that God intended for it to convey. As Dr. Francis
Pieper
put it:
“The whole Christian
doctrine is revealed in Scripture passages that need no exegesis, but
are an
open book alike to the learned and the unlearned and can be so readily
translated that the translator cannot go wrong unless he has made up
his mind
to depart from the original.” (“Christian Dogmatics”,
Vol. 1, pg 347)
Try to understand that
translating is far more difficult than merely saying the same thing in
different words. The work of a translator is complicated by differences
in
grammar between the original language and the language it is being
translated
into. As to be expected there are difficult decisions to be made in
which the
translator seeks to maintain a delicate balance between clarity and
objectivity. At times, that comes down to a trade off in which clarity
must
either be sacrificed for the sake of objectivity, or objectivity for
the sake
of clarity. Therefore, those who react to every difference in wording
by
proclaiming one translation right and the other wrong, only show their
ignorance while undermining faith and sowing discord.
By comparing translations,
we can learn how those who have a good working knowledge of the
original language
think a particular word or phrase should be understood. If one
translation
errs, it is unlikely that other translations will make the same error,
so check
two or three witnesses [i.e. translations]. At the same time, when
translations
differ, we need to know if the differences stem from differences in the
Greek
text, or differences in translation. To that end, you might want to
have an
interlinear version of both the “Received Text,” and the “Nestle Text.”
In
saying this, I realize that the controversy over texts is heated.
However, we
are not going to advance the cause of Christ by remaining ignorant of
the
differences between texts. Besides, all of the Greek Bible manuscripts
agree
over ninety percent of the time and most of them are in agreement
ninety-nine
percent of the time.
I also want to make it clear
that when I talk about comparing translations, I am talking about
legitimate
translations, not cultic attempts to rewrite the Bible. The Watchtower
“translation” arrogantly changes what the Bible says, and their
interlinear
version even changes some of the words in the Greek text. The “Living
Bible”
adds to and takes from what is written, and some other translations
have been
doctored to appease liberal or feminist bias. Therefore, you need to be
well
informed. There are several revisions of the King James translation,
and, in my
opinion, the “Amplified Bible” can be used along side of it almost like
a
commentary — although it sometimes goes beyond translation and inserts
interpretations into the text. The “Online Bible” developed by Larry
Pierce is
also a valuable tool, and the basic edition can be downloaded from the
internet
at no cost (www.onlinebible.net).
I pointed out earlier that
the intended meaning of the words of
Scripture is the literal meaning of
the words. We know that, because whenever you say something to someone,
unless
you are being dishonest, the meaning you intend to convey will be the
literal
meaning of the words you use. However, to better illustrate what I mean
by “the
intended meaning,” let me offer another illustration using the word
train. In
the statement “As the bride walked down the aisle her train followed
her,” the
word “train” could mean either the train of her gown, or her
locomotive.
However, that does not mean that our interpretation of the sentence is
all a
matter of opinion. On the contrary, even though the word “train” has
more than
one meaning, usage and context determines which meaning is intended. In
this case,
our knowledge of usage makes it clear that the word “train” refers to
the train
of her gown, not a locomotive.
Now the point I want to make
is this. The intended meaning of that statement about the bride is
perfectly
clear to anyone who is willing to obey the truth. However, there are no
arguments compelling enough to convince someone who does not want the
truth.
The same could also be said for many statements of Scripture! The truth
is
there for those who want it, but you will never convince someone who
does not
want it. Therefore, if you are to study the Bible profitably, let me
say it
again, you need to be your own worst critic. You need to look for and
eliminate
your own mistakes! You need to base what you believe on what is solid
and
certain, not the shifting sands of human opinion. And you need to look
at
context, not just the meaning of words.
For
example: In an attempt to prove that some wine is not alcoholic, one
man argued
that one of the three Greek words translated as “wine” in the New
Testament, (“gleukos”) denotes something
sweet. However, even though
there is truth in what he said, if he would have looked into the way
that word
is used, he would have discovered that the New Testament uses it in
reference
to drunkenness (Acts 2:13). There is nothing non-alcoholic about a
beverage
that causes drunkenness. He simply based his conclusion on a dictionary
definition of one word, while ignoring its usage.
In
trying to determine the intended meaning it is important to follow the
train of
thought that the author is trying to convey. We need to pay careful
attention
to the message that unfolds word by word, sentence by sentence. For
example: A
man once told me that he was not sure what was meant by the words, “Do
not look
upon the wine when it is red” (Proverbs 23:31). However, if you look
carefully
at the train of thought you can see that the passage is warning us not
to be
enticed by eye appeal. In other words, it is telling us not to look
upon the
“wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the wine glass, when it goes
down
smoothly” (Amplified Bible), because eye appeal can easily lead us to
take
more, and more, until we are drunken. And,
drunkenness
often leads to other sins.
At the same time, I realize
that the idea that it is speaking of “eye appeal” is an interpretation,
not
something explicitly stated. While that interpretation agrees with the
text,
and does not contradict anything that the Bible says, it is important
to make
that distinction. Our doctrine must rest on the bare words of
Scripture, not
interpretation. We then eliminate false interpretations by rejecting
every
interpretation (assumption, explanation, conclusion) that contradicts
an
explicit statement of scripture (Isaiah
APPLYING WHAT WE HAVE
LEARNED
In order to get a better grasp of how these
rules
should be applied let’s look at some specific passages.
There are a few places where the King James
Bible
uses the expression “faith of,” in a
context
where we would say “faith in”. However, since newer translations
usually translate
the same phrase as “faith in,” a comparison of the King James with one
of the
newer translations will tell you that the meaning is the same. [See
Romans
Some people assume that when Christ “went and
preached to the spirits
in prison” He was preaching the gospel to Old Testament saints (1Peter
The words, “For this cause was the
gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged
according
to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit” are
sometimes
wrongly interpreted to mean that salvation was offered to people after
they had
died (1Peter 3:19-20). However, as Lenski’s
Commentary points out, the words “in the flesh” make it clear that the
gospel
was preached to these people in their lifetime. That is why the New
International Version translates that same verse as, “this is the
reason the
gospel was preached even to those who are now dead” (1Peter 4:6). And,
why and
the Amplified Bible says, “this is why the good news (the Gospel) was
preached
[in their lifetime] even to the dead.”
While some of the newer
versions translate the word “blessed” as “happy,” that rendering often
seems
incongruous to say the least. For example, the Jerusalem Bible’s
rendering of
Matthew
If you have ever dealt with
someone who denies the existence of hell, you may have been told that
the
Hebrew word “sheol” (which is often
translated as
“hell”) means “grave.” However, even though the Hebrew word, “sheol” does mean “grave,” what they are not
telling you is
that, like many words, “sheol” has a second
meaning,
and is used as a generic reference to the afterworld (almost identical
in
meaning to our English term “the hereafter”). The good news is that you
do not
have to take my word for it, just look at how the word is used in
Scripture. In
2Samuel 22:6, we read, “the sorrows of sheol compassed me about.” Psalm 18:5, speaks of
the,
“sorrows of sheol.” Psalm 116:3 says, “the
pains of sheol
got hold upon me: I found
trouble and sorrow.” Ezekiel 32:21 tells us that some, who have died
physically, “speak…out of the midst of sheol.”
In Deuteronomy 32:22 we read, “a fire is
kindled in My
anger, and shall burn unto lowest sheol.”
In Isaiah
33:14 we read, “The sinners in
Because Christ used the
phrase “three days and three nights” in reference to His time in the
grave,
some people insist that He had to be in the tomb for three
twenty-four-hour
days. However, that creates a problem because He could not have been in
the
tomb for three complete days if He “rose again the third day.”
Therefore, we
need to analyze what the Bible says in order to determine the intended
meaning
of the phrase “three days and three nights.” Mark tells us that Christ
was
crucified on the “day before the Sabbath,” and buried in the evening
(Mark
Some years ago, in a sermon,
a pastor assumed that the woman referred to in 2Kings 4:8 as “great”
(KJV), was
being called “great” because of her works. However, if he had checked
some
other translations he would have found that the Amplified Bible
translates the
Hebrew as, “a rich and influential woman,” while the AAT (Beck)
translates it
as, “a rich woman”. At the same time, Kretzmann’s
commentary
says, “Where there was a great woman, - one of considerable local
prominence”.
Therefore, by assuming instead of checking his facts, that pastor wound
up
misrepresenting the truth of God’s Word, while at the same time
teaching the
false doctrine of works righteousness.
Finally, it would be a
mistake to assume that you only need to compare translations if the
translation
you are using is unclear. On the contrary, even if all the translations
you
check are perfectly clear and say the same thing, knowing that helps
you to
have a better grasp of what the Bible is saying. Furthermore, your
doctrine
should consist of truths so clearly stated in Scripture that there is
no debate
as to the fact that they are in the Bible (2Corinthians
Because those who truly care about the
intended meaning allow the plain
words of Scripture to be their doctrine, they will be able to discuss
doctrinal
differences in a friendly way, without arguing over who is right.
Instead of
trying to change each other’s mind, they will be willing to look at
what the
Bible says, and willing to correct any ideas that are contrary to it.
In
contrast, those who read their own ideas into the text, jump to
conclusions
that contradict what the Bible says, and explain away any statements of
Scripture that do not agree with their own doctrine are a continual
source of conflict
and division (Isaiah 8:20, 2Peter 1:20, 1John 4:6).