by Thomas A. Howe

This article first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, Volume 25, Number 4 (2003). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org

SYNOPSIS

As a student of the Bible you have probably encountered someone who disagrees with your interpretation of a passage. That person may be a cultist, a member of another Christian denomination, or even another member of your own church or family. When a debate over the meaning of a passage can’t be settled, often someone says, “That’s just your interpretation,” or, “No one really knows what this means, so let’s just agree to disagree.” It is true that we should hold our interpretations with humility, but we must not settle for anything less than the correct interpretation of the Bible, since it is the very Word of God.

In principle, it is possible to have a correct interpretation of the Bible (to argue otherwise is self-defeating), but this doesn’t guarantee that we will discover it. In practice, we must use sound principles of interpretation in order to know what the Bible means. These sound principles of interpretation are known as the grammatical-historical method. This simply means that we understand the meaning of the words and sentences of the Bible according to the way they were normally used by the speakers of the language, and in their historical context. To do this we must interpret the Bible in light of five factors: its original languages, its historical/cultural setting, its kinds of literature, the principles of communication and understanding, and our own preunderstandings and presuppositions. Each of these factors plays a significant role in good Bible study. By learning how to apply the basic principles of interpretation we can understand and interpret the Bible correctly.

As a student of the Bible, a member of a Sunday school class, or as one who discusses the Bible with others, chances are you have encountered people who interpret various Bible passages differently from the way you do. If you are an orthodox Christian, you would probably not be surprised to discover that Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret many Bible passages differently from what you believe and what you have been taught. If you are a Protestant, you would probably not be surprised to discover that Protestants and Catholics differ in their understanding of the meaning of many Bible passages. You probably also would not be surprised that Protestant denominations differ on many passages. In fact, interpretations often differ among people in the same congregation, or the same Sunday school class, or even in the same family. Questions and debates about what various passages mean are a common occurrence within groups of people who, for all practical purposes, seem to believe and think the same. How can these different interpretations be explained?

Interpreting the Bible is of special concern to Christians, and the problem of conflicting interpretations is a fact of deep concern among those who are diligent students of the Bible. How do people reach contrary and often contradictory conclusions? How can I know whether my understanding of a passage is correct?

Similar questions and issues have been the concern of the Christian church for almost 2000 years. Theologians and philosophers through the centuries have studied the practice of interpretation and endeavored to establish principles that would lead an interpreter to the correct meaning of the biblical text. Hermeneutics is the term used to identify the study of the principles of interpretation. Exegesis is a term that means basically the same thing as interpretation. In recent years, many books have been written that not only set forth the basic principles of biblical interpretation and how to apply them, but also address questions such as those asked above.

THE CHALLENGE OF CONFLICTING INTERPRETATIONS

If you have ever engaged in a discussion about the Bible, you have very likely heard someone say, “That’s just your interpretation!” That statement is usually made when people disagree on the meaning of a passage, but are unable to settle the debate. When someone says, “That’s just your interpretation,” they are usually implying that there really is no “correct” interpretation. The claim that there is no “correct” interpretation is the byword of many postmodern schools of interpretation, such as radical reader-response criticism and deconstruction. These approaches deny the possibility of objective interpretation unfortunately, this is often the assumption of the average person as well. Often they mean, “I don’t agree with the way you interpret this passage, and no one really knows for sure what it means anyway, so let’s just agree to disagree.”

This, however, cannot be an option for any student of God’s Word. Our task is to discover what the text means, and to settle for less than the correct meaning is to settle for something other than the very Word of God. We recognize that perhaps there are questions for which we have no definitive answers at the moment. We can acknowledge our shortcomings in these areas and hold our respective positions with humility and meekness, realizing that someone may have an answer that more accurately explains the meaning. We should not, however, rest content with conflicting interpretations. We should diligently seek the truth, which means we should strive to understand the correct meaning of the text.

We must also point out that it is simply false to claim that no one can know the correct interpretation of a passage of the Bible. If in principle such accurate understanding cannot be achieved, then there would be no basis upon which to conclude that any given interpretation was not correct. In the study of logic, this is called the fallacy of a lost distinction: if there is no correct interpretation, then there is no standard by which to distinguish any given interpretation from the “correct” one. If it is true that “it’s not possible to have a correct interpretation,” then what does that statement itself mean? If someone makes that statement to you, just ask him, “What do you mean by that?” He certainly expects you to correctly interpret his objection. The simple fact of the matter is, it is possible to have a correct interpretation, and anyone who says it is not possible is making a self-defeating claim.

In principle, it is certainly true that a correct interpretation is possible. In fact, the critic’s own objections are not even meaningful unless this is true. The possibility of having a correct interpretation, however, does not guarantee that a person will discover it. There are several important factors involved in coming to a correct interpretation of a passage of the Bible and in judging between competing interpretations. Let’s briefly look at some of the more important factors.

GRAMMATICAL-HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION

You may have heard a preacher or read a Bible commentator talk about using the grammatical-historical method of interpretation. This descriptive title means that we interpret the Bible according to its normal, grammatical, historical significance. In other words, we understand the words and sentences according to the way they were normally used by the speakers of the language. It also means that we understand the words and sentences in their historical context. Using the grammatical-historical method means we interpret the Bible in light of:

1. The original languages of the Bible. The Bible was not originally written in English. We must understand the meaning of the words and sentences in the languages in which they were originally written.

2. The historical/cultural settings of the Bible. The various authors of the books of the Bible lived at a time in history and in a culture that was, in many respects, quite different from our modern techno-culture. Communication is highly influenced by one’s culture and place in history.

3. The literary genres of the Bible. The word genre means kind. Literary genre simply means different kinds of literature. Poetry, for example, is a different kind of literature than historical narrative, and there are different principles for understanding it. Since the Bible contains different kinds of literature, we must take into consideration how meaning is expressed differently in each kind.

4. The universal and particular principles of communication and understanding. There are certain principles that govern the way people communicate. Some of these principles are universal: they are the same for all people at all times regardless of their language, ethnic background, culture, or point of view. All people who want to communicate, for example, assume that the claim they are making cannot be both true and false in the same sense. This is called the principle of non-contradiction. Everyone who communicates does so on the basis of this principle. Some principles are peculiar to the fact that we are interpreting the Word of God. If the Bible is inspired (God-breathed) and inerrant then our interpretation must take this into consideration.

5. The preunderstanding and presuppositions of the interpreter. These words, preunderstanding and presuppositions, refer to the points of view, the perspectives, the background, and the assumptions of the reader. A person who assumes that God does not exist, for example, will interpret the Bible quite differently from a person who believes that God does exist. Our assumptions and perspectives play a significant role when we try to understand the meaning of the text.
 

These are some of the basic factors that are important in good Bible study. Part one of this series will cover points one, two, and three listed above, and part two will cover points four and five. I hope this brief overview of the basic principles of interpretation will whet your appetite to learn more about how to interpret the Bible correctly.

The Original Languages of the Bible

Don’t let this one scare you. It’s not necessary for everyone who wants to study the Bible to be a scholar in the original languages of the Bible. It is important, however, to understand how to do some basic study in the biblical languages. This makes a critical difference in interpretation.

I like to compare the study of the Bible to watching a football game. If you watch a game on a black-and-white TV, you can see all the plays, and you know who wins the game. Suppose, however, that some time during the course of the game there is a crucial play. When you watch the instant replay on a black-and-white TV, you can’t tell where the player’s knee ends and the turf begins, or where exactly the ball is, because everything is gray. It’s difficult to distinguish between the gray of the pants, the gray of the turf, and the gray of the ball, so you may not be able to tell what actually happened. If you watch the same replay on a color TV, however, it’s much easier to see what happened. The color of the pants is different from the color of the turf, which are both different from the color of the ball. The different colors make it much easier to tell what really happened. Even though you can see the plays and understand the outcome by watching the game on a black-and-white TV, sometimes it is difficult to call the close ones. Similarly, even though you can read the Bible in the English translation, and you can understand the main points, and you know the message of salvation, without some basic knowledge of the original languages, it is very difficult to call the close ones.

Meaning and Use of Words in Context. Doing word studies is an important part of good Bible study. Word studies involve more than simply looking up the meaning of a word in the dictionary. It involves understanding how a word fits into its immediate context and how an author used a word throughout his writings. Consider for example Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (nasb). The word translated “earth” in English versions of the Bible is the Hebrew word ha’arets. This word is usually translated “land.” In fact, this is precisely the word that is used when the Bible talks about the Promised Land (e.g., Gen. 50:24 Exod. 12:25). Genesis 1:1, therefore, could be translated like this: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the land.” This creates a problem, however: does this mean that God didn’t create the whole earth, but only the Promised Land? If Moses wanted to tell us that God created the whole earth and not just the Promised Land, why didn’t he use a word that literally means “earth”?

We may be able to discover why Moses used this word if we consider the immediate context as well as the way Moses used the word throughout the rest of his writings. Genesis 1:2 says that the land was “uninhabitable and empty.” The translation “formless and void” in some versions is unfortunate. The Hebrew terms indicate that earth was a place on which nothing could live (“uninhabitable”) and that there was nothing there except the deep waters (“empty”). The Creation account (Gen. 1:3–31) chronicles the work of God in forming the earth into a place that could be inhabited (days 1–3), and then filling it up (days 4–6). God brought order out of the chaos, and made the earth (the land) a place that could be inhabited, and then He filled it up with sea creatures, birds of the heavens, beasts of the field, and finally the human race. Days 1–3, therefore, address the condition of the land being uninhabitable, while days 4–6 address the condition of the land being empty.

Moses used the word “land” in order to make a connection for his audience between the fact that God was the Creator of the earth (the land) and the fact that God was going to bring Israel into the land that He promised to give them. Since God was able to bring order out of the chaos when He created the earth (the land) out of nothing, then He would certainly be able to bring order out of the chaos in the land that He promised to give Israel.

The Promised Land was a place of chaos. It was, in a sense, uninhabitable and empty. Wicked people covered the land, and it was a place in which Israel could not live. God promised to make the land a place where His people could live and where He would dwell with them. God, therefore, brought order out of the chaos by driving out the unbelievers and preparing the land for the entrance of His people, then He filled the empty land with His chosen people. Moses used his words to strengthen the faith of Israel to trust God to bring order out of the chaos and to bring them into the land successfully. The context and use of this word by Moses elsewhere in his writings helps us to understand its meaning in Genesis chapter 1.

Grammar and Syntax of the Biblical Languages. Another important factor in interpretation is the grammar and syntax of language. Grammar is concerned with the rules that govern the proper uses of a language. Syntax is concerned with the arrangement of words in a meaningful sentence. It is the relationship of words in a sentence — the syntax — that an author employs to communicate his meaning. The statement in Luke 2:14 about Jesus’ birth, for example, is translated in the King James Version as follows: “…and on earth peace, good will toward men.” This translation, however, results in a conflict with another statement in Matthew 10:34: “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” (nasb). If we went to a Greek dictionary (called a lexicon) and looked up the Greek word translated “good will,” we would find the definition but finding the definition does not resolve the conflict in this instance.

The problem is solved when we discover that the verse in Luke could be translated to better reflect the Greek syntax. The solution is to understand the relationship of the word translated “good will” with the rest of the sentence. In the Greek syntax of Luke, this word is used to attribute a quality, and in this instance it is qualifying the word “men.” The peace that the angels announced is not among everyone, but only among those who are “men of good will.” (Here the word “men” is a generic reference to both men and women.) A better translation of this verse, therefore, would be something like this: “Glory to God in the highest, and upon earth, peace among men of good will.” The difference is the correct translation of the word rendered “good will” based on an understanding of the Greek syntax — how the word relates to the other words in the sentence. Syntax is very important in understanding the meaning of words in a sentence.

Serious Bible study requires some study in the original languages. There are a multitude of reference materials that can help you do this even if you don’t know a thing about Hebrew or Greek. Printed reference materials, computer programs, and even online and correspondence courses that you can take entirely at home are available to help you understand the original languages of the Bible and interpret it accurately. You can learn how to use various language tools without investing the years of study necessary to become a language scholar. Learning the basics of language, how to do word studies, and how to consider the way a word functions in a sentence, helps you to understand what the Bible is saying.

The Historical-Cultural Settings of the Bible

Another very important aspect of Bible study is understanding the historical and/or cultural background behind the statements and events the Bible records. The events in the Bible were real historical circumstances experienced by real historical persons who lived and communicated in their own cultural framework. Their language, their mode of communication, their understanding of the world around them, their manners and customs were all, to some degree, products of their culture.

Historical Background. Consider, for example, the incident of the construction of the tower of Babel in Genesis 11. The significance of the tower generally escapes the modern reader. Why did these people begin to build a tower “with a top whose head is in the heavens” (v.4, author’s translation)? Some have proposed that they were trying to build a tower with which they could escape another flood. The historical background, however, suggests a better explanation. First, by investigating ancient religious practices and beliefs, we discover that it was generally held to be true that a person’s god dwelled on a mountain. The mountain was symbolic of the separation between someone’s god and himself or herself as a worshiper. Gods were high and lifted up, while the worshipers were on the ground below looking up. Since there were no mountains in the “plains of Shinar,” as verse 2 indicates, the people decided to construct a mountain in which their god(s) could dwell.

Second, in Genesis 4:26 we find the statement that a son was born to Seth whose name was Enosh, and at that time “men began to call upon the name of the LORD.” The next few chapters deal with the Flood story and the Babel story. Then in Genesis 12:8 we find the statement, “And there he [Abram] built an altar to the LORD and called upon the name of the LORD.” These two statements surround the intervening stories like bookends. They also contrast the practices of the victims of the Flood and the participants in the Babel incident with Enosh and Abram. The idea of “calling upon the name” indicated the worship of the one on whose name a person would call. Enosh and Abram worshiped the true God, and they called upon His name. The people at Shinar, on the other hand, had gathered together to make a “name” for themselves so that they might not be scattered over the earth, even though God had commanded them to fill the earth (Gen. 1:28).

An understanding of the culture of the day, the general religious practices and beliefs of the people — in this instance the belief that the one who was worshiped dwelled on a mountain, and the practice of calling upon the name of the one who was worshiped — help us to understand the significance of what the people were trying to accomplish by building a tower in the plains of Shinar. They were building a mountain on which the god of their own creation would dwell — a temple built to themselves in which they would become the unifying center for the world. By making a name for themselves on which people could call, they were attempting to exalt themselves and set themselves up to be gods. They were trying to unite all of humanity under one name — their own. God frustrated their efforts by confusing their language and scattering them over the earth. Pentecost (Acts 2) was a reversal of this event. At Pentecost, God overcame the language barrier, which He instigated at Babel, and united all of humanity under one name, the name of Jesus, the God-man. It is Jesus who brings us up to where God is and makes it possible for us to call upon God’s name and dwell with Him.

Cultural Background. In John 2:6 we find the statement, “Now there were six stone waterpots set there for the Jewish custom of purification, containing twenty or thirty gallons each” (nasb). When a biblical author provides background information, it is very important for the reader to understand its importance. John points out that these water pots were for the Jewish custom of purification. The importance of this statement becomes clear once the reader discovers that these water pots would never have been used for any other purpose than cleansing. They would never have contained anything but clean water.

The importance of this point is that there would have been no wine residue in these pots left over from some previous use. When Jesus turned the water into wine, what had been in these pots was water, and only water. John wants his readers to understand that this was not a case of simply pouring water into pots that had previously contained wine, so that the water mixed with the dried wine on the insides of the pots giving the impression that Jesus turned water into wine rather, this was a miracle. These pots would never have contained wine, so when Jesus turned the water into wine, it clearly was a miracle. There can be no mistake about that. The Jewish custom, to which John makes reference in the text, becomes very important in understanding the significance of what Jesus did.

The Literary Genres of the Bible

There is perhaps no more important principle in Bible study than understanding a passage in its context. Many problems and errors have been caused by taking biblical passages out of context. Context, however, includes more than simply reading a few verses before and a few verses after the passage you are trying to interpret. Context also includes understanding the literary genre of a passage — the kind of literature it is. The Bible contains different kinds of literature — stories, letters, proverbs, poems, and prophecy to name a few — and we must be aware of the different ways each of these communicates.

The Bible includes a lot of poetry, for example, and in order to understand a poem we must have a basic awareness of how poetry communicates. It is not possible to get into the intricacies of Hebrew poetry in this article, but a simple example illustrates the importance of understanding the nature of particular kinds of literature.

The basic characteristic of Hebrew poetry is parallelism. A line of Hebrew poetry is usually made of two parts, and each part is called a colon. A colon may be a complete sentence or a phrase. Isaiah 1:3, for example, says, “An ox knows its owner, And a donkey its master’s manger, [But] Israel does not know, My people do not understand” (NASB). Your English version of the Bible may format this verse something like this:

An ox knows its owner,
And a donkey its master’s manger,
[But] Israel does not know,
My people do not understand.

SYNOPSIS

Two factors affect how we interpret the Bible. They are our preunderstanding and presuppositions and the principles of communication and understanding. Our preunderstanding includes anything and everything we understand, believe, or assume before we study the Bible. Like a pair of glasses, we see everything through our preunderstanding, which does not mean that it is impossible to be objective. The universal aspects of our preunderstanding make objectivity possible, at least in principle. Because we have these universal aspects in common with the biblical authors, correct interpretation is also possible. We need to be aware of our preunderstandings, however, to guard against incorrect interpretation. We also need to submit our preunderstanding to biblical truth in order to let God's Word correct any false ideas that are peculiar to us as individuals. Two principles of communication and understanding that govern the way all people communicate are "the universal nature of truth" and "the unity of human nature." The fact that truth is objective and the laws of logic are inescapable indicate that truth is the same for everyone - that is, truth is universal. The fact that humanity is one race with one kind of mind means that it is possible to understand universal truths written in biblical times, even though the cultural expressions of those truths may differ.

Hermeneutics is the study of the principles of interpretation. In this two-part series, we are examining the principles that lead an interpreter to the correct meaning of the biblical text. In part one, we looked at the grammatical- historical approach to interpretation and stated the first three of five factors that should be considered while interpreting the Bible: the original languages of the Bible, the historical/cultural settings of the Bible, and the kinds of literature of the Bible. In part two, we will focus on the last two factors: the preunderstanding and presuppositions of the interpreter and the universal and particular principles of communication and understanding. We usually do not think about these last two factors when we study the Bible, but they always affect our interpretation. While discussing these factors, it will be necessary to use a few technical-sounding words, but I will explain them as clearly as I can.

THE PREUNDERSTANDING AND PRESUPPOSITIONS OF THE INTERPRETER

Have you ever wondered how two people can look at the same passage of Scripture and yet come up with completely different interpretations? The reason for this sometimes has to do with the differences in their preunderstanding and presuppositions. The words "preunderstanding" and "presuppositions" refer to the point of view, the perspective, the background, and the assumptions of the reader. A truism has developed among those who write and theorize about hermeneutics. This truism says, "Everyone comes to the Bible with his or her own preunderstanding." At first glance, it certainly seems true that everyone has his or her own way of looking at things. Some people are atheists. Others are Christians. People come from various cultures, and because cultures often differ, people often differ about what they think is important and how they understand the world and life. The way a person thinks about the world, along with his or her values and tastes, helps form that person's perspective. This kind of perspective has been called a "worldview," which is simply the way a person views the world.

Preunderstanding and Perspective. When it comes to interpretation, a person's worldview is often referred to as his or her "preunderstanding." People's preunderstanding includes anything and everything they understand before they study the Bible. In the American education system, people are taught many things about science, art, math, language, as well as other topics. As a result, most American adults have a basic idea of how the world works. These ideas are part of the preunderstanding they bring when they study the Bible. Most American adults also have learned a certain set of values from their parents and have a basic understanding of right and wrong. This also forms part of their preunderstanding.

People from another culture, however, may not have the same understanding of the world as we have or hold the same values as we hold. Some aspects of their preunderstanding may be different from ours, which also affects how they interpret the Bible.

A person's preunderstanding can be compared to a pair of glasses. Imagine a man who can see only by wearing a special pair of glasses. He sees everything through these glasses, and without them he could see nothing. What if these glasses were tinted so that everything in the world appeared to be colored red? This person would understand all of reality as being reddish, and to him this would seem to be absolutely normal. In fact, the red tint would be so much a part of his way of understanding the world that he might not even be able to grasp that the world is not colored red no matter how much a person tried to convince him otherwise. He may not be able to conceive of another kind of world.

Preunderstanding is similar to this. Everything that we think about, read about, and learn about is filtered through our preunderstanding. Our preunderstanding includes all that we believe, know, feel, and assume to be true. It includes our education, training, disposition, language, culture, history, and everything that makes us what we are. When preunderstanding is discussed in relation to claims about what is true and what is false, often the term "presuppositions" is used. Presuppositions are particular things we suppose to be true and form the basis of other beliefs. All these beliefs together, along with the other aspects we mentioned, form our preunderstanding.

Preunderstanding and Objectivity. Have you ever heard someone say, "There's no way to tell whose interpretation is correct"?  Many people have concluded that because everyone has his or her own way of looking at the world - his or her own worldview or preunderstanding - that this precludes anyone from having an objective view. The term "objective" usually means that no bias or particular point of view affects one's understanding of something. Some believe the term " objective" to mean neutral. The claim that someone can be totally objective, or neutral, recently has been characterized as "the view from nowhere."¹ It seems obvious that no one can have a view from nowhere because everyone is somewhere. Since everyone views the world from some point of view, the argument is often made that no one can have a neutral or totally objective perspective.

At first sight this seems to be correct, but there is a fatal flaw in this reasoning. When someone claims that no one can be objective, that person is actually assuming that his or her claim is true for everyone. A claim that is true for everyone, however, is an objective claim. What this person is really saying, therefore, is: "It is objectively true that no one can be objective." The statement contradicts itself and therefore is false. On the other hand, if it is true that no one can be totally objective, then the person making this claim is not being totally objective. If the claim is not totally objective, then it doesn't apply to everyone, and we don't need to pay any attention to it.

The fact of the matter is, objectivity is not only possible, but it is also unavoidable. Even the critics of objectivity think that you, as a reader, can objectively understand their objections to objectivity. The reason it is important to establish that objectivity is possible is that without it there could be no communication. There would be no way to know whether we had correctly understood what was said or whether our preunderstanding had entirely distorted it.

Objectivity and Perspectives. Some aspects of our perspective are peculiar to us as individuals or as people who live in a particular culture and who use a particular language. Tastes and customs, for example, are part of our preunderstanding but are peculiar to us or to our culture. Other aspects of our preunderstanding, however, are the same for everyone at all times and in all cultures. We will consider some of these, but let's look particularly at one aspect of our perspective that is the same for everyone.

In the literature on preunderstanding and presuppositions, everyone states that an interpreter comes to the Bible with his or her own perspective. Everyone, in fact, says that to claim that you can come to the Bible without your own preunderstanding is self-defeating. If you say you are going to come to the text objectively, then this, too, is part of your preunderstanding, so you haven't really left your preunderstanding behind.

As impressive as this claim sounds, however, it is actually the perfect example of objectivity. People who discuss these matters and conclude that there is no objectivity come from all kinds of perspectives. Some are atheists. Others are Christians. Some do not believe in absolute truth, and others do. If, however, all of these people, who come from these different and sometimes contradictory perspectives, all arrive at the same conclusion by observing the same data, isn't this precisely what is meant by objectivity?

If these people can all arrive at the same conclusion, and if they can all claim this conclusion is true for everyone, then there must be something about the preunderstanding of all of these people that is the same. It must be something that is not peculiar to any particular person's worldview or preunderstanding. If, however, something is not peculiar to a person's own preunderstanding but is the same for everyone and is not affected by any particular worldview, then it is neutral. In other words, it is objective.

Preunderstanding and Interpretation. It is possible, therefore, at least in principle, to have an objective perspective, at least in part. As interpreters, then, we need to discover what these objective aspects are and use them in evaluating our interpretations and comparing our interpretations with others. The more we rely on these universal and neutral aspects to test our interpretations, the more likely we are to arrive at the correct understanding of the text. How do we do this?

Be Aware of Your Own Preunderstanding. A person's preunderstanding has a profound effect on his or her interpretation of the Bible. Atheists, for example, come to the Bible with the preunderstanding that the God of the Bible does not actually exist therefore, when they read about the miracles of Jesus, they must interpret these passages as myth or folklore, or as the exaggerations of enthusiastic followers who want to promote their religious agenda. Because atheists assume that there is no God, they cannot interpret these passages as literally true.

We must become aware of our own preunderstanding in order to guard against incorrect interpretation. Faithful students of God's Word ought to be able to say what they believe about God: who He is, what is His nature, and what are His attributes. For example, do you believe God is omnipresent (present everywhere)? Do you believe God is omniscient (all knowing)? Do you believe that God is omnipotent (all powerful)? Do you believe He is holy, righteous, and loving? All of these beliefs influence the way you interpret the Bible, and you ought to state them up-front as part of your preunderstanding. You should do this with all the doctrines of the Bible. If you have a certain belief, you ought to express it so that you are aware of what you believe and why.

You may not have a particular belief about every single point of doctrine, however, and that's all right. In fact, one reason you study the Bible is to learn what it is you should believe. If you don't have a particular belief, say, about eschatology (the end times), or if you are just not sure what to believe, then this, too, is part of your preunderstanding. People often think they don't have a particular belief about some doctrine, but when they start to express what it is they do believe, they discover that they really do have some idea of what they believe about that doctrine. Other times people think they know what they believe, but they soon find out that they really aren't sure, or they discover that they really can't support their belief from the Bible. All of this makes up your preunderstanding. You should be aware of what you believe and of that about which you are uncertain.

Submit Your Preunderstanding to the Bible. The reason you should become aware of your preunderstanding is so that you can submit it to the truth of the Bible. As I pointed out above, there are some aspects of our preunderstanding that are the same for everyone, no matter from what culture they come, whether they are atheists or theists, whether they believe the Bible or don't believe it. If aspects of our preunderstanding are universal, then it must be true that aspects of the preunderstanding of the authors of the biblical books are universal. This offers a connection between the modern interpreter and the ancient text. Part of the task of the interpreter, then, is to look for the universal aspects of the text. Because the Bible teaches universal truth and there are many aspects of our preunderstanding that are the same for everyone, it is possible for the Bible to correct those aspects of our preunderstanding that are peculiar to us and may be contrary to the truth. If we don't know what these peculiar aspects are, it is more difficult to allow the truth of God's Word to correct them.

A good example of the truth of the Bible correcting our preunderstanding is the experience that every Christian has had - conversion. Before you were born again, you did not believe that you were a sinner in need of salvation.² This was part of your preunderstanding. When you heard the Gospel, however, the truth of the Word of God, by the ministry of the Holy Spirit, convinced you that you were a sinner and that you needed salvation. The truth of God's Word replaced your incorrect preunderstanding. There is more to the experience than this, of course, but being born again is certainly not less than this. Part of the conversion experience is coming to accept the truth about you, about God, and about your need for His righteousness.

The experience of growing as a Christian is the same. Many times you have read the Bible and learned something new, or the truth of the Bible altered your understanding. Perhaps someone, a pastor or a teacher, helped you understand a passage that you previously did not understand. All of this is part of the process of changing your preunderstanding. This experience is possible because there are universal principles of communication and understanding. Let's look at some of these principles.

THE UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNICATION AND UNDERSTANDING

Certain principles govern the way people communicate. Some of these principles are universal: they are the same for all people at all times regardless of their language, ethnic background, culture, or point of view. By understanding these principles, we can study the Bible with the knowledge that it is possible to discover the correct meaning of the text.

The Universality of Truth

Whether someone is willing to admit it or not, everyone believes there is truth and that truth is absolute. Some people call themselves relativists. A relativist claims that there is no absolute truth, but even the relativist believes relativism is absolutely true. Truth, however, is not something that is based on a particular point of view. If a statement is true, it is true whether it fits your point of view or not. Someone once said to me, "There's no such thing as truth." I responded, "Is that true?" It made no difference what this person's point of view was. Even when he tried to deny truth, he could not help but claim that his denial was true. The fact is, there is absolute truth, and this truth does not change just because someone doesn't like it or agree with it, and it does not change depending on one's worldview. Truth is the same for everyone at all times.

Because there is absolute truth, it is possible for you to read the Bible and find absolute truth indeed, that truth will change the way you think and what you believe.

An important aspect of the notion of absolute truth is what is called the law of noncontradiction, often simply referred to as the law of contradiction. This is an aspect of our preunderstanding that is the same for everyone. The law of noncontradiction is a rule of logic that says, "A statement cannot be both true and false in the same sense." If, for example, I say, "I am at the beach," then this statement is either true or it is false it cannot be both. I cannot both be at the beach and not be at the beach in the same sense. I could say, "I am at the beach (in my daydream)" and "I am not at the beach (physically)," and both statements can be true, but not in the same sense. The law of noncontradiction is an undeniable fact that applies to everyone. Without it there would be no way to tell the difference between what's true and what's false.

The fact that truth is absolute and the law of noncontradiction is undeniable indicates that truth is universal. To claim that truth is universal means that when there are conflicts, say, between science and religion, we cannot say that these are two separate areas of thought that employ different ways of understanding the world so that the principle of noncontradiction does not apply.³  When two claims contradict one another, one must be true, and the other must be false. When people want to communicate, they must do so on the basis of the universality of truth, or communication is not possible.

The Unity of Human Nature

Another principle of communication is the fact that human nature is the same for all people at all times in all cultures throughout history. This is perhaps best summarized by the following observations:

1. The human race is a single biological species, renewed generation after generation by the reproductive determinations of a single gene pool hence, humans are one in nature - that is, in specific nature. All individual members of the species have the same species-specific properties or characteristics.

2. The human race being one, the human mind is also one. The human mind is a species-specific property found in every individual member of the species, the same in all, being subject to variations in degree. This precludes the notion that there is, within the human species, a primitive mind that is characteristically different from a civilized one, or an Oriental [Eastern] mind that differs in kind from an Occidental [Western] one, or even a child mind that differs in kind, not just degree, from an adult mind.⁴

These two observations assert that human nature is the same for everyone despite the reality of cultural diversity. It is obvious that the Bible was written in certain periods of history, in certain historical situations, and in cultural contexts quite different from our own. The principles of the unity of human nature and the universality of truth, however, demonstrate that there was not a "Hebrew" mind or a "Greek" mind or an " ancient" mind so that truth among those cultures at that period of time was somehow different than truth today. Humanity is one race with one kind of mind, and therefore the truth of the relation between God and humans is the same for us today as for the men and women of the Bible. The differences, then, between those ancient cultures and our modern culture are not in the nature of humanity or of truth, but rather in the social and cultural expressions of the same truths.

John 13 provides a good example of a cultural expression of a universal truth. In this passage, Jesus washed the feet of the disciples. "You call Me Teacher and Lord," He said, "and you are right for so I am. If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet" (John 13:13-14 NASB). Later, Paul talked about the institution of the Lord's Supper: "In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me'" (1 Cor. 11:25 nasb). In both places, John 13 and 1 Corinthians 11, we have the record of Christ's command to do what He did. Today, many churches regularly observe and participate in the Lord's Supper but do not observe or participate in footwashing. Some denominations practice footwashing, but it is not a generally held practice.

This raises the question: Why practice the one but not the other? We can answer this question by looking back at the context in which Jesus washed the disciples' feet, and thus discover what He said was the meaning, or significance, of this act:

And so when He had washed their feet, and taken His garments, and reclined at the table again, He said to them, "Do you know what I have done to you? You call me Teacher, and Lord and you are right, for so I am. If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master neither is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him. If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them." (John 13:12-17 NASB)

What was it that Jesus did to them? He humbled Himself, took upon Himself the form of a servant, and served His disciples. In that culture, the washing of feet as Jesus did it was a task relegated to the lowest of menial slaves. Only in an expression of great love would someone wash the feet of another of equal or lower status. This was a preview of the very self-sacrificing love that Jesus was about to display in dying for us on the cross. Jesus instructed the disciples to display and exercise the same kind of humility and self-sacrificing love for one another as He had and would exercise toward them. This humility and self-sacrificing love toward His disciples was graphically illustrated in the act of washing their feet.

In our modern culture, the act of washing someone's feet does not have the same meaning as it did in the disciple's culture. What we must do, therefore, is take Jesus' teaching on the need for an open demonstration of humility and self-sacrificing love and apply it accordingly in our culture. What is the lowest, most humbling act that we can perform for one another that will demonstrate our humility and self-sacrificing love for one another? In the local church, one of the best ways to do this is to set aside our own desires and esteem others better than ourselves. Churches have been split and the cause of Christ has been damaged because stubborn people were not willing to set aside their own opinions, their own preferences, or their own wants for the benefit of the unity of the body. That doesn't mean we should not oppose those things that are clearly wrong, but we should not allow our own tastes or our likes and dislikes to become points of dispute and division. It is demeaning and humbling to yield to the likes and dislikes, the wants and preferences, of others, but, it is an outward demonstration of humility and self-sacrificing love for the brethren to yield their own rights for the benefit of the body.

The idea here is that we need to understand the passage in its original context, grasp the universal truth presented there, and apply that truth in our contemporary cultural setting. We observe the Lord's Supper because the same activity holds the same meaning in our culture as it did in theirs. For 2,000 years the church has practiced the same observance, which demonstrates the same meaning. We do not, however, practice the observance in exactly the same way they did in Jesus' day. In Jesus' day they did not sit in pews, they did not drink Welch's Grape Juice, and they did not eat crackers instead, they reclined on one elbow, they drank real wine, and they all ate from an actual loaf of bread. In the way we observe the Lord's Supper we have translated the particulars of the ritual into our own culture, but the meaning is the same: to remember what Jesus has done for us.

Some aspects of our preunderstanding are universal, and some are peculiar to us as individuals and as members of a particular culture. It is because truth is universal and human nature is the same for all human beings that it is possible to discover truth in God's Word that can change the way we think and can change our lives. Good principles of interpretation can uncover the universal truths that mold us into the image of Christ.

NOTES

1. Thomas Nagel popularized this expression in The View from Nowhere (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986).

2. I am using the term "believe" here in the biblical sense of " believing unto salvation" (John 3:18 20:31 Acts 16:30-31 Eph. 2:8). A person can understand the fact that he or she is a sinner in need of God's salvation, but that is different than believing it to be true (i.e., trusting God for salvation placing one's faith in God). Believing it to be true is what it means to be saved.[1]

3. Mortimer J. Adler, Truth in Religion: The Plurality of Religions and the Unity of Truth (New York: MacMillan, 1990), 118.

4. Ibid., 113-14.

CHRISTIAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE
P.O. Box 7000, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
Web: www.equip.org Tel: 949.858.6100   Fax: 949.858.6111
 

Read what our Customers are saying!

Sign up for our monthly specials Newsletter