Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 186

Hermeneutics

BI 505

James E. Rosscup, Th. D., Ph. D.

Latest Revision Fall 2012

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
AIMS AND REQUIREMENTS......................................................................................................3
FORM FOR PAPER # 1: EPHESIANS 5:18................................................................................12
FORM FOR PAPER # 2................................................................................................................18
TOPIC ONE: INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................20
TOPIC TWO: SCHOOLS OF INTERPRETATION.....................................................................38
TOPIC THREE: GENERAL PRINCIPLES..................................................................................64
TOPIC FOUR: MORE SPECIFIC PRINCIPLES.........................................................................75
TOPIC FIVE: PARABLES, FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE, AND SYMBOLISM.......................94
TOPIC SIX: TYPOLOGY...........................................................................................................114
TOPIC SEVEN: PROPHECY.....................................................................................................134
APPENDIX I...............................................................................................................................155
APPENDIX II..............................................................................................................................157
APPENDIX III.............................................................................................................................162
APPENDIX IV............................................................................................................................164
APPENDIX V..............................................................................................................................165
APPENDIX VI............................................................................................................................167
APPENDIX VII...........................................................................................................................168
APPENDIX VIII..........................................................................................................................174

3
BI 505 Hermeneutics
Professor J. E. Rosscup
Fall, 2012
AIMS AND REQUIREMENTS
I.

AIMS OF THE COURSE


A. To help students understand and learn to use basic workable principles for
interpreting Scripture competently.
B. To help students develop a keener awareness of the difference between the
INTERPRETATION of a passage, that is, the meaning of what it does say, and any
APPLICATIONS that may legitimately flow from this interpretation.
C. To help students develop a greater love for the Bible and for the Lord.
D. To help students see some of the best sources to use in the study and exposition of
different kinds of literature in the Bible.
E. To further develop my own interpretive skill. (I am learning too!)

II.

REQUIREMENTS AND PERCENTAGES IN THE FINAL GRADE


A. Reading and Attendance (25%) (15% reading, 10% attendance).
Required Textbook (only the following for all the class)
Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation. Colorado Springs, CO: Victor,
1991. Hardback. ISBN 0-78143-877-2.
Merely Books Recommended to Have Some Copies in Stock (Not Required!)
Mal Couch, Gen. Ed., An Introduction to Classical Evangelical
Hermeneutics. Gd. Rapids: Kregel, 2000. Pb. ISBN: 0-8254-2367-8.
Gerald Bray, Biblical Interpretation Past & Present. Downers Grove, IL:
Inter-Varsity Press, 1996. Hardback. ISBN: 0-8308-1880-4.
William Yarchin. History of Biblical Interpretation. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers, 2004. ISBN: 1-56563-720-8.
Craig Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables (Downers Grove: IVP, 1990,
Pb, ISBN 0-8308-1271-7)

4
Read Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation. I will expect reading in parts of
this book, reading I will announce the week before each are due. Report such
readings, and class syllabus readings, on class roll. No such readings will be
allowed to be late without grade fall. I will explain (in class syllabus topics 3-7)
the principles more fully and clearly and give examples as students fill in their
notes in this syllabus.
Report reading class syllabus by Rosscup for pages he announces in class a
week before each reading will be due. These or Zuck readings are not allowed to
be late without grade fall. If you miss a class, have a pre-arranged student from
whom you reliably find out the reading (if any) and keep up with the class.
Attendance -- Attend regularly, not absenting yourself more than the Master's
Seminary permits (for a 2-unit class, you are allowed 2 absences without needing
an excuse). For any excused absence or request to be excused a student must turn
in a written note with full, brief detail at the next class. If you miss any class, you
still are responsible to have read material for that class on time and to report it on
the class roll sheet to bring your record up to date when you return. You are also
responsible to work out an arrangement with a friend in the class, so decide a friend
the first week of the semester to be able to secure reading assignments and/or
lecture notes or changes in due dates promptly for any class you miss. This also
involves having your friend secure any handouts for you and give them to you
before the next class. You also are responsible to find out from the friend where to
insert these where they belong.
B. Exams -- None.
C. Two Papers (75% of grade totally)
1. Paper # 1 -- Observation paper, 2-3pp, single-spaced on Ephesians 5:18
(25%)
a. Due Dates
Last names starting with A-G due at the beginning of (Sept. 11).
Last names beginning with H-O due at 5th meeting of class. Last names
P-Z due at 6th class.
b. Title Page and Form Guide
Use no title page; simply follow the kind of form the guide sheet
(pp. 11, 14-16) later explains. On Ephesians 5:18, using the NASB, type
neatly 18 or more distinct observations of what the verse, or its
immediate context you show is strategically related to the verse,
definitely does say. This is one separate section. Then add at least 7
observations of what it does not say that are really significant to point
out to people in our exposition. This is a second separate section. Then,
in a third section, also add at least 10 really crucial questions that the

5
verse and/or its context carefully related to the verse stimulates in your
thinking, questions that clamor for an answer (from further study) if you
are to get the correct meaning and expound the passage accurately to
others.
c. Numbering
Number the three sections according to the form on pages 11, 14-16
below. See pages 12-16 below for additional information on this
assignment and an example of the form.
d. Help
Some help (sample on the same kind of thing for John 15:2, pp. 1416) is furnished later, also pointers to alert you on how to gain a better
grade. Use no other helps at all on this assignment, i.e. do not look
anything up in articles, commentaries, past papers, Bible dictionaries,
encyclopedias, lexicons, concordances, or translations other than the
NASB. You may use the Greek text as well as the NASB if you are able.
Focus on your own careful observations that are valid on what is said.
Guard against putting down as what it says what it does not say, that is,
reading things in from what you have read or heard. Even if a statement
in itself is valid from some other considerations in Scripture, if it is not
surely stated in this passage or definitely and reasonably related closely
with the thought here, do not put it down.
e. Context of Ephesians 5:18
You may include in the observations matters carefully gleaned from
surrounding verses like 5:1-17; 5:19ff or even the entire epistle. Just be
very sure to state expressly how you see every observation really is
there, and how it vitally relates (ties in) in a close way to 5:18 so as to be
obviously pertinent. Do not leave the grader wondering exactly what
connection you see between the verse and verse 18, and how or why it is
plainly valid (how you figure it is valid).
f. Grading
Your grade will be decided on the quality and the significance of
your observations as to how crucial or vital they are to help come to a
sound interpretation later on, after the observation process. The grade
also is to be determined by being accurate in what you put down and on
the literary quality of your writing in good English, on good sentences,
on correct spelling (watch this!), on neatness and accuracy in the typing,
on choosing words well to say what needs to be said directly to the point
without getting verbose (if you have 4 pp. or more trim it!), on turning
the paper in to meet the due date, and also on doing the number of points
required.

6
If you have more than the 35 required, grade will be decided on
quality overall and not by quantity above 35!
2. Paper # 2 -- Big hermeneutics paper on interpretation of a Bible problem
passage (50%). Cf. Library Reserve Desk for Sample Paper for Paper #2.
a. Due Dates
Last names beginning with P-Z are due at the beginning of the 10th
meeting of the class. Last names H-O are due at 11th meeting of class.
Last names A-G are due on (Nov. 20). The reason for the three dates is
that a grader has to grade the very large portion of papers. The spread of
time facilitates this huge output of effort and hours and enables it being
borne better, keeping up quality for the students sake. By the way, the
grader needs prayer for doing the Herculean task.
Do not turn papers in early. If you must be away, arrange for a friend
to turn your paper in the day it is due.
Do not send your paper by e-mail. You take the time to print it out!
I will permit no trade-off deals, i.e. switches to a due date different
than what your name fits; so do not request this. Plan ahead as needed
b. Topic Selection
Select from the Bible a really key passage (cf. later, pp. 6-7) on
which there are at least two conflicting interpretations. Use five
principles of interpretation in Rosscup, Topics 3 and 4 to discuss this
problem. These principles, listed in Rosscup, are explained in Zuck (in
part), and/or in class lectures. If you do a parable, use principles in Topic
5 on Parables. If you choose a prophecy, use principles in Topic 7 on
prophecy, etc.
c. Format
This second paper is to be typed, single-spaced, and at least fully
four but not more than six full pages. Use the required form given on
pages 17-18. Cf. library reserve for past paper sample of this second
paper.
d. Requirements
Use five principles from Topics 3 and 4 or Topic 5 (if on a parable),
Topic 6 (if on a type), or Topic 7 (a prophecy). Also, employ in your
research at least seven different scholarly sources that you cite at
different pertinent points within the body of the paper. Sources can be
lexicons, commentaries, systematic theologies, journal articles,

7
specialized books on a subject, books on manners and customs, etc. Do
not cite tapes, computer sources, light or popular-type books of sermons
or expositions, etc., but strive while you have this opportunity to use and
use in printed form the best, most serious sources you can utilize. If you
use a computer source go find the printed source of the same thing and
cite that in the right page number(s). The standard you display here may
well be your standard for a life of ministry, and the work will be tested at
the Judgment Seat of Christ (1 Corinthians 3:10-17). See Appendices II
through VI for tools to use, and also, Rosscup, Commentaries for
Biblical Expositors, 2006.
e. How Principles lead to Conclusions
Be careful and diligent on each principle to state logically and
persuasively why the information based on (related to; employed in)
using this principle really leads more naturally to your preferred view
than to some other view. Do not just throw in material; use that material
to argue a case meaningfully, and keep moving always toward leading
your reader (hearer) by clear logic to the conclusion you have chosen.
Avoid bringing him to the end of your section and leaving him
questioning validity of reasons why you think this information
necessarily favors your view. The principle may be turned rather easily
to favor a different view just as well or even better.
f. Some selected problems are now listed here. CHOOSE ONLY FROM
THIS LIST.
1) Is there a gap in Genesis 1:2?
2) Was Cain's sin in Genesis 4 that of bringing a vegetable offering
rather than a blood sacrifice, or in his attitude, or both, or what?
3) Was the Flood in Genesis 6-8 local or universal?
4) What is meant by Lot's wife becoming a pillar of salt (Genesis
19:26)?
5) Did God command Hosea to marry a woman who already was
immoral, or a woman who later would prove unfaithful, or both, or
something else (Hosea 1:2ff)?
6) What is meant by Isaiah 7:14, and when was it fulfilled?
7) Are the locusts in Joel 2 physical, literal ones, or are they symbolic
of armies?

8
8) Did Jonah physically die inside the great fish in order to be typical
of Christ (Matthew 12), or did the Jonah episode relate to Christ in
some other respect?
9) What is meant in Matthew 16:18, upon this rock I will build my
church . . .?
10) Does Paul in Romans 7:14ff. refer to his pre-salvation state or his
struggle as a saved man and if so which view and why?
11) Does James 2:14-26 contradict Romans 4, or complement it, in
regard to justification by faith without works?
12) What is meant by "the Lord's day" in Revelation 1:10?
13) Is the "angel" (messenger) in Revelation 1-3 a celestial spirit being
or a human leader of some kind?
14) Are the 144,000 in Revelation 7:3-8 Israelites literally, or symbolic
of the church, or what?
15) What is the solution to the number 666 (Revelation 13:18)?
III. REQUIRED FORM ON THE TWO PAPERS
A. Paper # 1 -- Observations on Ephesians 5:18
(See pages 11 below for form, and pages 12-16 for pointers and examples on
how to do it.)
B. Paper # 2
(See pages 17-18 below; note on sample paper, p. 8, point B, also p. 10, C.)
IV.
GRADING POLICY (Both papers and all reading must be done no matter what
the grade within the 15 weeks to pass the course.) A paper is on time only if in at the
outset of class on the set date.
A. Paper # 1 (Ephesians 5:18)
I will base the grade on these criteria: doing your own work, not copying or
partly copying some previous or current paper or other source; doing the required
number of observations; organizing as required; meeting the due turn in time; using
no helps other than NASB and Greek text (for those who are able to use Greek);
typing neatly; spelling accuracy; good sentences; good literary quality of
observations as to whether they reflect what the text does say or not say that is
crucial (note this), or whether they ask really important, key questions that can lead
to big discoveries. In the section on what the text says, refrain from bringing in

9
things that the passage does not actually say, or things from cross-reference
passages that may not be really sure or helpful. Keep statements concise and to the
point; avoid heavy verbosity and too much detail. The grade also will take into
account whether a paper runs on too long overall or in certain points (any paper on
Eph. 5:18 more than 3 pp. is too long! Get it done with brevity, yet quality!).
Remember to single-space.
B. Paper # 2 (Interpretive Skills Paper)
I will base the grade on such criteria as spelling, literary quality (good
sentences not overly long, clarity, and flow of words and choice of words), correct
punctuation, neatness in typing, turning in on the due date, keeping to the required
length, using no fewer or no more than five principles, citing at least seven good
scholarly sources, arguing each principle logically and persuasively with good
content so as to help the reader see that your view really does stand up best; being
consistent in wording about each view; citing sources accurately with the correct
form (see library reserve sample papers on how this is to be done; also see section
V, pp. 9-10 and 17-18 below); and explaining yourself adequately without being
heavily verbose, fuzzy, or beating around the bush. Any paper running beyond six
pages will have the grade lowered a full grade, and any paper below four (or close
to this) full pages will be reduced in grade accordingly; so plan to keep your length
within the boundaries specified, no more, no less.
C. Policy on Late Papers
I expect work to be in on time, just as we expect a preacher to deliver his
message at the specified time and not an hour later. Any paper submitted any time
after the beginning of the class period when due (without adequate reason) is a late
paper. If within a week, it will be subject to a grade drop of two letter grades (A
to C, B to D, etc.) from the grade it would have received if it had been on
time. If a paper is turned in later than one week from the beginning of the class
hour when it is due, the grade will drop to an F. If a paper is later than 2 weeks,
without adequate reason, the instructor not only will assign an F, but lower the
score from F=69 to F=50. Papers later than even this (say 3 weeks late) go down
more. However, even if a student gets an F on a paper, his overall semester
average may be somewhat higher, enough to pass. All papers and all reading must
be done and in by the beginning of the last class to gain credit for the course,
otherwise the semester final grade will be a failure. It may be a failure anyway if
grades average below 69.
V.
FORM FOR CITING SOURCES IN PAPER # 2 (cited within paragraphs in
parentheses right in the flow of thought; not in footnotes or at the end of the paper).
A. Examples of Different Types of Citations

10
1. Citation of a single-volume work:
Simply give the author's full name, the full name of his work
(underlined), and then the page or pages you are citing, e.g. (John J. Davis,
Paradise to Prison, p. 29). Note that first name comes first, last name last.
2. Citation of a multi-volume work:
E.g. Walter Grundmann, "Dechomai in the New Testament", Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. G. Kittel (1954), II, 53-54.
3. Citation of a journal article:
E.g. C. C. Ryrie, "The Mystery in Ephesians 3", Bibliotheca Sacra, 123
(Jan. 1966), 30. In this example, the 123 is the volume number and the 30 is
the page number being specifically cited.
4. Citation of a commentary by one man in another man's multi-volume work:
E.g. (Frederic Gardiner, "Leviticus", in Lange's Commentary on the Holy
Scriptures, ed. J. P. Lange, Vol. 1, p. 39).
5. Citation of a statement by one man writing a chapter or entry in a work edited
by more than one other man:
E.g. (S. Lewis Johnson, "Romans 5:12--An Exercise in Exegesis and
Theology", chapter 19 in New Dimensions in New Testament Study, eds. R.
N. Longenecker and M. C. Tenney, pp. 298-316, especially p. 303).
6. Citation of a statement by one man writing an entry in a work edited by
another man:
E.g. (John H. Gerstner, "Kenosis", Baker's Dictionary of Theology, ed.
E. F. Harrison, pp. 308-09).
B. After you have made an initial citation from a work, any later citation from that
same work can be shortened.
Samples can be drawn from the list above: e.g. (Davis, p. 122); (Grundmann,
p. 54); (Ryrie, p. 28); etc. If you should cite some other writer of a different article
in a work already cited, such as the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,
you could shorten the title to an abbreviation since you already gave the full title,
e.g. (J. Jeremias, "Lithos", TDNT (1967), IV, 268-80). Baker's Dictionary of
Theology can be shortened to BDT on the second time it is referred to, and Lewis
Sperry Chafer's Systematic Theology can be shortened to ST, etc.
C. Example of # 2 Paper

11
See sample of the # 2 paper at Library Reserve Desk to see how these citations
are done in action within papers (Samples are not provided for Paper # 1 beyond
helps in these requirement pages such as the example on John 15:2). Also follow
the structure the present pages give for this paper, and note all instructions
pertaining to the paper.

12
VI. FORM FOR PAPER # 1: EPHESIANS 5:18
cf. Example, pp. 14-16
Use basically 1-inch margins and set up the paper as follows:
(upper right corner, one inch down-------->)

Name _________________________
Course ________________________
Date __________________________
Student Box ____________________

Observations on Ephesians 5:18


(Title above is to be centered 2 lines below 4th line that gives box number).
D. 18 Key Observations on What IS Said
1.

Form a complete, concise sentence. In every case, be sure to be specific.


Strive to say something that is a key statement which will really help, and not
to give some useless bit of information such as how many words there are in
the English text or how many lines are in the verse.
.
.

18. Include at least eighteen observations, more if you choose, all numbered.
E. 7 Key Observations on What is NOT Said
19. Again, form a complete, concise sentence. Number the observations
consecutively from Section A, making sure you have at least seven.
.
.
25. Include at least seven statements.
F. 10 Key Questions
26. These are questions which, when answered properly, will yield really good
information helpful in explaining the passage to a person or audience. Number
the questions consecutively from Sections A and B, etc.
.
.
35. Include ten or more questions.
For more helpful suggestions on how to write this paper, see the following section,
entitled "Pointers to help in doing Ephesians 5:18 Papers". Also see Example for
Ephesians 5:18 Paper.

13
I POINTERS TO HELP IN DOING EPHESIANS 5:18 PAPERS
Here are some tips that may very well help your grade on the paper:
G. Spell correctly! Even though some students know they should do this, they still
hurt themselves by frequently spelling incorrectly.
H. ALWAYS write complete sentences or complete questions!
I. Punctuate properly. Some omit periods at the ends of sentences, question marks at
the ends of questions, commas in the right places, etc. Another common error
occurs in leaving out apostrophes, or placing them where they do not belong. The
following are examples of correct usage of apostrophes to show possession: "Paul's
command", "Jesus' disciples", "its meaning".
J. Use correct grammar. See the examples below:
Incorrect: "A person should be filled with the Spirit, should they not?" (Notice the
switch from the singular person to the plural "they".)
Correct: "A person should be filled with the Spirit, should he or she not?"
Incorrect: "Paul contrasts two things--one should not be drunk, rather they should
be filled with the Spirit." (Observe the switch from "one" to the plural "they".)
Correct: "Paul contrasts two things--one should not be drunk, rather he or she
should be filled with the Spirit." But note, actually that 5:18 may not only be
referring to one, but to a plural number (cf. the plural context).
K. Show how your statement is valid to the text itself. Do not just say, "It is a good
thing to be filled with the Spirit. That is true, but you have in no direct way
related it to the TEXT. Now note a direct tie-in to the text: "Verses 19-21 show
that it is good to be filled with the Spirit, because they apparently spell out results
of a Spirit-filled life or else features that accompany it. Do not just say, I should
not get drunk with wine (you have not given proof that you are in the verse!). Say
instead something like, A person should not get drunk with wine because
drunkenness is excess, wasteful , etc.
L. Avoid saying the obvious thing that contributes nothing, for example, "Will being
filled have a good effect on behavior?" The text plainly shows that it does, so why
question it? Be sure that you have not just wasted words.
M. Be careful not to state the same thing twice in different words. For example, a
positive observation might be, Drunkenness leads to excess. Later under
questions do not ask, What does drunkenness lead to? For you have already
answered that question, so why ask it separately? Move on to something new!

14
N. Focus on good observations on the text itself. Do not just ask, "Who was Paul?"
That is far too introductory and general to contribute much that is directly helpful
to most listeners when you are speaking on Ephesians 5:18.
O. Do not make two or more points where one point would take care of it. For
example, do not say, "Paul emphasizes the negative", and then under a separate
point later say, Paul emphasizes the positive. Rather, combine the two since they
fit together: Paul contrasts the negative (do not get drunk) with the positive (be
filled with the Spirit) in a two-fold command turning on the word but.
P. Say a lot about 5:18 itself. Do not just say a lot about the surrounding verses.
Whatever you say needs to be about 5:18, and if necessary related directly in some
crucial way to the surrounding context, for instance, The command to be filled
with the Spirit in 5:18 comes in the midst of several exhortations in the context. For
example . . . (and specify which verses form this context).
Q. Why ask a question when a direct observation is right there? Ask key questions
when this is not the case.
R. Stick to what the text itself says for sure, or else to questions truly important in
relation to what the text does say. Often students will write down things other
passages say which may not necessarily be what THIS particular passage says, or
things they have heard or read which are not really in the text itself.

15
VI.

EXAMPLE FOR EPHESIANS 5:18 PAPER


Observations on John 15:2
A. What It Does Say [i.e. scrupulously what it says for sure]
1. Some kind of contrast seems to be involved since the verse refers to a branch
that DOES NOT bear fruit and then a branch that DOES bear fruit.
2. Every branch as related to bearing fruit is involved in both of the statements
contrasted in the verse.
3. The branch not bearing fruit is said to be in Me, whatever this will turn out
to mean, and branches are identified as you (which raises the question, you
singularly or you in a plural sense?).
4. What the branch is said not to do in the first part of the verse is bear fruit,
whatever this will be found to mean.
5. The bearing of fruit is mentioned in context (v. 4) in relation to the true vine in
v. 1 (Jesus, 14:23 etc.) and the husbandman (My Father, i.e. Father of
Jesus).
6. The vine/branch/fruit picture fits in as a part of the larger context of Jesus
interchange with and discourse to His disciples (Chapters 13-16). His disciples
are mentioned (13:5) and are frequently speaking to Jesus in this section (13:6,
8, 24, 25; 14:8, 22, etc.).
7. The Father is said to take away every branch that does not bear fruit (v. 2).
8. He (the Father, as in v. 1) prunes the fruit-bearing branch, whatever this
will be interpreted to denote.
9. The Fathers pruning work is focused on each individual branch (it), not an
emphasis on some corporate work with branches or them.
10. The aim the Father has in view in pruning a branch already bearing fruit is
defined this waythat it may bear more fruit.
11. The fact of number10 above is obviously different from what is said of the
non-fruit bearing branch, in which no fruit is found and for which no fruit in
the future is said to be in view.
12. Bearing fruit is related closely in context with Abide in Me and I in you (v.
4a), and the statement even is made that the branch is not able to bear fruit of
itself but only as it abides in the vine, and this related to you, the disciples
(cf. disciples, 13:5; 15:8).

16
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
B. What Is Not Said [i.e. scrupulously what it does not say]
19. The non-fruit bearing branch (v. 2a) is not said anywhere in the passage ever to
begin to bear fruit.
20. The immediate verses (15:1-7 etc.) do not appear to define exactly what in
Me means.
21. What is meant by He [the Father] takes away is not explained in verse 2, but
verse 6 may or may not provide definition since it refers to a branch as thrown
away and cast though these terms would need further study.
22. The meaning of He prunes it [the fruit-bearing branch] is not explained, nor
how this enables bearing more fruit.
23. Fruit is not directly defined in context as the fruit of the Spirit is love . . .
etc. (Gal. 5:22), however things said to be fruit of the Spirit in Galatians appear
in the John 14-15 context as well (peace, 14:27; love, 15:8-12; joy,
15:11). This makes one wonder if the fruit is the same.
24.
25.
C. Key Questions on What Is Said or Not Said
26. How does the vine illustration fit into the larger context of what Jesus claims
is His relationship to men in the whole Gospel of John in which Chapter 15
fits? For example, are there other I am claims, as 15:1, and if so, how may
I am the vine correlate, if at all, with any other such statement in the total
picture?
27. What crucial meaning is denoted by using branch to refer to a person, in
relation to being in a vine, abiding, and bearing fruit?

17
28. Is the phrase in Me, exactly as it is here, used elsewhere in the Gospel of
John, and if so, where and with what significance, denoting being in Jesus
Christ in a genuine saving sense, or some other idea?
29. What tenses are used to show the time of the action in key parts of the passage,
and what do these tenses denote about does not bear fruit, takes away,
bears fruit, prunes, bear more fruit, you are already clean, I have
spoken, Abide, cannot bear fruit, abides, neither can you, I am,
you are, does not abide, thrown away, dries up, gather, cast,
they are burned, etc.?
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.

18
IX. FORM FOR PAPER # 2
The format here should be used for Paper # 2 discussing interpretation of a Bible
problem passage. See also the specific student sample on reserve in the library (front
counter) for this course. You will find that it answers a lot of form questions, as a
picture is worth a thousand words.
Upper right corner, one inch down-------->

Name_____________________
Course____________________
Date______________________
Student Box________________
Genesis 1:2

(Centered about 1/2 inch below student box)


VII.

Statement of the Problem


Give a concise statement of one to four sentences to make exactly clear which
Bible problem you will be discussing and what constitutes the problem. Always write
in good, complete sentences. Single-space this paper, as here, but double-space as here
between headings and paragraphs.

VIII.

Proposed Solutions (or Views or Interpretations)


About one-half of a page should suffice in most cases to list the main views
gleaned from sources in your research. Do not list more than four views, and in most
passages the main three will be enough, in some texts two main views.
A. The View that . . .
Spell our concisely in the heading what the view claims is the interpretation.
Here you are also to document within parentheses who holds the view, the name of
his work, and the page or pages. One or two really good exponents of a view
should suffice. (See sample papers in the library and Section V in "Aims and
Requirements" to take note of the form in documenting within the body of the
paper and not in a footnote or endnote.) It would also be good to spell out briefly
in sub-points the crucial aspects usually found in the view. Cite people who
actually champion the view, not writers who only refer to it but do not espouse it.
B. The View that . . .
Same as Section A above.
(Include more sub-sections if necessary.)

19
IX. Preferred View
Spell out which view described above you have decided is most correct. Then
write, "This view appears to be correct based on the following hermeneutical principles
applied to the problem":
A. The Principle of Near Context
Describe which factors in the immediate context point to your view better than
to other views, and how. Use sub-points, i.e. 1., 2., etc. and develop arguments
with plenty of solid "beef". Strive to be very logical and clear to your reader
(hearer).
B. The Principle of Wider Context
C. The Principle of Word Study
D. The Principle of Cross-Reference (Scripture Interprets Scripture)
E. Include five principles, but no more.
On some principles you may have one-half of a page, on others three quarters
or a full page. Just be sure to argue well. Do not run thin on any principle. Also
cut out unnecessary long-windedness to keep the paper to 4 (or no more than 6 at
the most) pages. Work at the task until you have something worthwhile or valid as
a product. Strive to give support that really persuades. cf. past student sample at
library reserve desk; it shows how a student did the form (structure), documentation
of sources, hermeneutical lines of reasoning, clarity, etc.

20
TOPIC ONE: INTRODUCTION
I. DEFINITIONS
We need to relate hermeneutics to other studies, and at the same time see how it is
distinct from them and has its own contribution to make. The question here is: where
does hermeneutics fit in the total picture of various theological disciplines?
A Canon
A study of the canon looks at the determination and recognition of the books of
Scripture--which books God intended to belong in the Bible.
F. Textual Criticism
Textual criticism decides the words of Scripture--which words are truly a part
of the proper text and which words were not actually in the original, Spirit-inspired
manuscripts.
G. Historical Criticism
Historical criticism decides what is the framework or setting within which the
words of the Bible were fitted when they came historically.
H. Hermeneutics
Hermeneutics determines the methods, techniques, rules, or principles which
will best serve in getting at the proper interpretation of any part of the Bible.
Notice the background of the word "hermeneutics". Hermes was the Greek god
who allegedly interpreted the message of the gods to mortals. The word
hermeneuo, meaning "to explain, interpret", is the root word in Luke 24:27, where
the compound term diermeneuo is found. Christ, the greatest interpreter or master
of hermeneutics, is in action here, talking to the two disciples on the Emmaus
Road. As He interprets from the Old Testament the things concerning Himself,
their hearts burn within them (v. 32). Hermeneutics can lead to burning hearts! If
used properly with sensitivity by a Spirit-led Christian, it does not concern dead
methods but can be vital and thrilling in opening up the things of Christ.
I. Exegesis
Exegesis is the application of methods to the text so as to bring out the actual
meaning. Exegesis and hermeneutics are closely related.

J. Homiletics

21
Homiletics is the science of the preparation and delivery of sermons. It
involves the following two steps:
1. Preparation
a. Gathering material
b. Organizing material
c. Interacting with and praying over the material and for people who will
hear it.
Thinking through effective methods of communicating the material
and for people who will hear it.
2. Presentation
K. Bible Exposition
Bible exposition is the actual expounding of the text to an audience in oral or
written form. Even if a person writes out his message with no other person around,
he has an audience in mind beyond the present moment. At that immediate
moment, he is personally the one who benefits, but other will usually be benefited
also. Distinguish this from homiletics. Homiletics is involved here, but there is a
lot of preaching that is not Bible exposition. Bible exposition is a particular type of
message which follows right down through a verse or passage and brings out its
meaning and implications for those involved. Homiletics is broader and can
involve any type of sermon, whether geared to a specific passage, to a number of
verses in different places, to a topic, etc.
L. Biblical Theology
Biblical theology, according to the excellent definition of Charles Ryrie, is
"that branch of theological science which deals systematically with the historically
conditioned progress of the self-revelation of God as deposited in the Bible"
(Biblical Theology of the New Testament, p. 12). In this discipline, one is
particularly concerned to relate every point of Scripture to its immediate context
and to see the sense it has in relation to that precise setting or perspective.
Biblical theology is concerned with two main facets--the distinctive theology
of persons (Johannine theology, Pauline theology, Petrine theology, etc.) and
periods. This does not mean that different biblical persons contradict one another
in their theology, but it does mean that each person contributes distinctive
emphases, style, way of saying things, etc. In regard to periods, God has an overall
plan through history in which He progressively reveals different aspects of His
truth in different stages and times when men have been prepared by previous
revelation so as to be ready to receive it. This means that the theology during the

22
pre-Mosaic covenant economy is not as full and final showing God's redemptive
plans as a whole as it is later, after the many aspects of fulfillment in Jesus Christ.
M. Systematic Theology
Systematic theology is a compilation of all that we know of God, His creatures,
and His plan from any and every source. Broadly speaking, it is gleaned from His
revelation in the Word (special revelation) and the world (natural revelation).
Biblical theology concentrates upon the Word only, and it also places greater
emphasis on the distinctives of the particular person or the context of a period.
N. History of Christian Doctrine
History of Christian doctrine is a study of the history of various doctrines
which have come into discussion and formulation at different points during the
nineteen centuries of the developing church. It involves what men have said and
done historically about doctrine.
I DIVISIONS OF HERMENEUTICS
O. General Hermeneutics
This involves principles of interpretation which serve comprehensively and in
general for all of Scripture. We need to be aware of certain rules which apply
wherever we are in the Bible.
P. Special Hermeneutics
This refers to more specialized rules that must be brought into action for
interpreting certain types of biblical literature. Here, the general or perspective
principles (above) must be supplemented by more specific rules helpful in getting
at a particular kind of material, such as poetic sections, types, prophecies, or
parables.
X. DISTINCTIONS IN THE HERMENEUTICAL PROCESS
A. Orientation
A student must decide and sharpen his awareness of where he will fit in the
hermeneutical picture of today. He must gain a sense of mooring, integration, or
orientation amidst millions who are studying the Bible in varying degrees and
ways. This must be true in relation to the following factors, or he will be at sea and
tossed to and fro:
1. Systems of interpretation through the centuries
See "Schools of Interpretation" in these notes, and also Zuck, for more detail.

23
2. Spirit of God
The student of the Word must be properly related to the Holy Spirit if he
is to handle it as it is in truth the Word of God and receive the true and real
impact God intends it to have for him.
a. His Person (1 Corinthians 2:12-16)
b. His purpose
His purpose (John 16:14, "He shall glorify Me"). Helpful reading:
Roy Zuck, The Holy Spirit in Your Teaching.
3. Situation of Today
The student must find an orientation to the situation in which God has
been pleased to place him. Amidst all of the centuries, God has placed him at
this time in history and given him this situation and climate in which to live
and move and have his being. If he is to be a man who can rise to such an
hour as this, he must be sensitive to his context and know his world. Then he
must minister the Word in a way that is relevant and meaningful, never
compromising the message itself. With this awareness and ability to
communicate effectively to his generation, he has the exciting prospect of
becoming an instrument God can greatly use.
B. Observation
1. Explanation
This has been called "the art of awareness". Here, the Christian must
learn to relate to the Scripture and respond to the question, "What does it
say?" He engages in the fine art of being all eyes and all ears. He is a
detective seeking to uncover every clue; he probes deeply into the passage for
the what, the who, the when, the why, the where, the how, the so what, and
also what does not matter.
In many cases, the great Bible student is the person who has developed
an ability with which he sees more than others see. He sees things that are
actually there, but which most people pass over, and miss.
2. Types of Observation
There are different kinds of observation. You may have natural
observation, for instance. Harry Lorayne was a good example of this. He
was the author of How to Develop a Super-Power Memory. Often he would
have an entire audience stand and give their names right down all of the rows
at the beginning of a program, and then rattle off all the names correctly a
few minutes later. He did this by observing a person's features or clothing

24
and by making certain associations which will instantaneously suggest the
name and aid his memory. Split-second ability to observe distinctions that
mark men off paid him big dividends. All of this, however, is only natural
observation developed to a very high degree.
The second type of observation is supernatural. This is observation by
the power of the Holy Spirit who controls and sharpens the abilities of the
mental faculties, and even takes the Christian out beyond natural ability into
the realm of what God can do (cf. Psalm 119:18; 1 Corinthians 2:12-16)!
The Christian who walks in the Spirit may combine the two types of
observation in his exploration of the Word. On the one hand, there is hard
work in disciplining himself along many different lines on natural
observation so that he can seize full advantage of the potential within him to
see and to make associations and judgments with a keen mind. This may
involve blood, sweat, and tears, so to speak. On the other hand, there is the
enablement of the Spirit of God so as to see and appreciate with spiritual
perception what the man unaided by the Spirit would gloss over in his
spiritual blindness.
3. What to Observe (A Brief Summary)
a. Connecting words -- "and", "but", "therefore", "for", and others.
b. Verbs -- Note the tense, voice, whether singular or plural, and look up the
verb in the lexicon so that you can observe its meaning.
c. Patterns in context -- Look for similar verb forms in the passage, such as
the five participles strung out in Ephesians 5:19-21.
d. Repeated words -- Note words that are repeated within a verse or within
a context.
e. Words a given writer tends to use
For example, Matthew is the only gospel writer who uses the phrase
"the kingdom of heaven".
f. Contrasts
g. Comparisons
h. Commands
i. Exhortations
j. Definite articles or lack of them

25
k. Adjectives
l. Genitives
For example in Revelation 1:1, "the revelation of Jesus Christ."
m. Relation of the verse to the main point of the section it is in
n. What the verse does NOT say that may be important
o. Whether the verse uses a phrase that MAY be synonymous with some
other phrase - For example, may "filled with (by) the Spirit" in Ephesians
5:18 mean the same thing as "strengthened with might by His Spirit"
(Eph. 3:16-19)?
p. The overall, comprehensive fact that the many separate details of a
context or verse show.
For example, the filling of the Spirit in Ephesians 5:18 fits under the
larger theme (cf. the context to determine what that theme is and
evidence to support this). In Matthew 13, eight parables fit under the
larger unifying theme of features or characteristics of the development in
God's kingdom interests in the present age. A given fact in Revelation 2
- 3 fits under the overall sweep of Christ's appeal to His churches, and in
Revelation 6:1 - 8:1, a given detail fits under the overall emphasis on
seal judgments, etc.
q. Evidence of the writer's own passion, feeling, heartbeat, and goals, or his
anger, disappointment, etc.
r. Variety in the way a writer refers to Christ, the Holy Spirit, or the
Christian -- For example, he may refer to Christians as saints, brethren,
believers, etc.
s. Words that need historical data which commentaries, lexicons,
dictionaries, encyclopedias may furnish to us -- For example, the term
"Nicolaitans" in Revelation 2 needs further explanation for a proper
historical understanding.
t. Words or phrases that may be explained in books on manners and
customs, dictionaries, lexicons, encyclopedias, and good commentaries
An example of a phrase that needs further clarification is "white
stone" in Revelation 2. Be prepared at times to meet with several
different suggestions on what a phrase meant in the ancient situation.
u. References to geography -- locale, distance, terrain, climate, vegetation,
etc.

26
v. References to chronology -- For example, days in Genesis 1, judges'
years in the book of Judges, and certain references to timing of events in
Acts 15 and Galatians 2, etc.
w. How much space a writer devotes to a given subject or facet in
comparison to what he gives to other aspects of the picture -- For
example, two chapters describe the creation, but over fourteen chapters
are devoted to Abraham's career.
x. The leading and lesser doctrinal views in a Bible book or in the writings
of a given author, such as Moses or Paul.
y. Features of a writer's style -- For example, Paul uses long sentences, as
in Ephesians 1:3-14, and Psalm 119 is written in sections beginning with
each letter of the Hebrew alphabet.
C. Interpretation
The Christian responds to the question, "What does it mean?" He comes to this
by a proper use of the raw materials of observation--what he has seen. A proper use
of these would involve looking at them carefully according to good principles of
interpretation, both general and specific. Compare the following:
Observation

Interpretation

My concern is, "What does it say? Where is it


found? Is it found anywhere else, and, if so,
does that throw light upon the statement here?"
I bombard the passage from every conceivable
angle and simply milk it for all it is worth.

This is the result. I begin to come up with


answers to the right questions, based upon
sifting all that I have observed through the
check-points of key principles of interpretation.
With enough information in hand so that I can
make the necessary sensible judgments, I am in
a position to formulate what the passage must
mean. The beginner can find this very slow
and time-consuming, but the skillful,
experienced interpreter may integrate and
correlate many factors in a flash, in some
cases.

a. Problem:
Sometimes we jump to conclusions about interpretation before we
have adequate observations. We have not yet observed enough, and here
we are making dogmatic but poorly founded assertions about what the
interpretation has to be. We can be so sure (out of ignorance), and yet so
surely wrong!

27
Why do we do this?
1) Because of a precipitous judgment after seeing some factor and
making a mountain out of a molehill without checking it by other
details to be sure.
2) Because of a closed-minded attitude. We bring to the investigation
the interpretation of a favorite Bible preacher, see the whole passage
through "colored glasses", and insist that we must come out with this
meaning without really giving the passage a fair chance to speak for
itself.
3) Lazy-mindedness, etc.
b. Illustration from a life situation:
The point here is that you can act hastily before you have made
enough observations. Once you have observed the whole situation, your
interpretation may change drastically.
The situation:
c. Class Discussion:
Using a letter from a friend, make observations and come to a wise
interpretation.
AN EXERCISE IN OBSERVATION
Upon completing graduate school (seminary), a friend wrote me a letter. He had packed
his highly valued books into his car--as many as the car would hold--and driven several thousand
miles home, eager to use his newly-acquired training and the tools God had given him.
On a paragraph from his letter, I would like you to practice the Principle of Observation.
Observe key details that you believe really can be determinative later in arriving at a proper
interpretation of what he means. The paragraph is as follows:
I had a rough trip all the way. First I got rid of about sixty more pounds of books;
then I had to get a new battery. After that I got rid of two hundred pounds of books
and had a new universal put into the car. Later I had to put shock absorbers in the
car. By the time I was through it cost at least $80.00 to $100.00.
Historical Background:
This incident took place in 1965 when prices were much lower than in 2004. My friend
had carefully selected books he prized for his ministry, building his library discerningly. He was
excited about having and using all the tools in his service for Christ.

28
Interpretive Problem:
What does he mean by "got rid of. . . books" and "got rid of two hundred pounds of
books. . ."?
Possible Views:
(1) He threw the books out the car windows to lighten the load since the car was having
problems; (2) He gave books away along the journey to help the ailing car; (3) He sold books to
raise money to pay for car repairs he mentions along the way; (4) He donated books to libraries
along the way to make the load easier for his car; (5) He mailed books home to lighten the car
load since he was having problems getting home; (6) He got so angry over his car problems that
he took it out on many of his books, virtually destroying them because God was not sparing him
difficulty and making known the faithfulness those books talked about.
Here, as in many a Bible passage, we are beset with several views! However, there is a
sensible method of observation that will lead us to the most natural and probable interpretation.
List the truly determinative observations in the right column, and the less likely points in
the left column. See if you can arrive at a proper interpretation:
Less Decisive Observations

Truly Decisive Observations

1.

1.

2.

2.

3.

3.

4.

4.

5.

5.

6.

6.

7.

7.

29
D. Correlation
The student responds to the question, "How does this fit in?" He relates the
meaning here to the flow of thought in the paragraph as a whole, the chapter as an
entire unit, the section of the book in its totality, and the book in an overall sense.
Beyond this, he can relate (or correlate) it with some doctrine in Scripture as a
whole and show how it fits into the picture. Or, he can correlate it with other
aspects of truth in the daily life of the believer, so that it is in proper perspective
with other elements of the spiritual experience.
E. Application
The Christian asks, "How does it relate to me? To others? To God?" Beloved,
this concerns living the facts!
What do we mean by application? We should not mean by this simply to state a
principle. There is a difference between putting down some principle we have
gleaned from a passage and actually making an application of that principle to
impact our lives.
Principle

Application

Here, I simply state a fundamental or general


truth, that is, a norm, rule, law, or ground of
action or conduct.

Here, I bring the truth specifically to focus


upon personal behavior so that it is in direct
contact with some actual attitude, action, word,
or situation in my life or the life of another
person.

Example: God is light; therefore, I am to live


in a manner consistent with that light (1 John
1:5).

Example: Mary, a Christian, is hard-pressed to


find a job and earn money for college. She
lands a job making phone calls for a magazine
sales outfit, not being careful about checking
into it. After making a few calls and giving a
canned pitch, she becomes painfully aware that
she is being used to misrepresent things to
potential subscribers. She is part of a lie. She
is under conviction because she thinks of 1
John 1:5, God is light. She applies this to her
life in an on-the-spot way, confesses her sin to
the Lord, and is forgiven and cleansed. She
tells the boss that she is leaving. (Mary has
taken a principle and made an actual
application of it to her life.

30
1. The Problem of Making Applications
Mary made the application above quite spontaneously and quickly once
she learned what she was really doing. She used a verse for which the
interpretation was already quite clear in her mind, and rightly so. But often
people make applications from verses that actually amount to twisting the
idea of those verses out of harmony with the true interpretation. They may
do this with motives that are sincere or insincere.
The reason behind misapplication is usually that a person starts at
application before moving through observation, interpretation, and
correlation. He places Step E before Steps B, C, and D. The Bible thus
becomes sort of a sacred rabbit's foot; he rubs it a certain way, so to speak,
and expects it to say what he wants it to say for a given situation. It is like a
good luck charm. Paul Woolley has sounded a danger when he says that
people sometimes use the Bible as though it were a book of magic (The
Infallible Word, pp. 194-95):
. . . People use the Bible to find out the will of God by turning to it at
random when a problem arises and seeking the answer to their difficulties in
the first section that they read. Sometimes they even let the Bible fall open
"at will" and then blindly put their finger on a verse and, having read it, force
it into a plausible meaning for their particular difficulty.
2. Illustrations of Misapplication
a. Example 1
A Christian in military service read his Bible one morning to get his
"verse for the day". Later he turned up A.W.O.L. When he had been
located and dealt with in due military fashion, one of his buddies asked
what had possessed him to pull such a thing. He replied, "I read the
Word to get some guidance for the day. The verse I read said, `Arise, get
you out from this land.' So I took that as God speaking to me, and I got
out of this place!" In this case, he read Genesis 31:13, a verse which in
its context was intended to apply specifically to the case of Jacob, not
necessarily to another person.
b. Example 2
A girl at Philadelphia Bible College miserably flunked an exam.
The professor called her in and asked why. She said, "I read the verse
that says the Spirit will give you in that day what you shall say, and so I
did not feel I needed to study." She had misapplied such verses as
Matthew 10:19-20 and Mark 13:11.

31
c. Example 3
A woman said to the writer, "My husband died. I read a verse that
says a woman went on to marry each of seven brothers. Does this mean
that I should marry my husband's brother?" She had Matthew 22:23ff in
view and was in deep perplexity and turmoil because she did not want to
marry her brother-in-law!
d. Example 4
The Dallas Morning News one morning in March of 1964 ran the
story of a woman who was one of four candidates for governor of Texas
in the Democratic primary. The story told how she was convinced that
the Bible told her she would win the nomination. She had received the
official list of names from the Texas State Democratic Committee and
seen her name printed last. She read in her Bible the words of Matthew
19:30, "Many that are first will be last, and the last first." That was
enough for her. She felt she had a word from God that she was going to
be first. Needless to say, she lost. She had misapplied a verse.
e. Example 5
A lady phoned a radio station in the Los Angeles area and talked
with an announcer on January 16, 1967. "Did you hear about Cyrus
Eaton and Rockefeller planning to build hotels behind the Iron Curtain?"
she asked. He replied, "Yes." "Well," she continued, "Did you realize
that in Isaiah, chapter 44, we read of Cyrus doing this very thing?" Then
she read over the phone the words about Cyrus of ancient Persia
rebuilding the city of Jerusalem which, by the way, was fulfilled in the
sixth and fifth centuries B.C., or about 2,500 years ago. "Now," she
concluded with an air of finality and triumph, "What do you think of
that?" The announcer, realizing that something had obviously gotten far
amiss in her use of the passage, backed out of the situation slowly.
"Well," he replied, "I don't believe I would care to pursue the matter any
further."
3. What Proper Application Means
Proper application means that a person makes sure that his application
arises out of a solid and sound set of observations and a right use of
principles for interpretation. It means that he avoids angling for a blessing or
a "message from God" at the expense of the literal thought in a passage. Of
course, this may come only with instruction. It also may take some deliberate
effort over a period of time (such as in a hermeneutics course or simplified
series in a layman's Bible class) to develop a mental set that is conscious of
and sensitive to the use of interpretive principles before swinging into action
with an application. True, some have hair-trigger tendencies to read into

32
verses whatever surface whim strikes them at the moment and say, "The Lord
led me." Some tolerate the shallow misconception that if the Bible is to be
meaningful a verse ought to mean whatever I see in it that I perceive as a
blessing. Anything goes. I write my own Bible. No holds are barred. A
little sober reflection on the principles of interpretation would help people to
see that the words "The Lord led me" would more truthfully be, in some
cases, "My own imagination led me." If we are to do business for our great
Lord in a way that honors Him, we simply cannot afford the luxury of such
promiscuous excursion from the path of propriety. We need applications, yes,
but applications lined up in harmony with tried and trusty laws for getting at
the proper meaning.
4. The Way to a True Application
A more detailed discussion of good guidelines appears in Ramm's
chapter on "Devotional and Practical Use of the Bible." Here we may look at
only two matters that point us in the right direction.
a. Be critical with yourself about indulging in little games of magic with
your Bible.
Do not put your finger on a verse sort of at random and expect God
to jump out like a cuckoo bird and speak to you with some special word
for the moment. This is a ouija board type of thing. Face it. It is no
better than the customs of heathen who toss eggs on a roof to see if they
break or not, or read the entrails of chickens to determine their course of
action. If God is worth your life, all of it, then you can afford to give a
part of it to Him in quality time spent in His presence. You can allow
Him to address you out of His Word in careful ways and not as you go
rushing by.
b. Determine if the statement is really directly applicable to you.
It may have been given to some other person long ago in his specific
need and the exact situation is not to be reproduced for you. The wise
step for you may be to glean a principle from the passage and then look
to the Lord to meet you in your specific situation as He met this other
person long ago in his specific situation. God can work in line with His
principle in two different lives in two different ways. He is flexible.
For example, in Acts 18:9-10 God promised Paul He would keep
him safe in Corinth at that time, but later He allowed him to be martyred
in Rome. When you see how God worked in Paul's life in different ways
at different times, it helps you to realize that you cannot take one way
and hold God inflexibly to it, but you can rather see that God will take
care of you whatever His good pleasure for you is at the moment, be it in
life or in death.

33
c. Make sure you have the true interpretation before making an application,
so that the application may match up accurately with the interpretation.
The application should flow naturally and easily out of the
interpretation, really fit it, and put no strain or artificiality upon it. For
example, some say in John 15 that a vine has no effort and branches do
nothing; therefore, we as people trusting Christ should do nothing to
abide, make no effort, etc. But the basic idea of John 15 is inner flow of
life, communion, dependence, etc., and many will wonder if the
illustration is meant to teach all points of truth. Besides, we are people
with will, intellect, emotions, etc., and not literally branches. Not only
that, but other passages of an integrated, consistent Scripture teach
believers to put forth effort. Philippians 2:12-13 describes a believer's
effort with dependence on God who works within, in grace. Paul is clear
about effort in 1 Corinthians 15:10, 58. There are many other passages
that show there can be harmony between proper effort and doing this
with a trusting dependence on God for His working through us in
gracious enablement. The abiding life can be a very active, energetic life
(cf. whole chapter on this in J. E. Rosscup, Abiding in Christ: Studies in
John 15, 2003; copy available at The Grace Book Shack).
Another illustration of this principle of verifying the true
interpretation before making an application is seen in Luke 15:8-10.
Since the coin the woman lost is an inanimate object, some have used
this to teach a man is unable to come to God without God's working.
This point should be gleaned from Scripture only where it clearly is the
point, as in John 6:44, and not from Luke 15. The point in the parable of
the lost coin is that the woman lost it, valued it, searched to find it, and
rejoiced upon its recovery. We are not to press every detail of what a
coin is but see what the context wants us to emphasize. Many things
about a coin are not the point, for example, a coin stays in one spot when
it is lost, whereas a sinner may run from God, really move around. The
point in Luke 15 as in the Prodigal Son part is applied by rejoicing over a
sinner being saved, for God values him. This is the consistent point in
all three parables in the flow, the context, of Luke 15 itself.
d. Find a proper balance by cross-reference.
That would need to be done in the John 15 situation above. Another
example is Psalm 37:4, which says to delight in the Lord and He will
give you the desires of your heart. First, note "delight yourself in the
Lord," which sets the tone and shows that the inclination is to be in line
with delighting in Him, not just asking Him to give us whatever might
satisfy fleshly desires, selfishness, etc. Also, when we cross-reference
with John 15:7, 1 John 5:14-15, etc., we find that the person looking to
God is to ask in accord with God's will as shown in His Word, then
expect provision, for his desires are sifted and brought into harmony with

34
what God desires. Psalm 37:4 is not a blank check we fill in with selfish
wants.
e. Make the application in the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:14;
Galatians 5:18; etc.). We need His direction, power, etc.
f. Make sure you LIVE OUT the truth; you have not applied it until you do.
You do not just think about it as a nice idea; that would only be a pretty
theorizing or meditation on a principle.
g. Make the application with sensitivity to progressive revelation IF such
progression has a bearing on that passage or point.
For example, in Luke 11:13, believers were to pray for the Holy
Spirit; this was before the Spirit was given to be in believers (John
14:16-17) in some wonderful new sense. He was given in Acts 2. But it
took time, and progressive steps during a transitional period, for
believers in different areas of the outreaching gospel to realize this and
receive the Spirit as God waited for the truth to become known even far
from Jerusalem. So, in Acts 19:1-7, Paul prayed for the Ephesians that
they might receive the Spirit, and they did. Once the transitional period
was past, all of the saved receive the Spirit at the moment of initial
salvation and His indwelling is a mark of the saved (Romans 8:9; 1
Corinthians 6:19-20; etc.). In applying such a text as Luke 11:13, we
would as saved people not pray for the coming of the Spirit; we would
integrate with progressive revelation and pray in light of what we know
from the more complete picture later in the New Testament. We would
apply by receptivity, obedience to the Spirit who now already indwells.
He is resident and wants to be president.
h. Make the application immediately before we forget or the urgency we
have felt fades.
i. Make a list of specific ways to put a truth into practice (in line with
Philippians 2:12, realizing that God is ready to work in us to will and to
do of His good pleasure).
j. Thank God for the truth we are applying, as we are to give thanks in
everything (1 Thessalonians 5:18). This ought to keep life busy.
k. Share the truth when you are confident that it is real in your own life.
For example, the Samaritan woman in John 4 shared quickly with those
of her town.
l. Think of people and things around you and how your relationship with
these can be better specifically because of application. Then apply more
and more (cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:1, "excel still more"). As you drop a

35
pebble into a pool and send out circles wider and wider, your impact on
the world around you can reach out farther and farther.
m. Share your applying of the truth particularly with the person (if there is
one) who brought it to your attention--your pastor, Sunday school
teacher, friend, husband or wife, etc. Let the blessing of spiritual
renewal or growth be felt by others.
n. Make the application in balance, coordination, and consistency with
other applications.
For example, you have just come from a meeting where a message
brought God's conviction to witness. You go to witness when you are
supposed to be in charge of a meeting coming up, and you fail your
responsibility there. It would have been much better for you to make the
application after you have upheld your responsibility for the meeting,
coordinating and integrating the different aspects of your life in harmony.
o. This list can go on. It is your privilege. To use a basketball figure, "The
ball is in your court."
NOTE: Steps A, B, C, D, and E (above) are crucial in the actual
matter of hermeneutics, but in the experience of a servant of Christ
others are also closely related to them. Some now follow.
F. Appropriation
The Christian goes a step farther than simply making an application of the truth
directly to his life. He appropriates or receives the enablement of God who alone
can execute this truth he is applying and make it effectual in the life. He does this
by simple, child-like trust. He takes the Lord as his all-in-all for power, purity of
heart, confidence, wisdom, love, joy, peace, and all of the fruit of the Spirit. He not
only makes the application of a truth to his life, but he appropriates the Lord afresh
to make it work and to live it through him. It may be he is not newly making the
application primarily for himself at the moment since it is already real to him, but is
applying it to others. Then he appropriates the Lord's faithfulness to do a work in
their hearts so that they will begin to apply and live in the good of this truth.
G. Organization for Sharing
The Christian seeking to share truth with another person or a group goes
through the steps of arranging it in a meaningful and attractive way. He must
remember:
I am not teaching a lesson alone. I am teaching it to people.
This is something like preparing a sales talk, knowing that your success hinges
largely on the way you give the talk. You must be ready to give it to a person. If

36
you are doing it by phone, you do not simply make a phone call, you call some
person.
1. Organize it for persons.
In this, you are to be aware of their joys, their problems, their failures,
etc. You must try to say it so that it reaches down into them right where they
live.
Think about their dilemmas; be available to your people; be aware of
their problems; while crafting the message, you integrate certain things so
that you center on what theyre dealing with.

2. Organize it around a main point or points (of your passage).


The danger here is that you can get lost in a forest of details and keep
what you really would like to say so well hidden that nobody can guess what
it is. To begin with, you must see it clearly yourself. If you have only the
foggiest notion about it, the chances are nobody else will resurrect it for you!
If you know it clearly and say it clearly, then others can "read" you clearly.
Remember that if something is worth saying, it is worth saying clearly.

H. Supplication
The Christian talks to God about the persons before he talks to the persons
about God.
I. Presentation
Here is the actual sharing itself. The various other steps before this have led
up to it. The God who speaks to us wants to speak to others through us (cf. 2
Corinthians 5:14-21; 13:3; etc.). Paul's great desire for his ministry should also be
ours: that we speak "in demonstration of the Spirit and of power" (1 Corinthians
2:4).
Being in possession of God's truth, I must not hold it only to myself in an
intolerable selfishness but share it in a liberal glad-heartedness. But it must be a
ministry, not simply motions. Yet who can make it so? Only the Lord. Since I am
Christ's servant, the burden rolls off my shoulders and onto His. In my heart it
must be forever settled that while I might work with unceasing devotion, the effect
of all my sharing is not simply my responsibility but His. Let the results in men's
lives be not on the scale of my own small dimensions, but according to the working
of His Spirit who works mightily. It is my happy lot to trust Him for that and
believe that through my efforts, as I labor with a holy care that my eye is single to

37
His glory, He is at the task even more fervently than I am, seeing about His ancient
business. And He is pleased to do it through me.
If then the Lord is finally responsible for the results, I must realize that I will
not always be able to see what He has wrought. Certain effects of a given message
or witness may be immediately noticeable and encouraging to me. Others will not
appear on the surface, but I must not be discouraged as though all depends upon my
limited discernment at the moment or even later. God honors His Word in ways I
see and in ways I cannot see. If I have been slothful and shoddy in preparation and
presentation of the Word, and realize it, I should confess this sin and change my
ways to please the Lord. But if I have labored in the Word and given it out as
faithfully as I honestly know how, and yet see no apparent results, I can still rest in
the Lord and be at peace with what He has done--which I take by faith though I do
not see it as He does

38
TOPIC TWO: SCHOOLS OF INTERPRETATION
We may study the schools of interpretation topically (as Ramm, pp. 23-92) or
chronologically to see the historical development of all the strands in one discussion (A. B.
Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible, pp. 20-53). The approach here is in accordance with Ramm
and with indebtedness to his arrangement since his work is more convenient to follow.
I. ALLEGORICAL SCHOOLS
The word "schools" is plural because there are a number of these: Greek
allegorism; Jewish allegorism; Christian and Patristic allegorism; and Catholic
allegorism.
The definition of the allegorical method is as follows: The allegorical method
regards the literal, grammatical, historical sense of a passage as a mere vehicle for
getting underneath to a hidden meaning thought to be deeper, more profound, and more
spiritual.
Beneath the letter (rhete) or the obvious (phanera) is the real meaning (hyponoia).
Mickelsen says of this method: "What the original writer [of Scripture] is trying to say
is ignored. What the interpreter wants to say becomes the only important factor" (p.
28). Later, Mickelsen says: "Allegorizing is like a fog which at first renders objects
indistinct and then finally blots them out altogether" (p. 37). He means that in many
cases imagination replaces observation.
A. Greek Allegorism
The Greeks were not concerned with Scripture but with their own writings.
However, their allegorical method of interpreting their writings was later adopted
by both Jews and Christians. Thus, allegorical interpretation later on springs from
pagan sources.
1. The conflict that caused the introduction of allegorism (as Ramm)
a. Religious tradition in the poets Homer and Hesiod
The writings of Homer and Hesiod had a popular appeal, yet were
filled with the fanciful, grotesque, absurd, and even immoral. For
example, they wrote about the lustful escapades of Greek gods, which
created tension and conflict with the philosophical school of thought.
Mickelsen remarks, "Plato was acquainted with this method, and was so
opposed to it that he did not want poets in his Republic! . . ." (p. 28).
b. Philosophical-historical tradition in Thucydides and Herodotus
Plato, coming later, could not harmonize embarrassing crudities in
Homer with the philosophic convictions. He was forced either to reject

39
Homer if taken literally, because of the illicit sex capers of the gods, or to
read in a nice explanation for these which would smooth everything over
and erase the conflict with philosophy.
2. The Consequences
a. The solution to the problem
Greeks relieved the tension and explained that there was really no
clash after all. The stories of the gods and the writings of the poets were
not to be taken literally but allegorically. One must look underneath to
see the real meaning (hyponoia). Thus, the immoralities evaporated and
the allegorists interpretation saw values and not vices in the gods. As
the historian Farrar writes, the allegorism was a convenient blessing:
"By these means there was no sort of difficulty in making Homer speak
the language of Pythagoras, of Plato, of Anaxagoras, or of Zeno; and
borrowing from them the very same methods, the Alexandrian Jews
made the Bible express and anticipate the doctrines of the same
philosophers" (p. 136).
b. The spread of the principle
The Greek principle of allegorism spread to Alexandria, Egypt, were
there was a great Jewish population and later a large Christian segment.
The allegorism was bequeathed to the Jews and later, eventually to the
Christians. Out of the roots of pagan Greek allegorism there would grow
a tree of allegorical interpretation forced into the Bible.
B. Jewish Allegorism
1. The conflict
Like the Greeks, the Alexandrian Jews had tensions. They were steeped
in the Mosaic law, the prophets, and the writings of the Old Testament. But as
they rubbed elbows with others in Alexandria and learned the culture with its
Greek philosophy, they sensed the conflicts between Plato and their
Scripture. Some episodes or statements in Scripture became the constant butt
of Gentile ridicule. They could not cling to both without red-faced
embarrassment.
2. The consequences
a. Solution
Many found a convenient method of resolving the conflict and
saving face. They simply allegorized the Scripture and erased the
problem.

40
b. Scholars
1) Aristobolus (160 B.C.)
He held that:
a) Greek philosophy was borrowed from the Old Testament,
particularly from Moses. By this he exalted the Old Testament
and made it respectable.
b) The Old Testament was made to teach the same things as the
Greek philosophers when the allegorical method was applied.
2) Philo (20 B.C. - A.D. 54)
He was not the first Jew to adopt the allegorical method, but he
was the man who systematized it in relation to the Old Testament
and brought it to its epitome in early times.
a) His preparation (training)
Farrar tells us (pp. 137-38) that Philo was weak on Old
Testament and rabbinical culture, but he was steeped in Greek
literature which he read voluminously. He often quoted from
Homer, Hesiod, Sophocles, and others, and also was intoxicated
with the Greek philosophers. Thus, he refers to "the great
Plato", and speaks admiringly of other stars in the philosophical
galaxy.
b) His purpose
As a Jew he loved the Scripture and felt that the Mosaic
Law and the prophets were superior to Plato and the
philosophers. He even compared divine wisdom to Sarah the
princess and human wisdom to Hagar the concubine. But he
was dazzled by Greek philosophy, liked its splendor and charm,
and felt driven to find a middle means by which Moses and the
philosophers could be united and harmonized (Farrar, p. 133).
He developed a massive system of interpretation filled with
allegorism to give the Old Testament a charm to the Greek
mind. For example, when Scripture says that Adam hid himself
from God, this dishonors God because He sees all things; thus,
Philo said, it must be allegory. He read philosophy back into
Moses and so reconciled the two to suit his own notions. He
could find in Moses whatever he wanted. This, again, was very
convenient. He could regard himself as a learned philosopher
and yet at the same time a faithful Jew (Farrar, p. 137).

41
c) His problem
He saw the problem of defending the cause of Judaism
against sneering Greeks. He came to the rescue of wavering
Jews who felt the sting of ridicule for their writings. He wanted
to save face for the Mosaic Law and the prophets and make
these attractive and respectable. They must be treated so as to
offer no offense to those who had "come of age". (Note: This
viewpoint presupposes that Scripture must bend, not men! Men
insist on harmonizing the Bible with the latest current popular
opinions. The Bible must take a deep bow before the shrine of
contemporary ideas.)
d) His principles
(Cf. Ramm, pp. 27-28; Mickelsen, p. 29; Farrar, pp. 13657). Philo instructed that the Scriptures must be interpreted
allegorically when:
(1) A statement is unworthy of God, e.g. "Adam hid himself
from God" or Jacob said, "God is in this place";
(2) A contradiction seems apparent, e.g. Cain had a wife;
(3) An allegory is obvious.
Philo did not consider the literal meaning useless--he
even claims respect for it--but this is to some extent
seemingly lip service only. From the overall drift of his
statements, he regarded it as the immature sense, a
concession to the weak and ignorant. It was the body, but
the allegorical sense was the soul which could be seen and
appreciated by the enlightened or elite.
e) His perversions
At his hands, even the simplest statements of Scripture
evaporated and were replaced by philosophical niceties or moral
platitudes (Farrar, p. 140). For example:
(1) When Moses mentions "the green herb of the field", he
really means "that portion of the mind which is perceptible
only by intellect."
(2) The verse "God did not cause it to rain upon the earth"
(Genesis 2:5) means that God did not shed the perceptions
of things upon the senses.

42
(3) When God planted a Paradise in Eden, the meaning is that
God implants terrestrial virtue in the human race.
(4) The FOUR HEADS OF THE RIVER going out of Eden are
the cardinal virtues--prudence, courage, temperance, and
justice.
Farrar says aptly: ". . . He was determined to get
circuitously what he could not get directly. And thus did he
practically create a Bible of his own--a Bible infinitely less
venerable and more obscure--endowed with claims and
interpreted by methods which were not derived from its own
pages but were a feeble exotic transplanted from the theories of
Greek philosophers into a completely alien soil" (p. 152).
C. Christian and Patristic Allegorism
1. Introduction
a. Duration of the system--more than 1500 years until the Protestant
Reformation.
b. Objectives of the system
1) To explain the Old Testament as a Christian document.
2) To emphasize truths of the Gospel.
c. Objections to the system
1) Ignoring of the historical and literal sense of texts
2) Inadequate understanding of passages in view of progressive
revelation. It poured meanings back into Old Testament texts that
were not fully-bloomed yet.
3) Indiscriminate use of allegorism to explain the meaning of parables,
etc.
4) Confusing of the allegorical and the typical. Here, it failed to grasp
the distinction between a valid interpretation of the Old Testament
and an improper understanding of it.
5) Insistence that Greek philosophy was in the Old Testament and
could be uncovered by the shovel of allegorism.
6) Fostering of dogmatic interpretations and ecclesiastical absolutism.

43
7) Summary--It obscures the true meaning of the Word of God and
offers no check to determine its correctness.
2. Individuals
a. Clement of Alexandria (155-215)
He saw five senses in a passage of Scripture (cf. Ramm, p. 31). For
example, Exodus 16:36 reads, "An omer is the tenth part of a ephah."
The LXX renders it, "the tenth part of the three measures." Clement says
these measures are in their deepest sense three criteria of sensation,
speech, and understanding (Farrar, p. 186).
b. Origen (185-254)
1) His setting
In Alexandria, Egypt, there was a group of scholars trying to
make the Christian faith appealing and meaningful to the
intellectual. This was a tremendous task, for the Bible was being
labeled as immoral, trivial, and absurd. Such men as Celsus and
Porphyry were knocking the Scripture, pointing to such episodes as
Lot's incest, Noah's drunkenness, Jacob's wives and concubines,
Judah's seduction of Tamar, supposed petty distinctions about which
animals were clean or unclean, and many other matters (Mickelsen,
p. 32). Origen and others even before him resorted to allegorism,
motivated by the challenge of dressing up the Jewish Scriptures to
make them attractive to minds that would not accept them.
Note: The Bible says that when a man does not believe the
Bible, there must be a change in the man by regeneration and a new
viewpoint as a new creation (for example, see 2 Corinthians 5:17;
etc.), not a change in the Bible.
2) His system
Origen's system is set forth in voluminous writings. Ephiphani
estimated that he authored about 6,000 different works (A. H.
Newman, A Manual of Church History, I, p. 282). Origen reduced
the allegorical method to a system. He held that, just as in the
Platonic trichotomy, every passage of the Bible has three senses. He
brought 1 Thessalonians 5:23 into play here. He saw the literal or
body sense (earthly, carnal, sensual); the soulish sense (that which
relates to matters of religious life); and the spiritual sense (that
which relates to heavenly life).
For example, the water pots of stone in John 2, containing two
or three firkins (about twenty gallons) apiece, mean the Scriptures.

44
They are intended to purify the Jews and sometimes contain two
firkins--the moral and literal sense--and sometimes three, including
the spiritual.
As he used the three senses, Origen approached Scripture with
the following principles:
The literal meaning of Scripture is the preliminary level of
Scripture. It was good for the crude layman, but was to be left by
the more intelligent believer, who could ride the hermeneutical
elevator to higher levels.
To understand the Bible, we must have grace given to us by
Christ. (This is a good statement, but there is danger in it when
wrongly used, for one could justify any view on this basis. We need
sound rules of interpretation!)
The true exegesis is the spiritual exegesis of the Bible. (There
is truth in this statement also, but Origen was so anxious to bend the
Scripture to make the Christian faith palatable to unsympathetic men
that he made many concessions.)
Much of the literal (body) sense to him was derogatory to God's
greatness, and he regarded many Old Testament stories as immoral
and unbecoming. There was the incest by Lot, Judah's fornication
with Tamar, prohibitions to eat vultures (Deuteronomy 14:5), etc.,
which were inherently absurd to him. Further, he asserted, many
things are contradictory and involve discrepancies (Farrar, pp. 191193). How, he asks, could readers possibly receive edification from
the minutia of Leviticus or Numbers? It would be unbecoming of
God to give minute rules about fat and leaven (Leviticus 3), or to
justify the slaughter of enemy peoples. To interpret these literally as
having happened would render the Christian faith grotesque and
impossible (cf. Farrar, p. 192, footnote). Unbelief comes in many
ways.
Farrar's evaluation is incisive: "In reading most of Origen's
difficulties about the Bible in its literal meaning, we stand
amazed. . . . By the slightest application of literary criticism they
vanish at a touch. . . . Had he abstained from applying to the whole
of Scripture mere fragments of clauses often divorced from their
meaning and dissevered from their context. . . he would have
contemplated such difficulties with a smile. It was only because he
saw Scripture in a false light that he was unable to account for its
most salient phenomena except by explaining them away. . ." (p.
193).

45
3) His significance
Origen's system of allegorism was soon adopted as the popular
method of the Christian Church. It prevailed throughout the Middle
Ages. Only the School of Antioch held out solidly against the
system and adhered to a rigid literal method.
c. Augustine (North Africa, 354-430)
1) His presuppositions
It should be stated that Augustine was badly equipped for the
work of exposition. He knew no Hebrew and only a little Greek
(Farrar, p. 234). He did nobly in some matters, of course, but badly
in others.
a) He presupposed that he should find almost all the truth of the
Gospel in the Old Testament. There is truth in this, but he
grossly overdid it by reading senses into Old Testament verses.
b) He presupposed that 2 Corinthians 3:6 supports the allegorical
interpretation.
c) He presupposed that the Bible must be interpreted in agreement
with the dogma of the Catholic Church.
2) His principles (inconsistent)
Ramm lists twelve principles held by Augustine (pp. 36-37).
Farrar sizes him up as follows: "Nothing, indeed, can be
theoretically better than some of the rules which he lays down. . . .
But when we read his actual comments these principles are
forgotten" (p. 234). Ramm says, "There is hardly a rule he made
which he did not frequently violate" (p. 37).
3) His practice
Augustine allegorized extensively. His allegorizing appears to
run away with him. For example, Psalm 3:5 speaks of lying down,
sleeping, and rising up again or awakening. Augustine said that the
Psalmist is referring to the death and resurrection of Christ here.
Also, Psalm 104:19 speaks of "the sun which knoweth his going
down." To Augustine, this meant that Christ was aware of his
approaching death.
He applied prophecies on the kingdom to the Roman Catholic
Church in The City of God. Why? He did it to establish the current
ecclesiology. He had had an immoral life as a young man and was

46
reacting rigidly against it. The concept of the millennial kingdom
during his day was degenerated into gratifying fleshly desires--wine,
women, and song. This was repulsive to him, so he changed the
concept of the kingdom from a literal one to a spiritualized one.
Evaluation: Augustine was arguing against a "straw man".
Twisted concepts about the kingdom had created a distasteful image
in his mind. He was against the twisted concept; however, instead
of scrapping the twisted concept and going back to the pure
Scriptural concept, he came up with a third concept that was wrong
too.
D. Catholic Allegorism (Middle Ages, approx. 1200-1517)
1. Panorama of the period (general characteristics that describe it)
a. Conformity to traditional dogma of the church.
Though there was some fresh and original thinking which careful
research can demonstrate today, the overall situation was not so.
Mickelsen says, "Except for an oasis here and there, the Middle Ages
were a vast desert so far as biblical interpretation is concerned . . ." (p.
35).
b. Centrality of the allegorical method
Interpreters of the period generally saw the following senses of the
Scripture:
1) Literal sense, or the letter of Scripture
2) Spiritual or mystical sense.
This breaks down into three divisions. The word "Jerusalem"
serves as an illustration:
a) Allegorical--Jerusalem refers to the church. (Notice that
Scripture itself does not say this, but an interpreter can read it
into passages by allegorizing.)
b) Moral--Jerusalem refers to the human soul. (Again, Scripture
does not say this.)
c) Anagogical--Jerusalem refers to the heavenly city which
believers hope to enter.
This is true only when texts so define it (cf. Heb. 12; Rev. 2122).

47
One could easily go astray here through misuse of the principle
that a given word can have different senses in the Bible. For
example, "sea" could mean a body of water, the heathen, etc.,
but some would make it mean Scripture, baptism, etc.
2. Principles of the period (cf. Ramm, pp. 39-45)
Most of these simply develop the point above on conformity to the
traditional church position.
3. Proponents of the period
a. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
He said that theological reasoning must be based upon the literal
sense of Scripture. He did stress the importance of the literal
interpretation, but in practice was still deeply enmeshed in the allegorical
method.
b. Nicholas of Lyra (1279-1340)
Farrar calls him "the Jerome of the fourteenth century" (p. 274).
Nicholas accepted the various senses of Scripture described above, the
literal sense and the three divisions of the spiritual sense. However, he
made big strides toward a return to literal interpretation. For example, he
insisted on the principle of referring to the original languages;
complained because the mystic sense had almost been allowed to choke
out the literal; and demanded that the literal sense alone should be used
in proving doctrines. Farrar pays tribute to him when he writes: ". . . he
did more than any other writer to break down the tyranny of
ecclesiastical tradition, and to overthrow the blind belief in the bad
method of centuries" (p. 277).
E. Concluding Evaluation of Allegorical Interpretation
1. Its derivation--pagan Greek philosophy
2. Its defense--Some things can be said in an effort to justify it.
a. It relieves Scripture of elements unsavory to the rational mind and makes
it more appealing.
b. It is taught in Scripture itself as a valid principle. Notice however that
the positive arguments which many of the Fathers give for allegorism are
inevitably founded on misapplications which cannot stand the acid test of
sound exegesis. Also, they confused legitimate typology with
allegorism, anthropomorphisms with allegorism, etc.

48
1) 2 Corinthians 3:7-13, 14
2) 1 Thessalonians 5:23 (This, of course, does not really support
allegorism. It is not speaking of different levels of Scriptural
meaning but about the psychological make-up of man.
3) 1 Corinthians 5:7-8
3. Its distortions
Allegorism has distorted plain passages by reading in meanings which
have no valid connection with the obvious, literal sense.
II. LITERAL SCHOOLS
A. Jewish Literalism
1. The beginning (Nehemiah 8:1-8)
Students of the history of hermeneutics generally agree that organized
interpretation began in Ezra's day (ca. 445 B.C.).
a. The purpose for it--Jews during the exile in Babylon had lost their
Hebrew tongue and were speaking Aramaic. When many were restored
to Jerusalem, they could not understand the Hebrew Scriptures (Old
Testament). Therefore, Ezra assembled the people in Jerusalem and
explained the sense of the Hebrew to them.
b. The principle of it--The literal sense was used primarily.
2. Jewish interpretation of the Scriptures during the intertestamental period.
Rabbinism used the literal method. This was valid, but they often swung
to the extreme of letterism, coming to a meaning by assigning numbers to
letters, and counting these, etc. (cf. Ramm, pp. 46-48). Many of their rules
were excellent, but their fault was in the application of these rules. They
produced many fallacies by exaggerating the incidental and the accidental,
while ignoring or missing the essential thrust.
3. Jewish interpretation in the time of Christ and the Apostles
See for helpful reading: Thomas H. Horne, An Introduction to the
Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, I, p. 324.
a. The Jews who spoke with Christ and appealed to the Old Testament gave
no indication of the allegorical interpretation.
b. Josephus always speaks of Old Testament episodes in a literal sense.

49
c. Philo of Alexandria, though using the allegorical method himself, had to
defend something new and opposed by the other Jews on the whole.
d. Christ Himself interpreted literally, but not with letterism.
e. The apostles followed the method of Christ.
B. The Syrian School of Antioch
This was not an institution of teachers as at Alexandria, but rather a tendency
in theology, a loosely knit fellowship of men who interpreted the Bible in a
historical-grammatical sense.
1. Proponents
a. Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus (ca. 379-394), was the real founder. He was
a presbyter at Antioch and taught Chrysostom and Theodore.
b. Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia (350-428), was the ablest and most
logical representative of the school of Antioch. For a time, he was a
presbyter at Antioch.
A question arose regarding the divine and human elements of Christ.
Appollinaris (ca. 390) said that the Logos simply came on a true human
body but not a human spirit, for the Logos is the spirit. Theodore
opposed this and insisted on the true humanity of Christ. He is
considered the father of Nestorian theology. Nestorius (ca. 428) opposed
the view that Mary was "mother of God" (divine nature). The Roman
Catholic Church denounced his opposition as a heresy.
Farrar describes Theodore as follows: "That clear-minded and
original thinker stands out like a 'rock in the morass of ancient exegesis'"
(p. 215).
1) His defects
He was weak in Hebrew and textual criticism, so that he uses
arbitrary principles to decide the reading he prefers when there is a
critical apparatus reading. Also, he is weak on typology, having no
definite principles for deciding why some facts were to be regarded
as typical and others not.
2) His strengths
He gave close attention to linguistic details such as particles,
prepositions, moods, etc. Also, he studied a context as a whole
rather than simply focusing upon texts isolated from their
surroundings. Further, he practiced literal interpretation, refusing to

50
read the full-blown revelation of the New Testament back into the
utterances of the Old Testament, such as reading redemption back
into Rahab's red cord (Joshua 2).
c. John Chrysostom (347-407) was a friend and fellow student of Theodore.
Philip Schaff styles him "the prince of commentators among the fathers"
(II, p. 816).
1) Features (cf. Schaff, II, p. 816)
a) It accentuated the plain, natural meaning of a text according to
the use of a language and the setting of the writer, and did
justice to the human factors. Schaff calls this grammatical and
historical exegesis a sane check on the wild fancies of
allegorizing in Alexandria, which "substituted imposition for
exposition" (II, p. 816).
b) It acknowledged the spiritual sense of a text, of course, but
made this flow out of the historical-grammatical meaning which
was the basis.
2) Fate
a) The image and influence of Theodore of Mopsuestia was tainted
by the charge of Nestorianism.
b) The church was in the saddle, and it rode rough-shod over all
who stood up against the allegorical method of interpretation.
C. The Reformers
1. Preparation for the Reformation
A number of men helped form views of Scripture exegesis which set the
stage for the great work of Luther, Calvin, and others. Farrar discusses four
such men. Desiderius Erasmus was a key figure among these. In 1516, he
issued his Editio Princips of the New Testament, giving principles for
interpretation. He often pointed out mistakes and misconceptions of the
"authorities" whom the church traditionally felt had said the last word. He
even showed imperfections in Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, etc. He
repudiated the infallibility of the pope, and rejected so-called "Scripture
proofs" when he considered them misinterpretations which were not
applicable.

51
2. Principles of the Reformers
a. Martin Luther (1483-1546)
S. Skevington Wood has pointed out that the Reformation did not
begin on the steps of the temple in Rome, as legend has it, or even at the
Wittenberg church door where Luther posted his ninety-five theses
which ignited a discussion. Rather, says Wood, it began "in the Black
Tower of the Augustinian monastery at Wittenberg where Luther sat
before an open Bible and allowed God to address him face to face." He
says that the Tower discovery came to Luther in the fall of 1514. "Luther
himself tells us how he dwelt upon the first chapter of Romans (1:17).
'Night and day I pondered until I saw the connection between the justice
of God and the statement that "the just shall live by faith." Then I
grasped that the justice of God is that righteousness by which through
grace and sheer mercy God justifies us through faith. Whereupon I felt
myself to be reborn and to have gone through open doors into paradise.
The whole of Scripture took on a new meaning and whereas before "the
justice of God" had filled me with hate, now it become to me
inexpressibly sweet in greater love. This passage of Paul became to me a
gate of heaven'" (Wood, The Principles of Biblical Interpretation, pp. 7374).
Illuminated so that the Bible was coming alive to him, Luther
affirmed: "That is the true method of interpretation which puts Scripture
alongside of Scripture in a right and proper way" (Luther, Works,
Philadelphia Edition, Vol. III, p. 334). Some of Luther's principles of
interpretation are listed below.
1) The supreme and final authority of Scripture itself apart from all
church authority, interpretation, or interference.
He said:
"a layman who has Scripture is more than Pope or council
without it."
"the Church cannot create articles of faith; she can only
recognize and confess them as a slave does the seal of his Lord."
"With all due respect to the Fathers, I prefer the authority of
Scripture."
2) The sufficiency of Scripture.
A Christian man needs Scripture and nothing more, not even a
commentary. We have to understand this idea of Luther within the
context where commentaries of his day slavishly parroted official

52
church views. Were the commentaries available in that day that are
now available, Luther's emphasis would no doubt have been
different.
3) The centrality of Christ.
Luther said: "Scripture must be interpreted to mean nothing else
but that man is nothing, Christ is all" (De Servo Arbitrio, Sect. III);
Christ is "the sun and truth in Scripture" (Werke, Weimar Ed., III, p.
643). He compared the Old and New Testament with swaddling
clothes and the manger, and said that Christ lies in them as He lay in
the manger: "dear is the treasure, Christ, that lies in them" (Works,
Philadelphia Ed., VI, p. 638).
4) He resolutely set aside the fiction of several senses and emphasized
the literal sense.
"Each passage has one clear, definite, and true sense of its own.
All others are doubtful and uncertain opinions."
"The literal sense of Scripture is the whole essence of faith and
Christian theology" (cited by Farrar, p. 327).
Accordingly, Luther rejected the validity of allegory, stating for
example: "Origen's allegories are not worth so much dirt."
"Allegory is a sort of beautiful harlot, who proves herself specially
seductive to idle men." "To allegorize is to juggle with Scripture."
What, then, of allegory? Did Luther accept is in any way? Yes,
he did, in a sense. He admits that Scripture has a double meaning,
an outward meaning gained by the aid of the Word and another that
lies in what the heart comes to know. And so Luther is concerned to
emphasize heavily that we must understand Scripture by faith, and
must feel the words of the Bible in the heart. Luther said,
"Experience is necessary for the understanding of the Word. It is not
merely to be repeated or known, but to be lived and felt" (Werke,
Weimar Ed., XLII, 195). Wood says of Luther, "Although he is
staunchly opposed to all 'monkey tricks' of unbridled allegorization,
he nevertheless admits a significance in Scripture beyond the strictly
literal" (A. S. Wood, The Principles of Biblical Interpretation, p. 80).
What Luther was burdened to stress was that the unsaved person can
grasp the grammatical and outward meaning of Scripture (the
external forma), but only the Spirit-taught, enlightened man can
receive the inner, spiritual meaning (the internal forma).

53
5) Conclusion about Luther
Some of his principles are quite excellent and refreshing. In the
use of them, however, he became inconsistent. He, too, even with a
fine principle like finding Christ everywhere in Scripture, was at
times guilty of reading developed Christian doctrines of the New
Testament back into Old Testament passages. In so doing, he had to
resort to some form of the allegorical method which in theory he had
spurned. Thus, even with the good of his emphasis upon the literal
method, there was much error and abuse.
b. John Calvin (1509-1564)
He authored the great theological work The Institutes of the
Christian Religion, and did commentary work on fifty-seven books of
the Bible. He has been called the greatest exegete and theologian of the
Reformation, and also "the Geneva theologian" (See Ramm, pp. 57-59
for five of his principles).
1) He clearly rejected the allegorical interpretation and emphasized the
historical-grammatical method.
For example, in the Psalms, Calvin seeks to find the historical
background and to apply a psalm first to that situation. In his
Preface to Commentary on Romans, he says: "It is the first business
of an interpreter to let his author say what he does say, instead of
attributing to him what we think he ought to say."
He felt that the Word of God is inexhaustible and applicable to
all times, but that there is a difference between explanation and
application. Application must be consistent with explanation
(Schaff, VIII, p. 532).
2) He showed inconsistency in the use of his principles.
He often read into passages his own preconceived ideas of what
they had to mean, and even attributed glosses to texts which did
damage to his views.
He spiritualized away the obvious sense of many prophetical
passages relating to a national future for Israel in the land of
Palestine. Even in Romans 11:26, he makes "all Israel" mean
Gentiles and Israelites, all who are of the saved community which
he believes is the spiritual Israel.

54
3. Summary on the Reformers
Despite inconsistency in the use of their principles, the great
Reformation leaders for the most part emphasized the literal sense of
Scripture. In general, the method of Calvin in generally repudiating the
allegorical interpretation was honored by the leading scholars after him.
III. DEVOTIONAL SCHOOLS (See Ramm, pp. 60-63)
A. Medieval Mystics
B. Pietism
1. Its idea
Pietism was a movement emphasizing a return to a vital spiritual life
feeding upon the Bible rather than living in cold, stale, dead doctrine.
2. Its individuals
a. Philip Jacob Spener (1633-1705)
He was a Lutheran minister who was the zealous and loyal pastor at
Frankfort-on-the-Main in Germany. He saw the need for more emphasis
upon the spiritual or devotional life. In 1670 he began to have meetings
in which people could study the Word. Later he did the same in Dresden
and Berlin. His emphasis, which had some healthy repercussions, had a
telling effect on some.
b. August Hermann Francke (1663-1727)
He was also a Lutheran minister who taught at the University of
Halle in Germany, which became the center of pietism.
3. Its impact
a. It influenced the Moravian Brethren, who became famous for missionary
work.
b. It influenced Count Louis von Zinzendorf (1700-1760).
He was educated at the Halle Orphan Asylum and influenced by the
pietistic teaching. Later, as a man of means, he heard of the sufferings of
the Moravian Brethren (Hussites) in Bohemia. He offered them refuge
on his estates in Upper Lusatia. There they settled and founded the
village of Herrnhut in 1722, naming Zinzendorf himself as bishop. The
Saxon government banished Zinzendorf and he went to Holland,
England, and America. Through his energetic outreach, the work of the

55
Moravians then flourished in Bethlehem and Nazareth, Pennsylvania,
and in Salem, North Carolina. When the Saxon government recognized
the Moravians as a Protestant church in 1749, Zinzendorf returned to
Germany and resumed his place as bishop of Herrnhut.
c. It influenced the Puritans.
d. It influenced men like Jonathan Edwards.
e. It influenced the Quakers.
C. Modern Emphases
A great number of men in modern times have written in the devotional vein.
Among the many are such as the following: F. B. Meyer, W. H. Griffith-Thomas,
Andrew Murray, A. W. Tozer, V. R. Edman, Paul Rees, Lehman Strauss, R. Kent
Hughes, H. A. Ironside, etc.
1. The aim
The good and lofty aim is to help the reader in the vital Christian life
flavor of the Scripture so that he can see the relevance of the message to his
practical life. Usually, though not always, these writers pass over technical
problems in a passage and simply stress the meaning of the text to the
devotional life in the pursuit of godliness. (connected with below)
2. The abuses
There are certain abuses which sometimes are true of writings in this
emphasis. With certain writers, of course, these abound more than in other
more careful writers who combined scholarship and spirituality in a fine
balance (R. Kent Hughes, James Boice, John Phillips, Warren Wiersbe, John
Stott, John MacArthur, etc.).
3. Eisegesis, especially in the Old Testament
Often there is a shallow brush with a verse in its grammatical sense. The
writer is intent on extracting from it some sweetly edifying idea. The abuse
is in imposing meanings that sound good and bless the heart at the expense of
what the verse actually means if it is studied responsibly. Many times a
certain devotional thought is in some other biblical passage, but not in this
one.
4. Extremism in typology
Many let their typological hobby-horses run wild with them. They build
elaborate arguments out of even the smallest details to find specific analogies
with some aspect about Christ of New Testament truth.

56
5. Emptiness of doctrinal and historical truth
At times, a person can be so anxious to get his "blessing" that he can
jump past details of history or doctrine that are a necessary basis for
understanding a passage in its true perspective. He brushes these aside to get
at some idea he likes and so builds on a shallow, flimsy foundation or even,
perhaps, a wrong one.
Here again, the blessedness of enriching devotional aspects must be
drawn from any passage in such a way that they flow naturally and
harmoniously out of the historical-grammatical sense of that text. The
interpreter must work with a responsible spirit, following the guidelines of
good principles. So, negatively, he can avoid twisting a verse and positively
he can arrive at the truth.
IV. LIBERAL SCHOOL
Today about forty million members belong to this movement in about thirty-five
denominations. On the national level, liberalism is represented by The National
Council of Churches, and on the world level by The World Council of Churches.
A. Its Proponents
1. Seventeenth Century
Rationalism in regard to the Bible dates back to Hobbes (1588-1679) and
Spinoza (1632-1677). These philosophers stand out as representative men.
The essence of their thesis was that human intellect is adequate in itself to
select between the true and the false, between what is acceptable and what is
in error. The emphasis is placed upon man's mental reflection on factors in
the world of time, space, and sense, not upon revelation from God who is
beyond man's own dimensions. The rationalistic contention is that the Bible
can be true only when it harmonizes with the things a man's own independent
reason can accept. "Rationalism is closely interrelated with deism, humanism,
and empiricism" (Mickelsen, p. 43). The final and supreme seat of authority
is transferred from God to the throne-room of the human mind. This is a
subjective authority residing in man.
2. Eighteenth through Twentieth Centuries
Liberalism in these centuries grows out of its seventeenth century roots.
An emphasis upon historical criticism in German secular universities
began to gain a grip upon theological thought. A rationalistic attitude ruled
out miracles, for the universe is ruled by set laws which cannot be suspended
or altered. The Bible must be interpreted like any other book, though to them
this means minus every miraculous feature. The idea that God intervened in

57
the historical drama and communicated to certain spokesmen (kings,
prophets, priests, apostles, etc.) was often watered down.
a. Old Testament Studies
Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918) is a key man here. In 1887, he wrote
The Prolegomena of the History of Israel. He presented an elaborate
system of strands on the sources of the Pentateuch called J, E, D, and P.
He labeled material in four blocks and claimed that each block
represented a different period, different authorship, etc. The actual
historical development was not as it appears to be in the Old Testament,
that is, Law, priests, prophets. Rather, the historical order of events was
prophets (who created the law read back in), law, and priests.
This type of system has been shattered by archeological evidence
since Wellhausen's day. For example:
Many law codes existed already in the time of Abraham, showing
that the law did not have to await the time of the prophets to be created.
The Wellhausen school had maintained that the law of one central
sanctuary in Israel was a late development and that the prophets inserted
the idea back into the Pentateuch to give support to the system of their
own day. However, archeology has demonstrated that one sanctuary was
the norm for the ancient peoples.
Customs of the patriarchs, as recorded in the Bible, fit exactly with
data discovered about customs during the period 2000-1500 B.C.
Form criticism has helped refute many aspects of the above system,
but it is not much of an improvement. Most still recognize J, E, D, and P
but say that great blocks of material came down to the literary
(composing) stage. J, E, D, and P relied on ancient sources, but much of
the material in the Bible is only legend (See, for example, Germans like
Hermann Gunkel, The Legends of Genesis; G. von Rad, Genesis, etc.;
Americans like W. F. Albright, The Biblical Period; John Bright, A
History of Israel; G. E. Wright, The Old Testament Against Its
Environment, etc.).
Todays liberals and liberal ideas in OT books are often commented
on in J. Rosscup, Commentaries for Biblical Expositors, 2004, in OT
examples.
b. New Testament Studies
F. C. Baur (1792-1860) and the Tubingen School handled the New
Testament in much the same manner as Wellhausen and others after him
treated the Old Testament. The approach was rationalistic. Baur saw

58
Peter and Paul as representing two different doctrinal groups antagonistic
to one another. He said that the second century church wrote most New
Testament books and created an artificial unity for the sake of theology
in their own day (cf. refutation of such ideas in W. Gresham Machen,
The Origin of Paul's Religion).
Others after Baur continued the rationalistic approach. Many, for
example, severed the actual words and deeds of Jesus from the
"kerygma" or preaching of the later church (cf. Albert Schweitzer, The
Quest of the Historical Jesus, 1911, trans. from German into English;
James M. Robinson, A New Quest of the Historical Jesus, 1959).
Schweitzer said: "The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as
the Messiah, who preached the ethics of the kingdom of God, who
founded the kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give his work its
final consecration, never had any existence" (p. 398). He said that the
actual Jesus of history is not presented in the Gospels and Epistles. The
writers doctored the facts and created their own image of Jesus, which is
artificial. The true historical Jesus was not God and can scarcely be
distinguished from the rest of men (R. Lightner, The Saviour and the
Scriptures, p. 127 who opposes liberal views).
A contemporary neo-liberalism carries on the rationalistic emphasis.
Embarrassed by neo-orthodox criticisms of old liberalism, neo-liberalism
has made claims to a return to biblical theology. The return, however, is
actually a return to some of the terminology in the Bible. In reality, the
system still hangs on to destructive higher criticism out of a desire to be
respected as scientific. Some of the main representatives of this modern
emphasis have been Rudolf Bultmann (Germany); Paul Tillich
(America); and J. A. T. Robinson (England). See, for example:
Bultmann, History and Eschatology, 1957; Tillich, Systematic Theology,
1951, 1958, and The Shaking of the Foundations, Pelican series, 1962;
Robinson, Honest to God, 1963, etc.
The dilemma which neo-liberalism faces is stated by Packer: "The
problem is, how to enthrone the Bible once more as judge of the errors of
man while leaving man enthroned as judge of the errors of the Bible;
how to commend the Bible as a true witness while continuing to charge it
with falsehood" (J. I. Packer, in Revelation and the Bible, ed. Carl F. H.
Henry, p. 94).
V. NEO-ORTHODOX SCHOOL
A. The Proponents
The first key man in this school was Karl Barth of Switzerland, who in 1918
issued his Rmerbrief or Epistle to the Romans, a commentary on Paul's epistle.
Barth also authored Church Dogmatics, in addition to other works.

59
Other main writers have included Emil Brunner (Switzerland), The Theology
of Crisis, The Divine Imperative, and Man in Revolt; and Reinhold Niebuhr
(America), Does Civilization Need Religion?, Moral Man and Immoral Society,
and The Nature and Destiny of Man.
B. The Principles
(See Ramm's good statement of these.) We may briefly look at the more
crucial matters that lie at the heart of neo-orthodox belief.
The neo-orthodox principle on revelation holds that God does not reveal facts
or propositions about Himself; He reveals Himself. In crisis confrontation or
encounter with men, He reveals Himself, as He did to Moses. When Moses,
however, wrote things down, these were not revelation from God but signposts
pointing back to the time when revelation did occur as he had a personal encounter
with God. Or, they also point the reader forward to an encounter when revelation
occurs again. The Bible in itself, then, is not objective revelation from God
according to the neo-orthodox belief.
Neo-orthodoxy denies orthodox types of inspiration and so believes there are
many errors in Scripture, which is a human and subjective product.
1. Can a Bible like this have any real authority?
They say yes, the Bible has instrumental authority because it is an
instrument pointing to Christ, in whom is authority. It does not have inherent
authority, however.
2. How can the Bible be worth much for objective authority to men when it is
full of errors, as purportedly demonstrated by the findings of modern science
and criticism?
In actuality, this neo-orthodox position is destructive to true authority as
held in the orthodox faith in the following ways:
a. It destroys theology, for if revelation is free from propositions, how can
there be a theology?
The neo-orthodox idea ultimately leads to a relative and subjective
theology (man-made) and so destroys theology.
b. It destroys genuine, trustworthy, objective spiritual experience in that it
is based on an unworthy human book.
c. It destroys authority since we can pin nothing down as concrete
revelation.

60
Ryrie writes: "Their doctrine includes orthodox terminology built
on liberal exegesis; it attempts to have inspiration without infallibility
and authority without actuality. What kind of Bible is that?" (Charles C.
Ryrie, Neo-Orthodoxy, p. 48).

61
A SUMMARY OF THE SCHOOLS
SCHOOL

DEFINITION

DIVISION AND
REPRESENTATIVE

EVALUATION

Allegorical

Views literal sense as


only a preliminary
vehicle for getting
beneath to that which
is the deeper, more
profound and more
spiritual sense

1. Greek: Plato sought


to rescue gods of
Greek poetry from
off-color episodes by
denying literal
meaning and
imposing allegorical
idea.

1. It is subjective;
each man is a law
unto himself.

2. Jewish: Philo
sought to give
Scripture charm for
unbelieving minds by
discarding literal
details which
offended them and by
allegorizing these
texts.

3. It obscures
Scripture by imposing
eisegesis for exegesis.

2. It is rationalistic;
the Scriptures are
manipulated to suit
mans reason.

3. Christian and
Patristic Origin:
Principles of Philo
applied to their own
times.
4. Catholic
Literal

Says the meaning of a


Scripture is the basic,
customary, sociallyacknowledged
designation of the
terms. The literal
sense is the basic
meaning shown by
grammatical and
historical factors.

1. Jewish: Ezra, Jews


of Palestine, Christ.
2. Syrian School of
Antioch: Theodore of
Mopsuestia,
Chrysostom
3. Victorines
4. Reformer: Luther,
Calvin, etc.

Negative:
It is not letterism,
though some have
drifted into this
extravagance.
Positive:
1. Usual practice in
interpretation of

62
5. Post-Reformation
scholars like Ernesti

literature.
2. All secondary
meanings depend
upon previous
objective literal sense.
3. Large part of the
Bible makes sense
this way.
4. Exercise a control
on the imagination.

Devotional

Regards the Bible as a


rich book primarily
given to nourish the
spiritual life of the
believer. Emphasis is
placed on the edifying
aspects of Scripture.

1. Medieval mystics.
2. Pietists; Spener,
Francke, Bengel.
3. Others: Puritans,
Wesley, Matthew
Henry, Quakers.
4. Modern Men: F. B.
Meyer devotional
books, A. W. Tozer,
Alan Redpath,
Keswick conference
tradition, The
Torchbearer
Missionary
Fellowship under Ian
Thomas, etc.

Liberal

Holds that human


intellect is adequate in
itself to select
between what is
acceptable and what is
error in Scripture.
Bible can be true only
when it harmonizes
with man's reason.
Final seat of authority
is in man.

1. Roots: systems of
men such as Hobbes
and Spinoza.
2. Old Testament: J.
Wellhausen and those
who influenced him
and followed him.
3. New Testament: F.
C. Baur and Tbingen

1. In essence it seeks
application, and this is
essential.
2. There are dangers
in abuse; therefore,
there must be a
balance between
interpretation and
application. Abuses
are allegorizing,
excessive typology,
and neglect of prior
doctrinal bases.

1. It is rationalistic.
2. Inspiration and the
supernatural are both
redefined.
3. Evolutionary
concepts are imposed
upon the religion of
Israel.

63
School of criticism.
Albert Schweitzer and
J. M. Robinson on the
question of the
historical Jesus.

4. Accommodation
presupposition erases
much Bible doctrine.

4. Others like H. E.
Fosdick.
Neo-Orthodox

That line of
interpretation which
denies propositional
revelation and
employs the premise
that the Bible is only a
fallible witness
pointing back to when
revelation occurred or
forward to when it can
occur. The Bible has
instrumental authority
because it is an
instrument pointing to
Christ, but it does not
possess inherent
authority.

This school has been


splintered off into
several movements.
Not all Barthians have
followed Barth in all
of his details, but all
of the Neo-Orthodox
accept the general
guidelines.

1. Denies that Bible is


the Word of God;
claims it becomes the
Word when God
speaks to a man and
he responds.
2. Only that part of
the Bible which
witnesses to Christ is
binding, and the seat
of authority for
deciding this is in
mans mind.
3. Many Bible
episodes are treated
mythologically, i.e. as
teaching serious
theological principles
but not as having
literally occurred.

64
TOPIC THREE: GENERAL PRINCIPLES
The following principles of interpretation are found in various books on biblical
interpretation. Spaces are left for notes to be written in during class in some instances.
I. THE CLARITY OF SCRIPTURE
1. Look for statements that men will understand.
2. Make wise the simple. Much of Scripture is clear already.
3. There are helps in Scripture.
4. Different areas of theology help and correlate; they seem to fit to things and gel
together and how everything comes into focus
5. Some give up on the bible because they think that its too difficult to understand.
II. ACCOMMODATION OF REVELATION
A. Wrong Kind of Accommodation by Liberal Theologians

B. Right Kind of Accommodation by God


God has intentionally accommodated himself and condescended to human forms
that men can more ably understand. God has on purpose caused his writers to make
common language that can be understood by man. He uses metaphors, similes,
parables, allegories, and various kinds of literary devices so that we can understand
passages like, Jesus saying that he is the door. God accommodates himself to an
illustration that he knows will be meaningful. God uses symbols, types, and etc.

III. PROGRESSIVE REVELATION


A. What It Does Not Mean

B. What It Does Mean

65
God doesnt reveal himself all at once, but reveals himself to his people
progressively. God purposely revealing his truth from Genesis, in these different
stages, to gradual processes that maintains continuity and keeps with unity
throughout Scripture. People given more developed revelation have a higher
responsibility.
It allows concepts elucidated in the OT to continue in the NT.
It allows for the embryonic and general stages of revelation and when we get to
later on in Scripture, things get clearer and more detailed.
1. It allows for some advanced aspects of revelation early in God's revelation to
men.
Example: Genesis 2:24 (monogamy)
It also allows simple concepts to remain from the Old Testaments to the New
Testament, such as God's love or God's holiness. Nine out of the ten
commandments appear in Acts and the epistles!
2. It also allows for a movement from the general and embryonic to the detailed
and matured stage.
Examples: (from class lecture)
The offerings of Cain and Abel; Cain gave a vegetable offering and Abel an
animal offering. The animal offering thus culminates into the greatest
offering to God, namely, Christ.
The Womans Seed and the Serpent.

C. How It Relates to Inspiration (class lecture)

66

IV. SCRIPTURE INTERPRETS SCRIPTURE (OR CROSS-REFERENCE)


One or more Scripture passages help interpret the right meaning in another text.
(This will be discussed in far more detail in the discussion on Cross-Reference in Topic
Four.) It can be considered under general or specific principles.
Example: John 3:5 is obscure when it refers to being "born of water and of the
Spirit". Some suggest that the water refers to water baptism. Others say the reference is
to the water of the Word, i.e. a figurative idea for the cleansing ministry of God's Word
(cf. Ephesians 5:25, 26). This has some support in such passages as Psalm 119:9-11,
where the Word is active in cleansing a man's life. Still others suggest that John 3:5
refers to being born of the water in the physical birth when a woman's water sack is
involved, and then later being also born of the Spirit in the new birth. A fourth group
explains John 3:5 by cross-reference with Ezekiel 36:25-27, where three of the same
essential elements are a focus of emphasis--the work of the Holy Spirit, new birth, and
water that effects cleansing. They say, probably correctly, that Jesus had Ezekiel 36 in
mind and meant that a person needs to be born of water in the sense of the cleansing
ministry of God in his life, in close association with the Holy Spirit. The Word of God
and the Spirit could work in harmony here in the new birth. This enables the interpreter
to explain John 3:5 in its relation to the Old Testament, a natural background the Jews
would have in mind. It also has the advantage of relating at least three essential, vital
elements in view in Ezekiel 36 with three in John 3. In addition, the interpreter can
point to Titus 3:5, later in the process of God's revelation, where a similar idea is meant.
Scripture interprets Scripture. Cross-reference helps.
V. ANALOGY OF THE FAITH
Analogy of the Faith may seem like Number IV above and the two principles
overlap to a certain extent, but there is a legitimate distinction. Analogy of the Faith
says there is one unified, consistent, harmonious system of faith (belief) in the Bible.
That is, to put it in negative terms, no point when correctly understood will contradict
another.
Two passages may not teach the same essential thing, as in a cross-reference; still,
the two things two different passages teach will fit harmoniously within a system, in
unity; they will coordinate and not contradict. Two illustrations are discussed below:
A. Romans 4:1-5
Romans 4:1-5 and many other passages claim justification by faith without
works of merit. Romans 4:1-5 does not interpret James 2:14-26 in the manner
discussed in the "Scripture interprets Scripture" section above. However, whatever

67
James 2:14-26 does really mean, this will not contradict the other point in Romans
4:1-5. The two passages will compliment each other in a harmony.
Romans 4:1-5 shows that men are justified by
faith, apart from works of merit (works have
no place in earning justification).

James 2:14-26 shows that those who are saved


by faith (without works of merit) will have
works that are the fruitful manifestation of real
faith.

B. Romans 2:6-10
Romans 2:6-10, if taken to mean justification by works, would not be in
harmony with Romans 3:27; 4:1-5; Ephesians 2:8, 9; and many other passages
where justification is by faith. There would be no fitting analogy (consistency) of
belief. These passages such as Romans 3:27 and 4:1-5 teach justification by faith,
without works of merit, and so they do not interpret Romans 2:6-10 in the manner
of Scripture interprets Scripture. They only show what 2:6-10 could not be
teaching if Scripture is unified and consistent. But Romans 2:6-10, understood as
C. E. B. Cranfield explains it in his commentary on Romans, teaches that there are
two groups of people in the world. One group is factious, disunited, ungodly, and
will find that their ungodly way of life will lead on to facing God's wrath finally.
The other group are the people of true faith who, having received God's gift and
being enabled by His Holy Spirit (cf. 2:28, 29), live a righteous lifestyle through
grace and find that this pathway leads on finally to eternal life in its future,
consummative fullness (as Romans 6:22). Romans 2:6-10, then, while not
emphasizing the same thing as 3:27 and 4:1-5, is finally in beautiful harmony,
analogy, or coordination or consistency. The two passages do not contradict; they
complement.
Romans 2:6-10

Romans 3:27 and 4:1-5

This passage refers to a life of doing good in


the power of the Spirit, a result of knowing
God by faith. As there are two ways men
pursue in Psalm 1 or often in the Proverbs, so
there are here.

These passages refer to doing good in ones


own power to try to merit receiving eternal life.
This is illegitimate.

The works come after salvation is possessed, as


in Romans 6:22; 8:3, 4; or 13:8-10.
The works (invalid here) are a false attempt to
gain salvation.

68
In analogy of the faith, we see what the Scripture harmoniously teaches on
some subject, or on related facets within a total unified picture. Once we see this
on the subject, we realize that there is overall agreement as the parts fit into the
picture, each in its own contribution.
VI. THE ONENESS OR SINGLENESS OF THE MEANING OF SCRIPTURE (IN ANY
ONE TEXT)
This principle means that a biblical text has one basic proper meaning or
interpretation, not two or three. There is one correct interpretation, but after it is
ascertained we may make several legitimate applications of its relevance to our own
lives or the lives and situations of other people.
Example: David's five stones for the fight with Goliath do not mean five stones of
physical substance to use in striking down the enemy plus a second, deeper meaning
such as purity, integrity, wisdom, courage, and righteousness. The physical meaning is
totally satisfactory in itself and fits the passage! The so-called deeper, mystical
meaning is read in arbitrarily from the imagination of the interpreter, foisted on the text.
It is imposition, not exposition! It is eisegesis (read into the text), not exegesis (led out
of the text)! I.e. This is allegorizing.
The one essential meaning of a text is that meaning which is arrived at by a faithful,
proper use of context, word study, cross-reference, knowledge of manners and customs,
historical background, and other hermeneutical rules. It is the historical, grammatical
sense of the text that fits its context (situation)--in many cases like a hand in the proper
glove--or the usage of a phrase by a specific writer or within a specific period of time or
within the flow of the Scripture nearby or overall. We must seek to arrive at the
meaning most natural, most fitting, most in harmony with factors of the context, word
study, cross-reference, etc. We must be wary of a meaning that is strained, arbitrary,
contrived, artificial, etc.
The above will work in most instances in the Bible in a gratifying way as we
faithfully wield hermeneutical principles and patiently find out the facts, bathing our
study in dependence on God. Still, however, there are admittedly some passages which,
though they legitimately have one basic, essential thrust or idea, have more than a single
aspect, or level, or expression of that one overall meaning. An illustration is Hosea
11:1, "out of Egypt have I called my son." In its historical, immediate context in Hosea,
the idea is that God called his corporate "son", the nation Israel, out of Egypt during
the Book of Exodus. Israel was God's corporate "son" (Exodus 4:22-23), i.e. was
conceived of under that figure, as Israel elsewhere is pictured under such images as
God's wife, God's vineyard, etc. But in Matthew 2, the Holy Spirit through Matthew
opens up a new vista to us of the fuller meaning He recognized in Hosea 11:1 when it
was originally stated. As He more fully conceived possibilities--not as an afterthought
but even originally--"son" could have a corporate aspect (Israel) in the Old Testament
and also an ideal singular aspect finally (Christ, the ideal Israel). This is as the Old
Testament "seed" can be corporate (Israelites) and also finally be, still with consistency,
the individual "seed" par excellence, Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:16). Or it is as Israel was

69
the "servant" of God in Isaiah 42-48, a servant who failed and was in need of
redemption, and finally the Messiah is the "servant" who does not fail, the ideal and
singular expression of what a servant can be (Isaiah 42, 49, 50, and 52-53 in the socalled "Servant Songs of Isaiah"). Or it is as God's Old Testament "vine" was Israel
(Isaiah 5:1-7), whereas the eventual ideal singular "vine" who fulfills all the features of
what God wants His vine to be is the Messiah (John 15:1). Jesus Christ claims, "I am
the vine, the true [or ideal] one." There are, in such biblical concepts, two aspects or
expressions or levels of the meaning, but the meaning is one; that one meaning through
both aspects.
One Basic Meaning

Two or More (Conflicting) Meanings

My Son Israel and Christ possess a sonness before God, as God conceives them.

Allegorical practices of the early interpreters


can have four rivers in Genesis 2 meaning four
physical rivers, and yet also have a second,
totally different meaning, such as wisdom,
virtue, prudence, and temperance. There is no
real unity or oneness or commonality between
the two meanings.

We remain within one ball park, so to speak.

VII. INTERPRETATION AS DISTINCT FROM BUT THE BASIS OF APPLICATION


The interpretation is whatever the passage basically, legitimately means after laws
of hermeneutics are used to arrive at its sense. David's five stones were physical stones
plucked from the ground to fell the enemy as he used his sling. An application from this
could be that when we, like David, go forth trusting God, God can cause the resources
He permits us to utilize to work out for victory as He did for David. Another
application could be that however small and inadequate our available supplies may be at
the moment, our trust in God's help can be honored by success against seemingly
unsurmountable odds. The interpretation is one basic meaning; the applications may be
many.
Principle VI

Principle VII

There is one meaning, not two or three


conflicting meanings, in one passage.

Once we see the one fundamental meaning (or


single truth), we can go on to make several
principles, and then put each principle into
application in an actual experience. Therefore,
there can be a number of applications that are
in accord with the true meaning, without
straining or twisting anything.

70
Whatever the meaning is, let any possible
application flow easily or naturally out of that.
VIII. HISTORICAL APPROPRIATENESS
Interpret a passage in such a way that your treatment of it is fitting, appropriate, or
in harmony with the situation at that point in Scripture. This depends on Principle III,
Progressive Revelation. That is, we should interpret certain passages with a realistic
sensitivity to how much God may have revealed to the people living at a given time in
biblical history. What would they, given the light God allowed them to possess at that
point, have most naturally understood a statement to mean? Is the meaning really
sensitive to their progressive revelation?
Example: Rahab, in Joshua 2, learned from Israel's spies that due to her faith in the
God of Israel she and her family would be spared when Jericho fell. She was to put out
a red cord hanging down the city wall. We could, as some have done, read into the
story that the red cord denoted Rahab's faith in Christ's work on Calvary's cross;
however, this assumes more than progressive revelation at that point probably had
made known specifically to Rahab. It reads more completed progressive revelation, that
of a later day, back as if it were already perceived clearly by Rahab, and this is
historically inappropriate. We would no doubt interpret the text more faithfully by
seeing a meaning that fits the historical situation and makes good sense. Red was a
loud, arresting color, easily seen, in contrast to a drab green, gray, or brown. The
Israelites needed to be able to spot the cord so as to spare the people in that dwelling!
Rahab did what the Israelites told her to do, in line with the Lord's will. She put out the
cord and her household was spared. A broad and yet proper principle we might draw
from this, matching it with the situation of today, is this: as Rahab put out her red cord
for safety in her situation, we in our spiritual need can look to the safety God provides-Christ who died!
IX. CHECKING PRINCIPLE
This principle simply means that we check whatever scholarly, specialist sources
(books or journal articles) would stand the best chance of giving reliable information on
a passage or point. That is, we consult reference sources, whichever ones are relevant
to the point we are studying, and seek to use the most trusted, respected, accurate books
in a given area of information.
For example, if we are studying a matter that touches on history, we can check a
reliable source on history, a Bible history book or secular history book that might refer
to the matter we are seeking to get more data on, to be sure we are correct. Always
check first to see if the book contains a Scripture index or a topical index or both, so as
to locate what we seek as quickly as possible so as to be good stewards of the time God
has given us.
If we are studying a matter of geography, then the source to go to for checking is a

71
top book on biblical geography, or a secular source that will accurately discuss that
matter. If we need to locate an area, we go to a Bible atlas (there are several). Again,
look first for a Scripture index or topical index (in this, find the place we want to check,
get the page number where a map will show it listed, and turn to that page (or those
pages).
If we are studying on a matter of cultural geography, that is, the manners and
customs behind a passage such as a parable, we go to a book on manners and customs.
The information necessary to check a point of Bible chronology would be found in a
work specifically on that topic. Information on the possible significance of a Bible type
can be found in a book on biblical typology. Help on a specific parable is available in
works on parables. Should we wish to gather information on a passage of prophecy,
the checking source that is relevant is a book on biblical prophecy, in addition to
commentaries.
If we are studying in a section of the Bible that has an identity of its own, such as
the Sermon on the Mount, or the Passion Week of Jesus, or Christ's messages to the
seven churches in Revelation 2-3, we can find special, more detailed help in books
written especially on this section, concentrating scholarship and expertise there;
however, we would want to find out the most respected works and give priority to them,
not simply pull off the shelves whatever is on the subject, for there are third-rate duds
aplenty.
Where do we find such sources? Rosscup, in Commentaries for Biblical Expositors
(2004 ed.) (available in the Grace Book Shack), lists and comments on commentaries
throughout Scripture; Rosscup has also listed some sources in this hermeneutics
syllabus. Cyril J. Barber's two volume work, The Minister's Library, is a recently
updated and expanded edition which annotates many sources in various fields relating
to the Bible or church work. Occasionally biblical encyclopedias list top sources at the
end of articles, etc.
One of the most often used checking sources is simply a top commentary on a
Bible book. Checking several men on the same passage can often keep us from being
mislead; we thank God we went a bit farther and put together more of the true picture.
The checking principle, rightly used, can help us to avoid unnecessary mistakes or
shallow assumptions (but even some less scholarly books will steer us wrong at times),
expand our understanding, and give us balance and clear perspective.
X. PRIORITY OF THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES
This principle simply means to consult the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek to find firsthand what really is said as to word order, words, and what they mean in expert lexicons
by specialists, tenses of verbs, and other points of grammar or meaning. If you do not
yet know Hebrew or Greek, Appendix VI at the end of this syllabus gives you sources
and a method to find out the meaning of a passage anyway by using books that provide
the information in the English (the method will work!). Students who never had a day

72
in a Hebrew or a Greek class can discover much basic, helpful data that opens up a
passage by a patient, faithful use of the method--a method that is fairly simple once you
catch on to the ease of looking up words.
Consulting the original languages is important for the following reasons:
A. It can explain idioms, as in Matthew 12:40, "three days and three nights".

B. It can explain the time element.


In Genesis 2:19, creation of beasts seems to come after creation of man (man
was formed in 2:7) and to contradict the sequence in 1:26-27 where man is created
after the animals. Actually, the Hebrew text can be read, "The Lord God had
formed. . .", i.e. before man, just as in chapter 1. The perfect aspect of the Hebrew
verb yatsar, "formed", can be translated accurately as simple past tense or past
perfect, as suits its contextual connections.
C. It can show possible distinctions between words when there is a play on words.
This is true of Galatians 1:6-7 where Paul writes of another gospel which is not
another. First he uses "another" (heteros), and later "another" (allos). The first may
mean one of a different sort or kind qualitatively, the second may have the idea of
another of the same kind numerically. A false gospel is a heteros gospel, but not
really an allos gospel, another gospel numerically, a second gospel, since there is
only one true gospel. Another illustration is Galatians 6:2, 5 where two different
words are used for burden, helping to clear up what at first seems like a
contradiction between bearing one another's burdens and each person bearing his
own burden.
D. It can show where the emphasis falls.
In Genesis 3:16, Hebrew word order literally has it, "to your husband your
desire shall be", not "your desire shall be to your husband" as in the English
translation. This may thrust the husband into prominence in the emphasis.
E. It shows the exact wording so that you see whether so-called cross-references are
legitimate ones.
In Revelation 1:10, we have John on the Isle of Patmos on "the Lord's day".
Some equate this with the "day of the Lord", which is an Old Testament and New
Testament eschatological period of the far future when unprecedented tribulation
will be brought on men by God and, later, the kingdom of the Messiah will be
realized. So, they reason that John was on the isle but transported, as if in a
spiritual time machine, into the distant future "day of the Lord" when events of the

73
Revelation take place. However, when one learns that the Greek phrase "Lord's
day" in 1:10 is different from the Greek phrase for "day of the Lord" found four
times in the New Testament (Acts 2:20; 1 Thessalonians 5:5; 2 Thessalonians 2:2; 2
Peter 3:10), corresponding to the Old Testament Hebrew phrase, he begins to
realize that John may not intend the phrase he uses to denote that eschatological
period or to suggest God put him in the future "day of the Lord". As study
continues, the interpreter sees the possibility that John meant Sunday, the day
Christ arose and displayed his Lordship. Using the checking principle, the
interpreter can consult historical sources that show that "the Lord's day" was a
phrase used a number of times during the second through fourth centuries, and even
in the first century, for Sunday.
Use of the original languages will help in such ways as above and many other
ways. We are not at the mercy of interpreters who may, even if in good intentions,
mislead us. We are in a position to get at the basic information first-hand,
ourselves, and then judge for ourselves from more of the facts we have before us.
XI. NECESSITY OF LITERAL INTERPRETATION
A. Terms for Literal Interpretation
The method can be called the historical, grammatical, or historico-grammatical
method; it can also be called the literal method. This does not mean woodenheaded literalism or letterism, which exaggerates strict letters of a text to make
something out of them, i.e. in a grinding literalness that will not be sensitive to
figures of speech, a figurative meaning intended (for example, Christ as the door in
John 10 does not intend us to see Him as a literal doorway of mahogany, oak, cedar,
etc., but a doorway as valid in the spiritual realm as a literal, material doorway is in
the physical realm). Literal interpretation may or may not demand that we decide
that Old Testament battle references to spears, arrows, etc. refer to the same kind of
weapons within the writer's cultural vocabulary from his own day. The terms may
be fulfilled in a later form of weaponry relevant at the future time the prediction is
realized, but conveyed in terms the writer's generation would grasp. There are
different views even by committed fundamental scholars here. Literal
interpretation does not mean the same as letteristic or wooden-headed literalism.
B. What We Do Mean by Literal Interpretation
We secure the natural, usual, customary sense of the terms, i.e. the ordinary
idea the terms have in that culture, or the most sensible meaning that is natural.
Letterism, by contrast, means strict adherence to the letter of the text even when
hermeneutical factors point away from this. For example, "crown" in the New
Testament can denote, figuratively, the apex of blessedness in the spiritual realm of
reality, such as "crown which consists of eternal life" in James 1:12 and Revelation
2:10, instead of a physical, material crown. Letterism would insist on a physical
crown despite biblical evidence such as the Greek genitive of apposition, "crown
which consists of eternal life" and biblical phrases such as "crowned with glory and

74
honor". The crown can be figurative just as the "helmet of salvation" in Ephesians
6 is figurative of the protection God's salvation affords the believer.
We move away from a strict literal sense only if factors of context, or crossreference, or word study, etc. give us good reason (evidence) to see another idea
that makes real and natural sense. We recognize figurative language, idioms, word
pictures, etc. which may not be suited to a strict literal interpretation.
C. Defense of the Literal Method of Interpretation
I am indebted here to Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 3rd
rev. ed., 1970, pp. 123-27.
1. It is the usual practice in interpreting literature.
If the literal sense makes sense, then take it that way.
2. All secondary meanings depend on the literal base (foundation).

3. Only in literal interpretation is there a control, check, or curb on the abuse of


Scripture by eisegesis, man's imaginations foisted on the Bible.

75
TOPIC FOUR: MORE SPECIFIC PRINCIPLES
I. Word Study
A. Words May Be Studied Etymologically
We study words according to the way they are formed, as in compound words
(two words connected into one). By seeing the literal, basic idea of the word (or
two words connected into one), we sometimes, though not always, have help on the
sense in a passage, for often a word takes on a slightly different meaning, or even a
quite different meaning in actual usage as time goes on within a culture.
1. Example of etymology:
Ramm cites the Greek episkopos (p. 129), formed from epi (over, upon)
and skopeo (to look), hence "to look over, to oversee". The word came to be
used of a New Testament "overseer", a bishop, who was in the Greek an
episkopos, as when we have a reference to "bishops and deacons"
(Philippians 1:1). The basic root etymology in this example does help us see
the true idea of the word and the office it comes to designate in the New
Testament church.
Another example is the Greek parabole, "parable", formed from para
(beside) and bole (something thrown or cast, from ballo, to throw or cast).
When we have a statement that Jesus told a "parable", we are being told that
He told a story in which He cast one thing (from the commonly-known
realm, such as farming, weddings, etc.) alongside another realm (which men
do not know, necessarily). By having background in the known realm, such
as a farmer's sowing of seed on varying kinds of soil (Matthew 13), the hearer
learns something about the realm he does not know, the spiritual sphere in
which the Word of God as seed is sown in the soil of men's hearts, and finds
different responses.
2. Beware of always thinking etymology will provide the correct sense of a
word in a passage.
This may not be true. The real information we need is the actual usage
of a word in a given culture at a given time, as words can change in meaning.
An example in the English is the word "nice". When we discover that it
derives from the Latin nescius, "ignorant", we have no sure clue to the idea
usually attached to the word as we use it today. Another example, this time
from the New Testament, is "Nicolaitans" (Revelation 2:6, 15). The
etymology of this compound Greek word is nikao (to conquer, win,
overcome) and laos (people). Commentators run into a quandary trying to
figure out who the Nicolaitans were and what exact menace they presented in
the first century churches. Some guess from the exact etymology something
like "conquerors of the people", i.e. some type of church hierarchy snuffing

76
out the voice of autonomous church government. In this case, where we do
not even have sure clues from church history, it is wiser and more helpful to
go as far as we can exegetically in Revelation 2 itself, and let it go at that.
Revelation 2:14, 15 have the idea that the Nicolaitans taught two sins,
immorality and idolatry (2:14). Verse 15, in the immediate context of verse
14, says, "Similarly you thus have some who hold the teaching of the
Nicolaitans." The word "similarly" appears to tell us that the church at
Pergamum has people who similarly teach the two sins just specified in v. 14.
So, the Nicolaitans were a harmful group that taught Balaam-like attitudes
and infected some with their poison.
3. How do we get the etymology of a word in the Hebrew or Greek?
Consult a lexicon for the basic, root idea first, and then look on in the
lexicon for a breakdown of different possible ways (with varying senses) it is
actually used in the Old or New Testaments. Good technical sources in the
commentary line can be of aid. In Hebrew or Greek study, one soon sees
listings of words that can be tacked on as prefixes, as we saw above, where
epi (over, upon) was stuck on as a prefix of skopos (to look, see). Look up
various passages where the full word appears and note the contextual flow
(idea) and the actual, fitting meaning (usage) of the word in that context.
Look up several contexts and see if any pattern forms of what the word
means, or two or three or more patterns--i.e. it may have three different
meanings we can classify, with a list of examples for each. Lexicons supply
this information, but we ourselves can get the feel of the word by looking it
up in its contexts.
B. Words May Be Studied Comparatively
This was the idea in the paragraph immediately above, toward the end.
1. One word may have different usages we compare.
We need to look up the contexts to see which meaning fits best. A good
lexicon lists and classifies the main meanings, giving examples where each
meaning occurs. Study may show a word has one set meaning in all
passages, or it may indicate that it has different senses in different passages.
For example, the Greek cosmos (world) means the world of people God
loves (John 3:16), but also the world system that is evil, headed by Satan, and
which leaves God out, the world true Christians are not to love (1 John 2:1517). Another example is the word ruah (spirit) in the Old Testament. In
different contexts, it can be used to refer to the Spirit of God, the spirit of
man, breath, wind, etc. The same is true of the New Testament Greek word
pneuma (spirit). Other words that have several different meanings depending
on varying contexts and usage are such words as "fire", "star", "lion", and
"serpent".

77
2. One English word, many Hebrew/Greek words
The same word in an English translation may translate different words
in the Hebrew or Greek. The word "fruit" renders many different Hebrew
words, and the word "reward" is put down for several different Hebrew
words. "Crown" in the New Testament can be stephanos or diadema.
Stephanos refers to a crown of victory in the ancient games and victory in
Christian living, or, as in several instances, a crown of kingship or a crown of
judging. Diadema, on the other hand, refers to a ruler's crown.
3. We may even study comparative words or phrases for some concept.
An example is the concept of reward. The believer's future final reward
is variously pictured in the New Testament as "eternal life", "treasure in
heaven", "enter into the joy of your Lord", "glory", a wedding supper
(symbolic of the delightful joy and bounty of the kingdom), "kingdom", and
being put in charge over many things, among other designations. Both
"kingdom of heaven" (in Matthew) and "kingdom of God" (in Matthew at
times and in Mark, Luke, and John) are used to refer to the future sphere of
reward. We would learn such a reality by careful observation of passages and
constant comparing of parallel accounts or texts relating to the Christian's
future blessedness. We also can learn it by faithful reading of the better
discussions of main concepts such as "reward" as we look up the word in a
leading word study book. See, for example, G. Kittel, Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols., and consult the index in vol. 10,
which provides even an English topical index listing at which points in the 9
volumes we can turn to discussions of "reward". Other sources are listed at
the end of this syllabus in Appendix VI: Tools for Using Hebrew and Greek
Even If You Are Only a Beginner.
C. Words May Be Studied Culturally
We inquire as to how a word or concept was understood at the time and in the
culture of its biblical setting.
1. Use lexicons! (See the sources listed immediately above.)
2. Use good commentaries!
See sources annotated in Rosscup, Commentaries for Biblical
Expositors, 2004 ed., available at the Book Shack.
3. Use books on manners and customs
An example is the recent year re-writing of Fred Wight's Manners and
Customs of Bible Lands, now called Ralph Gower's The New Manners and
Customs of Bible Lands (Moody). James Freeman also has a very fine and
usable work. There are many others. Always go for an index of biblical

78
passages or an index of topics first! Find a discussion of a custom quickly, as
on sowing seed, white stone (Revelation 2), weddings, sleeping habits (as for
the prayer parable Jesus told in Luke 11:5-8), etc.
4. Use outstanding sources
Examples of outstanding sources are A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in
the New Testament, 6 volumes; William Barclay, Daily Study Bible on the
whole New Testament, 17 volumes (this is liberal but greatly helpful on
manners and customs when used, at times, with discerning carefulness); R. C.
H. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament; Colin Brown, ed., New
International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 3 volumes; Simon
Kistemaker, The Parables of Jesus; Kenneth Bailey, Poet and Peasant and
also Through Peasant Eyes, both on Jesus's parables; Erich Sauer, In the
Arena, dealing with athletic terms of the New Testament.
5. Use different sources on a given topic or idea to compare
This is wise because sometimes writers disagree on the background
custom and some writers are better with evidence that fits the case. Do not
simply assume automatically that because you checked one source, you know
the correct idea. On some terms, such as sowing seed, you may be all right,
but on issues such as the "white stone" (a figure) given to the overcomer in
Revelation 2:17, there are varying suggestions as to the exact custom that
may have been behind this reward promise. Usually a detailed, highly
reliable commentary will tell you varying possibilities (see Isbon T.
Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John, for example). Which commentaries fill
the bill in all sixty-six books of the Bible are explained in such sources as
Rosscup, Commentaries for Biblical Expositors, 2004 ed., and Cyril J.
Barber, The Minister's Library, 2 volumes, recently updated.
D. Words May Be Studied in Cognate Languages
A cognate language is a language that belongs to the same language family, i.e.
a word from Egypt may also have found its way through commerce and visitation
into the Old Testament Hebrew vocabulary. This is only one example: the
Egyptian word skt or skyt (ship) may help us in knowing the idea of the Hebrew
word sekiyyoth in Isaiah 2:16, which some took to mean "pictures of desire" such
as pornographic pictures, but which the NASB, from more up to date information,
was able to render "beautiful craft". This translation also fits its context which says
God will judge the large ships of Tarshish and also the beautiful craft, indicating
another type of seafaring vessel.
Since most of us, even as very involved Bible students, are not life-time
specialists (experts) on such language study, we can depend on and use books by
those who have devoted their lives to this field. We can glean from the more up to

79
date lexicons, commentaries (for example, the Word Biblical Commentary series of
many Scripture books), and journal articles by the finest experts.
E. Examples of Caution in Word Study
This brief section will mention a few of the perils students need to avoid.
Further help, detailing sources and how to use them in word study, appears in this
Hermeneutics syllabus by J. Rosscup, the final appendix. Books that discuss perils
include, for example: Donald A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies; and Moises Silva,
Lexical Studies; cf. also J. Rosscup chapter on interpreting the text in
Rediscovering Expository Preaching.
1. Using poor word study sources.
Some work against good results by turning only to very general, or
flimsy helps which may be "easy" but contribute little, or very inadequately
abbreviated, or giving even misleading content. An example is in merely
flipping over to a Bible's concordance, which in most cases is so condensed
as to entries and discussion that the help will be at its best only extremely
general and vague. It is, in my opinion, rare that one can find there the word
he is looking up, and get any help this way. Others hurt the effort by
consulting only very light, quick surveys that skim through a passage in
popular exposition (H. A. Ironside, or some other preacher, whose message,
printed, is only the material he gave in a cursory capture of a passage's flow,
with general even if blessed comments). A popular preacher himself had to
be dependent on good word study sources, if he chose to use these, but he
himself is only briefly and barely mentioning a word's meaning quickly, and
is not the authority to go to for a real discussion. Even preachers greatly used
of God as speakers are usually not experts in word study but general
practitioners who utilize works done by experts. The sources we need to
consult first-hand are the specialized experts. Of course we should follow
the same principle when our study involves any other facet of biblical study,
such as manners and customs, history, parables, typology, and prophecy.
2. Citing "the law of first reference" on a word as if that settles the meaning
anywhere in the Bible.
This is the old and fallacious notion that whatever is the meaning of a
word the first time it occurs in Scripture, that remains the meaning of that
word in every text later where it appears. One can see the misleading nature
of this, however well-intentioned people are with it, by noticing in a Bible
concordance (Strong's, or Young's, or New American Bible Concordance,
etc.) that English words in a translation often represent several different
Hebrew (O. T.) or Greek (N. T.) words, which can have varying shades of
meaning. The differences of meaning can be vast. For example in an English
translation of the O. T., "fruit" can translate about a dozen or more different
Hebrew words; "reward" appears in different passages for several varying

80
Hebrew terms that actually have their individual emphases. In the N. T.,
"walk" in the godly life may translate the Greek peripateo (walk around, walk
in general conduct, as in Gal. 5:16) or stoicheo (walk in a line or row, or in
step as in a military platoon, keeping in step with the file leader and with one
another, as in Gal. 5:25, behaving sensitively in step with the Holy Spirit in
individual moves of the life). Just because the English "walk" appears is no
guarantee that we can rightly assume a generalized meaning because the
word occurs in verses 16 and 25 even in the same context. Often a text will
present two or more words within a general concept, for example the subject
prayer and the four different words that refer to aspects of prayer in I Tim.
2:1, or two different words for burden, load that have different meanings in
Gal. 6:2-7.
A quick turn to a good word study source would give the believer
information to point out the distinction, also prevent an assumption that
misrepresents God's word.
The Old Testament Hebrew language has about a half dozen different
meanings in the word ruah ([Holy] Spirit, spirit of a human, wind, breath,
spirit (disposition) in a situation, etc.). In the N. T. Greek the word pneuma
also can refer to the Spirit, spirit, wind, breath, disposition, etc.
A person seeking to understand the Bible can get the accurate meaning
by checking several things, which he can learn to do rather quickly. Among
these are: using a Hebrew (O. T.) or Greek (N. T.) lexicon (cf. Hermeneutics
final appendix for much detail on learning steps to do this); observing the
context of a word by careful attention to what meaning the flow of thought
most naturally calls for; looking at a good commentary where there is any
uncertainty; noting a reliable study Bible note that defines a word on a
particular verse; comparing the use of the word in one passage with its use in
other passages by cross-reference (some Bibles provide very usable listings
on pertinent cross-references, and of course lexicons and concordances put
these right before the reader; the reader can quickly learn to find the pages of
such listings with wonderful speed, as shown in the Hermeneutics appendix.
3. A common mistake is in failing to see different, though not incompatible
meanings of the same word in different passages.
For example, John 3:16 says that "God so loved the world . . ." while I
John 2:15, 16 warn, "love not the world . . . ." Both passages use the Greek
word cosmos, and at first appear to be contradictory; some have assumed
they clash. Yet a careful attention to both passages furnishes light: John 3:16
refers to the world in the sense of people valuable to God; He gave His Son
to die for these, for their salvation. But world in I John 2:15 in its context
is defined as consisting of three things, the lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes
and pride of life--not people but perversions in attitude and values contrary to

81
God's will. In the same passage, by contrast, the person who does "the will of
God" abides forever.
Here the context defines the meaning in both passages; as we compare
the two passages by cross-reference, we notice the real differences and see
that rather than contradiction we have concord (cf. Analogy of the Faith) as
the two emphases are finally compatible within the overall picture. Another
way we could find out the difference in meaning in the two texts is by
looking in a reliable lexicon, or in a Bible encyclopedia or dictionary listing
of the word "world." A further way would be to observe the discussion in a
trustworthy commentary on I John 2 as it relates the meaning here to the idea
in John 3.
Still another line of checking would be that of looking up "world"
(making sure we are in verses using the term cosmos, listed in a concordance
column by Strong's under the same number, or in Young's by the very word
itself. The check would provide plenty of information showing that the word
has different meanings depending on its varying contexts.
4. One danger is in carelessly reading false meanings in from one's own
imagination, practicing imposition into the text rather than exposition out of
the text.
Cf. my illustration in my chapter on interpretation in Rediscovering
Expository Preaching, under word study.
5. A frequent error is in looking at a word in an English translation and making
a snap judgment assigning the meaning that first flashes into the mind.
One assumes the meaning, fixes on it, and twists a passage unwittingly.
A man back in the 1960s phoned me and insisted that Paul was walking in the
flesh, proven by Acts 18:5 where the old King James Version said Paul was
"pressed in the spirit." The caller said that Paul was out of God's will in
supporting himself by tent-making (v. 3); he should have been abstaining
from labor and just trusting God to meet his needs (the man was influenced
by the hippies of his day). Being out of God's will, walking in fleshly
resources, Paul felt the pressure of anxiety burdening his heart. This was in
place of the peace he could have known if he had just depended only on the
Lord, walking in the Spirit.
It never occurred to the caller to check other translations, or find out the
meaning of the phrase before spouting off with his falsifying ideas. Actually,
the term means that Paul was devoted or constrained or pressed in a proper
sense; it was to concentrate on preaching the Word to get the message out.
He felt God exerting a healthy pressure on his spirit to bear down on this
urgent Christian work, as Ezekiel felt God's hand on him (Ezek. 3:14). The
love of God constrained him (cf. I Cor. 9:16; Lk. 12:50; 2 Cor. 5:14; Phil.

82
1:23). The man phoning could have, without a lot of time or effort, checked
(1) a word study book, even a basic Bible concordance; (2) a commentary;
(3) context here, as in the obvious connection in the flow of thought where
the phrase in question is immediately followed not by some fleshly action but
by Paul testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah; (4) cross-references
above, where a sense of being gripped to preach God's Word can be by the
moving of God Himself.
6. Do not use word study by itself to determine the meaning of a word.
An error often repeated, which No. 6 guards against, is in the imbalance
of trying to decide a word's meaning only by word study in itself, in isolation.
In doing this, a person short-changes other key factors, from other
interpretive principles, such as (above) checking in good sources such as
commentaries, being carefully sensitive to what meaning really fits the flow
in the context itself, and what meaning cross-references indicate where the
same basic action is in view. For example, in Acts 18:5, proclaiming of God's
Word to reach people suggests looking to see if other passages on
proclaiming the Word to reach people suggest what is positive or what is
negative. Another factor in such a look is in being sensitive to note passages
where the speaker is a proclaimer of the true message, or peddling a false line
of preaching (cf. Gal. 1:6-9; also false teachers in Jude).
Other principles that could contribute if pertinent in a given context are
grammar and a custom of the biblical day (if this occurs and is relevant). An
example of a custom that is relevant to help explain a problematic statement
is in Romans 12:20, heaping coals of fire on a person's head. William
Klassens article in New Testament Studies (Vol. IX, 1962-63, p. 349) has
shown that the idea is probably not shame, remorse, or heaping punishment
on others. A custom in Egyptian literature helps, as there was commercial
and some cultural exchange between peoples of the biblical world. In the
custom, a penitent person carried coals of fire in a bowl on his or her head as
a sign of this. In that case, the sensitive Bible student also finds much help in
the flow of emphasis on the verses of context leading up to and following
verse 20. It is a line of thought that is positive and turned toward helping
others through loving kindness. Even a further principle to help in Romans
12 is looking up the key cross reference in Proverbs 25:21, 22. Deeds of
kindness can have their effect in tempering an enemy so that he becomes a
friend. So, as Leon Morris says after considering various views of Rom.
12:20, several interpreters view the statement as advocating the tenderizing
effect of love, not as teaching a harsh idea of bringing stiffer judgment.

83
7. Still another fallacy in word study is in stressing our own ideas of word study
to the neglect or waving aside of input from others who may know more
about the word's accurate meaning.
An unteachable spirit which we can have in a self-justifying cockiness,
yet be insensitive to acknowledge or unwilling to label as it really is works to
sabotage Bible study. Behind this is pride, or haste that makes waste.
Forcing a meaning can hurt us as well as others we impact; its greatest
disservice is to God whose truth we misrepresent, all with the pious claim
that we just "want the truth."
For example, I have seen some in Jas. 2:14-26 try to defend a nonLordship salvation view in ways that seem questionable. One method is in
insisting that the word save only refers to those spiritually saved being
saved temporally from an unusable life, and has nothing to do with eternal
salvation. Quickly verses are cited as if they automatically prove this idea,
e.g. Jas. 1:21 (the Word is able to save your souls) and 5:20 (a believer who
turns another person from his error will save that other persons soul from
death). That over-simplifies the matter, and creates a fog over the meaning.
Even in 1:21 and 5:20 the meaning of save and in 5:20 of death are
debatable, and so merely citing a proof-text gets us nowhere for sure. Even
in 1:21 save is in a context of the new birth (v. 18), and in 4:12 save
seems to relate to eternal salvation when God as Judge is able to save or
destroy.
Besides these observations, in Jas. 2:14ff., that faith (specified by the
definite article as in vv. 17, 20) seems to be defined as not real faith but a
bogus, glibly professed faith (a man says he has). It is put in contrast with
faith where the faith is genuine as in Abraham and Rahab, and in Abrahams
case his faith pertained to his being declared righteous by God (v. 23; Gen.
15:6; Rom. 4:3), by God and not merely by men, even in initial justification.
Abrahams offering of Isaac many years after the Gen. 15 declaration by God
exhibited the same faith, showed it in an extended expression, in yet another
situation, in Gen. 22 (Jas. 2:21-23), revealed it as genuine faith, therefore
faith that works. It did not work in earning salvation, but it did work in
expressing salvation that already was present, really.
The faith that saves is the only valid faith, and as such it saves without
works of merit, yet has its own eventual works that grace promotes,
expressions that manifest the fruit of its own transforming nature. James
believes in the new birth as a gift of God (1:17-18), and in those genuinely
reborn having a religion that works showing the reality (1:26-27). Paul also
believes in salvation as a gift of grace (Rom. 4:1-5; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8-9),
and in this salvation having its fruits of grace in a life reflecting
transformation (Rom. 6:22; Gal. 5:6, 22-23; Eph. 2:10; Titus 2:11ff.; 3:5, 8).

84
8. Figurative and Literal meanings
We may force a word to have a figurative meaning in a passage where
wise appraisal would see proper evidence for a literal idea. Or we might
insist on a literal meaning where sensitive servanthood to God and others
would caution us to see a figurative sense.
One preacher on I Samuel 17 insisted that David's five stones snatched
up from the brook to use against Goliath were spiritual weapons such as
wisdom, truth, purity, faith and humility. He waxed eloquent, reading in his
meanings from his own imagination (man's word, not God's!). But since
David felled the Philistine champion with one stone, what of the other four
spiritual factors? Did David need only faith, and not a life that was wise,
truthful, pure, and humbly willing before the Lord? And would not the
Scripture overall teach us that a life acting by faith is, in unity, a life wise in
God's values, truthful, pure in its focus on what pleases God, and humble
rather than proudly relying on fleshly resources?
Actually David's literal hand selected literal stones for a literal sling to
use in a literal wind up and delivery, to hit a literal giant and bring about his
literal, bodily defeat, plant his foot on Goliath's literal body in victory, and
cut off his literal head. In perfect compatibility with the literal, David went
forth with faith in the living God (vv. 36, 45-46), wisdom in believing that
God is stronger than the enemy, truthfulness in speaking according to what
God teaches is reality, humility in expecting the victory not due to any
prowess in himself but only in God's ability, and so forth.
Besides, the passage is obviously referring to literal matters throughout:
Israelites, their king Saul, Philistines, their mighty hero, David's father and
brothers, foodstuffs David brings to his brothers in the army, fleeing of
Israel's soldiers, the prospect of killing the enemy giant, a reward for a
victorious Israeli soldier (riches, the king's daughter, freedom for his family's
household), sheep David left behind, a lion and a bear he had defeated, Saul's
armor David tried on, Goliath's shield bearer, Goliath's disdain for David's
youth, the fowls and beasts the giant threatened to give David's body to,
Goliath's sword, spear and shield, David's running to the battle, the bag where
he had placed the stones, etc.
Why not conduct word study by allowing literal things to be literal as
context calls for?
On the other hand, if a context rightly prepares and conditions us to see
certain terms as figurative, then we should see them this way. In Psalm 22,
for example, the man describing his suffering calls himself "a worm," but
obviously means this figuratively, for he is a human able to speak. He also
defines a worm in terms of the reproachful, despising appraisal by enemies
who write him off as of such little significance (v. 6b), as a worm is thought

85
unimportant and easily disposed of. Further, the contextual flow of thought
speaks of enemies surrounding this man, who are seen figuratively as
"bulls . . . of Bashan" (v. 12). He also depicts their menacing nature to be "as
a ravening and roaring lion" (13). The enemies are even "dogs" encircling
him, and these are defined in the next breath as "the assembly of the wicked"
who have encompassed him (16).
The sufferer begins the psalm claiming that God is "My God, my God,"
which a literal worm would not do. He recognizes God's holiness, speaks of
"our fathers [who] trusted in thee," of their cry in prayer as he now is also
crying. He refers to his own trust that his enemies misconstrue in mockery,
of his being in the womb and upon his mother's breasts. To use other
figurative language, he describes his condition as "poured out like water," not
water but like water in a sense. His heart is "like wax." Enemies divide his
garments and cast lots on his clothing (literal ideas here). He wants to speak
praises to God in an assembly of worshipers.
We will not here go into the many clues that can tip us off to words being
meant in a figurative sense; we have mentioned several in Psalm 22 alone.
Suffice it to say at this point that whether a word is to be understood literally
or figuratively is usually evident in the way it is used in its flow of thought,
its context. We can observe other figurative terms even though some terms in
the same passage insist on being explained literally (as in Ps. 22), and we can
come to the right balance. We also can notice statements that can make no
good sense if taken literally--as it would not be meaningful for a worm to
speak, to praise God, to have a mother's breasts, to be surrounded by bulls,
and many other things.
9. A frequent mistake is well-known to Christians who pause to reflect. It is
this. People assume a meaning of a word on the basis that some "authority
figure" (in their own possibly narrow understanding of things) pronounces it
as the idea.
Jehovah's Witness leaders at the Kingdom Hall tell their listeners that in
Colossians 1:15 Christ is a created being, and not God. For, they reason, the
verse says he is the "firstborn of all creation." These leaders put into this
Greek term prototokos the idea, "first [to be] created," first to be born in a
sequence, as part of the sequence of God creating. So, being a created being,
Christ could not be God even if we assign him a high place of respect.
The authority figure has spoken. It must be so. But a little careful study
exposes the manipulation of truth that wrests it into error. Whatever are the
motives of the teacher, or however he may be confident that he is right, he
still can be giving error even if he is not aware of it. Any of us can set our
minds on falsehood if we are not properly careful and if we do not use wise
guides and pay the right attention to or give the correct balance to these in
blending them with other helps in Bible teaching. Even as a student of the

86
Word seeking in all earnestness to grasp it accurately through the years, I
have at times seen new light that has helped me get my teaching more in total
line with the truth on details. I did not know it all at the outset, have never
known it all, and do not yet know it all. May we all seek to learn, and yield
to the truth, but let us use good methods and not methods that only perpetuate
error. Now let us focus on the passage at hand. Word study of prototokos
itself reveals that it is used in passages such as Romans 8:29 for Christ's
being firstborn in a sense of rank, or supremacy over those who are his
brethren. Also in the Greek (Septuagint) translation of the O. T. Hebrew in
Psalm 89:26, 27 we have the prophecy that God designed to set forth the
Messiah, in the kingly line of David and Solomon, as the "firstborn," that is,
the highest of the kings of the earth. Rank, dignity or supremacy is the
thought.
Along with word study, which can be confirmed in commentaries on
Colossians by J. B. Lightfoot, F. F. Bruce, etc., other interpretive principles
furnish help on Col. 1:15. Christ is presented, not as Himself one of the
created beings, but as the one by whom all things in heaven or earth were
created (v. 16). He also is "before all things," having a proto or prior
existence to all things created, and this because He is the creator of all. And
by Him "all things consist" or hold together. His creative and sustaining
power are the explanation behind all created things, which hardly suggests
that He Himself is a phase in the sequence of created things or persons.
In addition, wider context in 2:9, 10 provides evidence that the writer is
viewing Christ as having dwelling in Him the fullness of the Godhead. Good
commentaries and cross reference about His deity would assist in seeing this
properly. Many references claim that He is God, whether in O. T. prophecy
of Him (Isa. 9:5, 6; Micah 5:2), or in N. T. passages (John 1:1, 18; 20:28,
etc.).
Not only good commentaries on Col. 1:18, but other good books
defending Christ's deity help in this. Some are entire books on the subject (as
by James Denney), others have much to say attesting this (John Walvoord,
Jesus Christ Our Lord), in addition to Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias
giving entries discussing His deity, usually under "Jesus Christ," then in the
entrys outline under his "Deity."
Even some evangelical preachers, when not doing their homework
carefully, give out wrong meanings of words at times. A believer can
appreciate these preachers, pray for them, and be grateful for the large
amount that is correct in their sermons, yet not place them on a pedestal as
kinds of "gods" who always must be right. They ought to be always right in
representing God's truth, but due to various factors of human limitation or
failure, they err on occasion. If they realize this and are rightly humble
servants, they will be glad to correct errors, slips, things insisted on that just
are not right.

87
Christians should take only the Scripture as their "Bureau of Standards"
spiritually, not any preacher in a hundred per cent of his claims. He may be
sincere, yet sincerely wrong. Every claim of every preacher, even the truest,
needs to be weighed by good interpretive principles and a right use of these
to decide the wisest view.
10. Preconceived Ideas
Yet a further twisting of a word has often come from little schemes
people have foisted on the Bible. Even if they intend well, they can play
tricks, manipulating verses to make them say what some preconceived system
of belief programs that they must say. Here, falsehood is read in. Frankly,
over the years I have heard some of the most honored preachers say things
(only at times) that I felt good methods in Bible study, properly followed,
would not permit. God uses any one of us despite our limitations, and He is
very merciful.
An example of twisting is in the ancient Jewish ambition to find the
Messiah even by reading some preconceived numbers system into letters of a
Hebrew word. This, called gematria, has been a frequent practice to insist on
certain verses giving information about when the Messiah would come into
the world. Gematria also has done service for producing other meanings, too,
even in verses where a good student of Scripture would never expect the
words as they are to be turned that way. In Exodus 17:8-13 Moses climbed to
a hilltop to hold his staff up toward God as a signal of summoning God's
success to give Joshua's army victory down in the valley. Some Jewish
rabbis read into "top of the hill" the doctrine of "the merits of the fathers," the
exalted merits they wrongly assumed people of faith such as Abraham had.
These merits would help later Jews, who found themselves in deep trouble,
for while they had no sufficient merits themselves due to their sins that God
was judging (as during the captivity and inter-testamental period), they could
fall back on their heroes' merits as a reason for God blessing them. This
surplus "bank account" was available for Jews.
Of course Exodus 17, in its narrative flow in its book, is part of a literal
progression of events. Certainly God wanted His people to be spiritual,
acting by faith and obeying Him, within the literal events. To read in "the
merits of the fathers" suddenly, or anywhere, was a twisting of the text to suit
an interpreter's brain storm, and fill a need the wrong way.
In truth, we see in the Book of Exodus context a flow of literal realities-multiplication of the Israelites, persecution by Egyptians, protection of
Hebrews (as the midwives, Moses, etc.), Moses' killing an Egyptian, Moses
fleeing, the Hebrews praying in anguish to be delivered, and God bringing
Moses and Aaron to lead them in the exodus.

88
We also read of literal plagues on the resistant Egyptians, the exodus
itself of Moses and his people, a physical deliverance through the Red Sea
via a miracle. Later the passage tells of God providing for His people's
needs, whether this be by water, or manna, or military protection. As the
people are on a trek toward Mount Sinai, the literal event of Exodus 17
occurs when Amalekites attack in a flow of such literal events.
Moses' raised rod probably is a gesture symbolizing intercessory prayer
in contact with the covenant God, seeking His victory for Joshua's troops
down below. It follows in a long sequence (wider contextual flow) of Moses'
acts lifting that rod in Egypt when praying to God for the bringing of a
powerful plague or the removing of one. It is an outward signal of where his
heart is turning--to God for His power and His care. To read the merits of
fathers into "the top of the hill" is to pour the interpreters own manipulating
ideas into the passage, and falsify the more evident natural meaning with a
made up meaning foreign to the thought. It may be a meaning driven by
human zeal to champion a particular thought, but it is a distortion of what
Gods own Word is seeking to get across.
Another example of reading some scheme into a verse occurs often on
the number 666 in Revelation 13:18. Men have started with a numbers
system of the Hebrews and Greeks assigning certain numbers to given letters,
and then conveniently numbered 666 to come out their way. So, in the
history of interpretation on 13:18, here are people believed to fulfill the verse:
Nero Caesar, Caligula of early times, the Titans, Mohammed, Joseph Smith
of the Mormons, Mussolini, Hitler, and others.
A different numbers scheme, construed by the English alphabet in recent
decades, strung out the 26 letters of the alphabet, then assigned to these the
successive numbers l, 2, 3 etc. up to 26. Next, it multiplied each number by
6. So, Kissinger was the Antichrist!
We do not know for sure what the number in 13:18 was intended to
mean. A number of interpreters have put aside identifying a particular person
in church history, or on the current scene related to the soon coming of the
tribulation period. Instead, they have proposed that the meaning may be that
man's number, as great as he might rise in power (as the first beast or
Antichrist of chap. 13 does, in context), fits with his being still only human,
and so he has the number for human perfection, man at his strongest but
falling short of seven. Seven is often in Scripture a number for completeness
or perfection, so a series of sevens (as seven seals, seven trumpets, seven
vials) would represent God unleashing His judgment. Likewise, six falls
short of seven, this perfection, and six even at its apex as 666, is short of 777.
Only God's man, the God-Man of the next verse, 14:1, can perform in power
beyond mere human strength, beyond the greatest that the Antichrist can
show.

89
11. English and Hebrew/Greek Words
A further peril is in leaping to the assumption that if the same English
word is the translation in different passages, this automatically means that in
the Hebrew (O. T.) or Greek (N. T.) the same Hebrew or Greek word with
exactly the same connotation was used.
In reality, quite often the same English word is used as a rendering for
several different words in the original languages. So, we need to be sure of
words, and particularly key words in a verse that the meaning turns upon. An
example is the English word "fruit" for which the Hebrew O. T. had more
than a dozen terms. Another example is the English word "crown" in the
New Testament. We read "crown" in the English, but two main words in the
Greek are rendered as "crown" in the N. T., and they have distinguishable
meanings. The word stephanos appears where a passage refers to a crown
that is a reward of a victor, an overcomer in the practical life (I Cor. 9:24-27;
I Thess. 2:19, 20; 2 Tim. 4:8; Jas. 1:12; I Pet. 5:4; Rev. 2:10). It is also the
word for the crowns on the heads of the 24 elders (Rev. 4). But another
word, used for a ruler's crown, is diadema, a diadem (Rev. 19:12). The latter
word is used of Christ in this passage, but never used of what believers will
receive as reward for their lives.
The first word, stephanos, on a few occasions, also is used of a ruler's
crown (2 Sam. 12:50, LXX; Jer. 13:18 etc.), but diadema never appears for a
victor's crown as stephanos often does in relation to believers.
Better commentators, as on James 1:12 (such as J. Mayor) refer to the
two words and explain helpfully how they are used, so that the student sees
the significance of stephanos in 1:12.
12. Laziness, Short-cutting
The peril of laziness, or short-cutting, has hurt many in word study just
as in examining context, cross-reference, grammar, and other parts of careful
Bible study. We may put off the study, then try to crowd it in too quickly, on
a Saturday night or early Sunday morning, and find ourselves skipping many
things to whip through what we think will be vital. Rationalization can make
its playground in our minds and soothe us when we ought to be convicted.
It is good to plan ahead, start in plenty of time, give ourselves adequate
opportunity in a passage for our own sakes and the blessing of others we are
helping develop. Of course the main One we should be pleasing is the Lord.
We need to look at good word study (linguistic) sources, also at matters
of grammar in our passage, also context, cross-reference if really pertinent,
and the like. We need to consult better commentaries, works on doctrine,
good books on issues in passages, and such. In all of this we ought to be

90
often praying for the right insights and appropriating the teaching ministry of
the Spirit who wants to use us in ministry (cf. I Cor. 2:1-5).
13. Correct Word Study, false Application
One final danger of word study is apropos here. It is another good
reminder of what not to do. It is this. One can do all his word study work
correctly, line up his ducks all in the right way, and gain a validly defensible
meaning. All is well. But then he goes against the will God has in giving
Scripture. He uses the correct meaning to argue hatefully, to call names, to
abuse others. His preaching is unloving, done in fleshly contention rather
than in the humble servanthood of love (cf. 2 Tim. 2:23-26). The thirteenth
chapter of I Corinthians reflects what the loving way is, what it is not, and
how empty is the life when God's love is not the power and the permeation
giving fragrance to the service. This drives a great nullifying blow against the
truth the speaker has claimed.
Get the message right as to what words mean; also get it right as to how
God wants His servants to live it and to give it.
II. GRAMMAR

III. CONTEXT (of a verse or of verses)


A. Context of the Entire Bible

B. Context of the Old Testament or the New Testament

C. Context of the Book of Scripture

D. Context Immediately Before or After

E. Context of one part of a verse with the other parts

91

IV. CROSS-REFERENCE
A. Verbal Cross-Reference
1. Apparent
For example:
a. "World" means people in John 3:16; but in 1 John 2:15 it means the
ordered system, headed by Satan, which leaves God out, is evil, and
should not be loved.
b. "Believe" in John 1:12 refers to genuine faith by which a person is saved;
but in James 2:19, "believe" is merely mental assent, not unto salvation.
2. Real, Actual
For example:
a. The "Branch" is the Messiah in Jeremiah 23:5 and also in Zechariah 3:8.
b. True love, joy, and peace are meant in John 15:1-7 and 14:27 and also in
Galatians 5:22, 23.
3. Conceptual Cross-Reference
The same basic concept occurs, even though the exact terminology may
be different. For example:
a. Spiritual fruit is discussed in Galatians 5:22, 23 and 2 Peter 1:5-7.
b. The second coming is discussed in Zechariah 14:1-9 and Revelation
19:11ff.
4. Parallel Cross-Reference
For example:
a. The conversion of Saul (Paul) is described in Acts 9, 22, and 26.
b. The temptation of Jesus is the topic of Matthew 4, Mark 1, and Luke 4.
In these three accounts, some details are identical and some are different,
but there is no real discrepancy.
B. Practical Aspects of Cross-Reference

92
1. How do I find a cross-reference?
a. By the subject in essence.
Take some key word given in the present passage and look it up in a
concordance to find other verses elsewhere that use it also. In this way,
the feeling or sense of the word can be observed in a number of
situations.
b. By marginal cross-references given in some helpful Bibles.
c. By previous knowledge or verse memorization or marginal note I have
written some time beforehand. This continues to serve me.
d. By a reference work.
Works like W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament
Words, and Bible dictionaries (like Unger's, Zondervan Pictorial, Nave's,
etc.) are helpful. However, the great linguistic sources offer more special
expertise, e.g. the lexicons and other sources.
e. By a subject index at the back of some Bibles.
f. By using a good commentary which mentions cross-references to the
passage it is discussing.
g. By reading and re-reading the Bible.
You become saturated with what is in chapters and begin to draw many
truths together yourself. The very best source in Bible study is the Bible!
2. How is a cross-reference valuable? What good is it?
a. It may give added detail that fills in, clarifies, or expands the idea of a
given passage so as to help explain it.
Example: "Rivers of living water" in John 7:37-39 is expanded by
Ephesians 5:19ff, which is also talking about the outflow of the Spirit in
a believer.
b. It may keep us from error in jumping to a conclusion.
Example: We might think that works are unimportant to Paul from
reading Romans 4:4-5; however, a different picture emerges when we
examine Ephesians 2:10; 2 Timothy 3:17; and Titus 2:7; 3:4-8.
c. It may give us a later development (progressive revelation).

93
Example: The subject of witness in the New Testament is gradually
expanded. In Matthew 10:5-7, Jesus tells His disciples to go to Israel
and not to the Samaritans and Gentiles. In Matthew 28:18-20 and Acts
1:8, Jesus' instructions are broadened to include all nations, and Acts 8
and 10 discuss witnessing to the Samaritans and the Gentiles
respectively.
d. It may be related to a different context and show another aspect of what
the truth can be applied to. Cf. Correlation.
Example: Forgiveness in 1 John 1:9 could apply at any time, in any
situation. In James 5:15, however, forgiveness is applied in the specific
situation of a physically sick believer who may also be sick at heart due
to sin.
V. LITERARY MOLD
Does the passage occur in the context of straightforward history or in a context of
frequent figures of speech, etc.? (Refer to Topic Five, Section VI, where you will find a
discussion of principles for interpreting figurative language.)
VI. CULTURAL FACTORS
A. Geography

B. History

C. Culture More Directly

-Mannerism and customs of the bible. Genesis 29. Leah and Rachael were sisters and Jacob was
promised by Laban, their father, that he could marry Rachel. But there was also a custom that
Laban had which he utilized.
-Fred Wight
- Night travel

94
- TOPIC FIVE: PARABLES, FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE, AND SYMBOLISM
VII. DEFINITION OF A PARABLE
A. Etymology
The Greek word is a compound of two words, para (beside) and ballo (to throw
or cast). The idea, then, is that facts in one realm which the hearers know are cast
alongside facts in the spiritual realm so that they will see, by analogy or
correspondence, what is true in this realm.
B. Definition
A parable is a figurative narrative, true to life, designed for the pedagogical
purpose of conveying some specific spiritual truth, usually relative to the kingdom
program of God (from Stanley Ellison, "The Hermeneutics of the Parables",
dissertation at Dallas Theological Seminary; cf. also his Parables in the Eye of the
Storm).
S. Spiritual
T. True to Life
A. Adapted; Crafted to have a specific point; to draw an illustration
C. Conveying; it always conveys, it gets the meaning across
K. Kingdom; every parable has some relation to the kingdom

1. Narrative--in that it contains a sequence of actions.


2. True to life--in that it is within the realm of probability.
It may or may not have happened to some specific person in view, but it
does occur. Jesus drew His parabolic illustrations from nature (Mark 4:1ff),
familiar customs like leavening bread (Matthew 13:33) or marriage (Matthew
25:1-13), noted events in history (Luke 19:14), and situations that
occasionally arise in real life (Luke 15:11-32; 16:1-9; 18:2-8).

95
3. Designed--adapted by the speaker (Christ) with a specific point in view.
4. Conveying--in that it represents a transference of knowledge from what is
true in one sphere to what is likewise true in another sphere. The teller uses
the known to teach the unknown.
5. Kingdom--in that its purpose relates in some way to the development of the
kingdom concept which forms the main thrust of the Gospel accounts.
VIII. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LITERARY DEVICES
(See also the presentation of figurative language by Professor Rosscup later in these
notes.)
Here, contrast parable and allegory as follows:
PARABLE

ALLEGORY

It deals with things which are true to life.


Things are exactly what they profess to be:
loaves are loaves, lamps are lamps, etc. The
terms used are obvious and clear, drawn from
common experience.

It may or may not be true to life or real-life and


probability. It may stray off into a sphere of
fantasy, where eagles plant vines, etc.
Examples of biblical allegories include Ezekiel
17 and John 15.

Not every detail is always intended to convey


some definite truth in itself. Sometimes there is
but one central point, and details simply serve
as convenient, necessary drapery.

An allegory is often distinguished by its


metaphorical language--an extended string of
metaphors (as John 15:1-6)--or else it gives a
very imaginative picture in order to convey a
point. Each detail signifies something true of
that which it pictures.

If an interpretation is given in the text itself, it


is given apart from the parable, either before it
or following it. See Matthew 13, where Christ
explains two of His parables after giving them.

It contains its interpretation within itself, and


this is a clue that it is an allegory. An example
of this is John 15:1, "I am the vine, the true
one."

IX. THREE FEATURES IN PARABLES


(See A. M. Hunter, Interpreting the Parables, pp. 11-12 to whom I am indebted here.)
A. They are examples of popular story-telling and use certain rules which make them
potent.
1. Repetition in build-up: For example, Luke 15 contains the parables of the

96
coin, the sheep, and finally the son.
2. Contrast: Virtue and vice, wisdom and folly, etc. are set in contrast. An
example is Matthew 25 on the wise and foolish virgins.
3. Rule of three: Three main characters are featured, for example, three
travelers in the Parable of the Good Samaritan and three excuse-makers in the
Parable of the Great Supper.
4. End stress: The final point or step becomes the emphasis, as the sending of
the "only son" in the Parable of the Vineyard (Matthew 21:33ff). This is
related to Item 1 above.
B. They are provoked spontaneously in living encounter, in the cut and thrust of
conflict, to meet some specific situation or problem that has arisen. Thus, they are
fitting, apt. Cf. Lk 18:1 and the parable that the situation prompted.
C. They are meant to evoke a response. They appeal for a verdict and are aimed at an
effect. Luke 15, again, is an illustration of this.
X. PURPOSE OF PARABLES
Why did Christ speak in parables?
Almost no parables had been spoken before Matthew 13, so when Christ began to
use parables in a cluster, the disciples were curious. "Why in the world are you
teaching in parables?" they inquired. Jesus answered:
A. To fulfill prophecy (Isaiah 6:9-10)
B. To conceal truth from those who are not responsive to truth (Matthew 13:10-13)
C. To reveal truth to those who are responsive to truth (Matthew 13:10-13)
XI. PRINCIPLES FOR INTERPRETING PARABLES
A. Determine the specific problem, occasion, need, or situation in context that led to
this parable. The problem triggering a parable, however, is the situation, need,
circumstance, or attitude prevalent at this time which necessitates a parable with a
particular lesson--a lesson that will meet the problem.
How?
1. Wider Context
Study the wider context for the development of thought and try to
pinpoint the situation to which Christ is specifically speaking. Know the
kingdom theme of the Gospels, and try to fit this into that theme so that it
answers some precise question about the kingdom.

97
How do you do this? By just reading, reading, and reading. Get the
whole sweep of the book. Fit the particular passage that youre preaching on
within the entire context of the book.
-Read it carefully several times
-Read good sources (checking principle)
Get good commentaries.
2. Immediate Context
Study the immediate context to discern some problem.
a. The problem may be stated in an introductory question.
For example, in Matthew 9:14, the disciples of John ask, "Why do
we and the Pharisees fast often, but your disciples fast not?" So Christ
gives the parables of the wineskins and the garment to show that His
ministry is one of joy (when He is present), and He is not reforming
Judaism but replacing it with a new phase of His program.
A second example is as follows: It is in the Parable of the Good
Samaritan (Luke 10:27-37). The occasion was in Galilee (9:51;10:15),
so the account is distinct from that of the scribe of Jerusalem who asks in
Matt. 22:35. The question here is, "What shall I do to inherit eternal life"
(v. 25)? Then a second question is, "Who is my neighbor"-- who I am to
love (v. 29)? -- go back to v. 27. In answer to the questions, the parable
follows, then a third question, this one by Jesus Himself, which points
hearers to the answer, "Which . . . was neighbor? (v. 36)!
Note Jesus own reply (v. 37a). Also note the exhortation of Jesus
(v. 37b). Pay close attention to cultural details: (1) v. 30, "down" -- road
did go down. Jericho is ca. 17-18 miles NE from Jerusalem and 5 miles
in from the Jordan River, the descent being ca. 3,000 feet from Jerusalem
to Jericho (Morris, Luke, 190). (2) Jews said that no Gentile was to be
regarded as a neighbor and no Samaritan; this lawyer, a Jew, avoided the
word "Samaritan" in v. 37 (or else he states things in the most effective
manner, and we may be wrong in making something of this). (3) Oil and
wine were normal supplies for a journey.
Observe the false allegorical interpretation of the fathers: wounded
man = humanity; robbers = Devil; priest = law; Levite = prophets;
Samaritan = Jesus [true, Jesus is like that; but the point is what a man
himself does, vv. 29, 36-37], one of Jesus' audience; oil, wine = grace;
ass = the body of Christ; inn = the church; Jerusalem = the celestial city;
innkeeper = Paul.

98
b. The problem may be stated simply in the text.
Luke 18:1 and 19:11 are examples of this. In 19:11, Jesus is asked,
"Will the kingdom be set up immediately?" He responds to this situation
by showing that an age must intervene.
A second instance of stating the problem is as follows. In Luke
18:1-8, The Unjust Judge, note v. 1, a simple statement of the problem.
Occasion: His coming (17:20-37; 18:8b). Prayer seems to be
related to His coming which is in view before and later.
Keys: v. 1, pray; do not faint (i.e., God will answer); also vv. 6-8.
In v. 6, emphasis is on what the judge said (go back to v. 5); see in v. 7
the spiritual point: God will answer His people who instead of fainting,
pray. He will bring justice (right the wrongs), and do it speedily. But
even deeper than this is the attitude of faith because of such assurance
and the action that faith prompts (v. 1).
Contrasts:
Unjust Judge

God

1. Unjust (2, 4, 6).

1. Just (implied).

2. Widow unknown, certainly not loved by the


judge (2, 4); she touched no springs of concern
or compassion in him.

2. The ones asking are well-known, His own


elect (v. 7) !

3. He responded for selfish reasons.

3. He responds with unselfish reason: wants


them to receive justice (v. 8).

c. The problem may be seen in some request, as in Luke 12:13, where a


young man says, "Master, bid my brother divide the inheritance with
me."
A second case is in Luke 11:1ff. The occasion (request) is in v. 1:
"Lord, teach us to pray." Then follows part of Jesus answer in the model
prayer for His disciples (vv. 2-4). After this, still answering about how to
pray, Jesus tells a story to teach the point by illustration (vv. 5-8). A key
word in the story is anaideia (v. 8) often translated as "importunity,"
"persistence." There are two basic views:
1) A. M. Hunter

99
Interp. the Parables, 69: "persistence, but even more vitally faith
that their prayers will be answered" (v. 13).
2) Or, it might mean "shamelessness" in being honorable, reputable
Cf. K. Bailey, Poet and Peasant; also I. H. Marshall, Luke, on
Luke 11:
(1) of the man outside, knocking, his being unashamed to keep
asking until answered; or (2) of the man in the bed, not ashamed,
shameless in the sense of honor and good-hearted spirit that leads
him to respond helpfully.
After the above comes the exhortation of Jesus based on the
story and showing its focus (vv. 9-13), all answering the question of
v. 1.
d. The problem may lie in a criticism which Christ seeks to answer, as in
Luke 15:2.
e. The problem may lie in the attitude of someone hearing Jesus.
The parable of the two sons in Matthew 21:28-32 is in response to
the question, "By what authority do you do these things?" (v. 23).
According to v. 27, He is not going to answer their question but actually
a deeper one. His parable addressed the attitude of the chief priests and
elders who rejected God's authority as manifested through John and
Christ. The problem of the context really is: "What does refusal to
submit to Christ's authority prove about those who refuse to submit?" (v.
32).
B. Determine the main point, the central idea that matches (answers) the problem.
If I can ascertain the one great and comprehensive idea of a parable, I
have fixed a reference point or obtained a master key for the interpretation of
each detail which serves it, because all the details of the parable will relate to
the main point. I can see how the details lend to or fit in with that main thrust.
This anchors me within a certain defined area so that I am not so likely to
wander off on my own tangents or blind alleys. How?

100
1. By noting a question that prompts the hearers to come up with a point (Luke
7:42; 10:36). In other words, the question itself will alert us.
2. By a direct conclusion (Luke 7:47; Matthew 18:35).
3. By an answer to a request to explain a parable (Matthew 15:15; note that
Jesus explains the "parable" of v. 11, not vv. 13-14, as vv. 16-20 shows).
4. By understanding the problem, occasion, need, or situation (Luke 7:36-40).
5. By seeing if the parable falls within a pattern of parables on a given theme or
idea (Matthew 24:43 -25:46, cf. 24:42; Luke 15; Matthew 13, where all the
parables in the chapter relate to the kingdom interests in the present age in
some way).
Your main point will always relate back to and fit well with the problem
in the context that prompted the parable. The main point will answer that
problem.
C. Discover the cultural setting.
(See Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus; Fred Wight, Manners and Customs
in Bible Lands; plus commentaries on Matthew, Mark, and Luke.)
We must be well-versed in backgrounds, culture, local color, etc. What was
the custom for marriages (Matthew 25:1-13)? What was the custom in the use of
leaven in Israelite homes (Matthew 13:33)? etc. Always search your sources for the
custom that fits the biblical time, place, and occasion. This often is a very
important key.
D. Use cross-references
Other Scripture often helps in establishing the meaning of details. For
example, in Matthew 13, Jesus speaks of the mustard tree having branches for birds
to nest in. Ezekiel 17 and 31 speak of branches as being Gentile nations and birds
as being Gentile peoples (cf. Daniel 4).
E. Interpret details properly
The following questions may help:
1. Context
a. Is this detail which I think might have a certain spiritual meaning
emphasized by Jesus when He concludes or makes His point?
Illustration:

101
In Luke 15:23, is "kill the fatted calf" a picture of Christ on the
cross? Think about it. Why or why not?
b. Does this particular context or section present an emphasis or recurring
theme that helps explain what a point means?
Illustration:
Is Luke 16:9 explained in light of other references in the general
section of Luke that presents most of the parables? Cf. 12:33; 14:14;
16:9-31. The point is using earthly goods to help others in loving
concern, in God-honoring stewardship (even 6:10-13 focuses on this).
c. Does the context specify any truth that would nullify a given meaning
placed on some detail of a parable?
Illustration:
Should we say that the Lord will come at midnight because the
bridegroom in Matthew 25:1-13 does? No, specific observations in the
context disprove this (25:13; 24:42, 44).
2. Cross-Reference
a. Is the idea I would insert into a detail true to other Scripture?
Illustrations:
1) In Luke 11:7, is God like this man, unmoved by our requests? No!
He is rich to all who call on Him (Rom. 10:12; and cf. immediate
context as well, 11:11-13!). Prayer is not overcoming Gods
reluctance but laying hold of His willingness.
2) In Luke 18:5, is the hard character of the unjust judge a picture of
the character of God? No, the two are in contrast; also cf. crossreference in Exod. 34:6-7; Num. 14:18; Deut. 4:31; Lk. 11:11-13!
3) In Matthew 13, since Christ forbade the disciples to pluck up tares,
does this mean a local church is not to discipline heretical, immoral,
or disorderly members? No, I Cor. 5 allows inner church discipline;
in Matt. 13:38, the field is the world.
b. Does other Scripture use a similar picture (or else the same basic picture)
and reveal a pattern that suggests what some detail probably means?
Illustration: In Matthew 13:31-32, is there an Old Testament
reference to a large tree with birds and beasts finding lodging in or under
it? If so, what is the point being made? (See Section B above regarding

102
the main point of a parable.) Dan. 4:12, 21; Ezk. 17:23; 31:6; Ps.
104:12.
c. Does the detail suggest easily and naturally any truth we know to be
clearly established in the spiritual realm?
Illustrations:
1) Is it proper to push Luke 16:9 to mean we may buy our way into
heaven? No, it would contradict cross-references such as Rom.
3:27-28, 4:4-5; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8-9 etc.; it also is not necessary in
its context (16:10-12).
2) Since Matthew 25:31-46 does not refer to doing the good deeds in
the power of the Spirit or by faith, does this suggest that we should
emphasize doing good deeds without reference to faith and God's
enablement? No, we need to correlate the picture by careful crossreferencing. If one text gives only part of the picture, look to see if
others fill out the total picture.
a) Some texts emphasize FAITH but do not even mention
WORKS that faith will promote (Gal. 3:27-28; 4:4-5). Both,
Eph. 2:8-10.
b) Some texts emphasize WORKS of love but do not even mention
the FAITH behind these or the POWER of God energizing them
(Mt. 22:37-39; Gal. 2:20).
c) Some texts emphasize the POWER but do not mention FAITH
(Zech. 4:6; Phil. 2:13). Both, Rom. 15:13, 14.
3) In Luke 15:8, is it proper to play down man's responsibility by the
logic that the lost coin pictures a sinner as an inanimate object,
unable to act, and so God must do it all?
Answer: In context the prodigal son does not fit such an idea.
Further, if we pushed this detail about the coin, we also could say
the coin was lost due to the womans carelessness and suggest that
God by a lack of care lets men become lost. We immediately see
that we cannot wisely make every imagined detail about a parable
leap into an analogy with spiritual things.
4) In Matthew 18:23-35, is it proper to allege that the parable proves
God may forgive a person and save him, and then revoke
forgiveness later on in his life so that he loses his salvation? No.
a) To do so would be to go contrary to eternal security of the saved
(Jn. 6:37-41; 10:28, 29; Rom. 8:1, 29ff.).

103
b) In search of consistency in doctrine, search for a view that
harmonizes details overall, if one may be found.
The servant may not represent a saved person, as
servant does not when he is one following an evil pattern of
life in other texts (Matt. 24:45ff.; 25:14-30, third servant; Lk.
12:46 etc.) and as son in parables is not necessarily saved
(Matt. 21:28-32; cf. 8:11, 12). What a mere man would fail to
know absolutely of a servant in the parable (story ) and
therefore act to revoke a former decision, God who knows all
absolutely would not need to do. Verses 23-24 relate what
happened among men before a human lord, verse 35 the
consequence of an unmerciful spirit before God, though God is
not in all points like the human lord. Verse 34 is a problem to a
view that sees the servant representing a saved man (as R. G.
Gromacki does in Salvation is Forever, pp. 145-46). First John
is clear that those with a valid love pattern (the fruit of reality)
have eternal life and are children of God in truth (cf. 3:4-10;
2:3-5 etc.). The genuinely saved heed such warnings as
Matthew 18:21-35. In the Beatitudes describing the truly saved
in contrast to others Jesus taught in Matthew 5:7, Blessed are
the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy (cf. also 6:12, 14, 15).
Being merciful is a flow from having genuine faith, a fruit of it
(Js. 2:14-26), of love (I Jn. 3:17) and righteousness (Matt. 5:20).
Faith works through love (Gal. 5:5,6).
d. Is the meaning I prefer in a passage true to that section (context) of
Scripture (i.e. true to historical propriety, immediate context, wider
context, and cross-reference relating to a context)?
Take an example. Some insist that the elder son (Lk. 15:31), being a
son, has to represent a saved person. For son in Romans 8:14 and
Galatians 4:6ff. is saved. Ans.: Relate son in a parable to son in
another parable (Matt. 21:28-32, priests and elders in context are sons of
the father, yet unsaved, cf. verse 32). Also relate to Israel in the context
(Matt. 8:11, 12, some were unsaved; cf. Jer. 5:10; Rom. 2:25-29; 9:6
etc.). Also note that servant is used similarly in a parable in its context
(Matt. 24:45ff.; 25:14-30, cf. v. 30, Lk. 12:46 etc.).
XII. FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THE BIBLE
More than two hundred kinds of figures have been distinguished in the Bible. Very
helpful in the study of these is the work by E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in
the Bible (London: Messrs, Eyre, and Spottis-woods, 1889), pp. 171ff. The student
will also find it helpful to consult the section in A. Berkeley Mickelsen, Interpreting the
Bible, pp. 179ff, together with Bernard Ramm's discussion on pp. 143-44; Merrill F.
Unger, Principles of Expository Preaching, pp. 175ff; and Louis Berkhof, Principles of

104
Biblical Interpretation, pp. 82ff.
A. Definitions of Figurative Devices and Other Devices in Scripture
1. Simile
This is an express, formal comparison between two different or unlike
things in order to impress the hearer with some stated resemblance or
likeness. The important hinge words "like" or "as" normally identify the
comparison as a simile. An example is Psalm 102:6, "I am like a pelican in
the wilderness." Note the context for the idea.
2. Allegory
This is an extended metaphor which continues a comparison by
representation or by implication. It is a made up narrative which may or may
not be true to life, containing direct personifications or representations, each
of which has a metaphorical meaning. An example is John 15, the vine and
the branches. Notice that this is an extended metaphor (cf. also Psalm 80:815; Isaiah 5:1-7; Ezekiel 13:10-15; 15; 17; John 10:1-18; Galatians 4:21-31).
3. Ellipsis
This is one of the main types of omission and involves the omission of a
word or a phrase in a sentence. The interpreter must fill in the omission from
the nature of the subject, from the context, or from a parallel account that
suggests the necessary words. Ellipsis was a Hebraism used to focus the
emphasis upon other parts of the sentence not omitted. Mickelsen lists
ellipsis with brachylogy and gives, as an example, Galatians 3:5: "Now the
one giving to you the Spirit and producing miracles among you, [supply
words here] because of the works of the law or because of the preaching
which demanded only faith?" Another example is Matthew 13:32: "Which
indeed is the least of all seeds [supply words from preceding clause, "which a
man takes and sows in a field"] . . ."
4. Metaphor
Though this is similar to a simile, it does not contain the formal
statement of resemblance, using "like" or "as". Instead, the comparison is
inferred, inbuilt, and not specifically stated. However, the metaphor is
stronger than the simile since it involves specific, direct representation (as in
John 15:1, "I am the true vine . . .") rather than simply resemblance conveyed
by "like" or "as". When a string of metaphors occur to make up one unified
account, the thought is expanded so that it grows into an allegory.

105
5. Paradox
This is the expression of two propositions which appear to be
contradictory in terms but which may be harmonious when the true sense of
each is properly understood and related to the other, as in Matthew 10:39 and
2 Corinthians 6:9-10.
6. Irony
This is the statement of a thought in a way that conveys an idea that is
just the opposite, as when one uses words of praise to express actually the
idea of ridicule. There is often the underlying element of sarcasm or
contempt, and the particular tone of the voice conveys the impression. For
example, 2 Chronicles 18:14, "In the time of Ahab and Jehoshaphat, Micaiah
said, 'Go up and prosper.'" See also Luke 13:33b.
7. Hyperbole
The people of the Middle East, as in the Bible, used intensified and
exaggerated expressions to convey a thought with more force. A good
example is in John 21:25, "I suppose that even the world itself could not
contain the books that should be written."
8. Synecdoche
This is a figure of speech in which the whole of something is spoken of
for the part or the part for the whole. For example, in Micah 4:3, beating
swords into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks (the abandonment of
two weapons) represents complete disarmament during the future Messianic
Kingdom; and in Judges 12:7, Jephthah was buried "in the cities of Gilead",
where the cities collectively represent the one total area or city where he was
actually buried (cf. Mickelsen, p. 187).
9. Zeugma
This is a construction in which two nouns will be closely associated with
a verb, but in which the verb does not apply to both nouns and some verb
must be supplied in thought to clarify the use of the other noun. An example
is 1 Corinthians 3:2: "I gave you milk [noun] to drink [verb], not solid food
[noun]." The construction does not suggest that the Corinthians were to drink
solid food; rather, a verb must be supplied to go with solid food, even as the
verb for drink goes with milk. Thus, the verb for "feed" can be added in
thought, so that the entire construction reads: "I gave you milk to drink; I did
not feed you with solid food."

106
10. Euphemism
This is a figure of speech in which the speaker substitutes a gentle, soft
expression in the place of a more brutal, harsh, offensive, or shocking
thought. For example, in Acts 1:25 Peter says that Judas Iscariot went "to his
own place", substituting a soft expression for a horrifying one. Similarly,
Stephen, suffering a brutal death by stoning, "fell asleep" (Acts 7:60).
11. Brachylogy
See Section 3 above, line 6.
12. Litotes or meiosis
This is a figure of speech in which the speaker states a truth in a negative
rather than in a positive way. For example, in Acts 1:5, "Not long after these
days" is a negative way of saying, "Within a few days".
13. Oxymoron
This is a figure in which there is an antithesis and thus an apparent
contradiction between a noun and its modifier. The speaker uses this for
emphasis. An example is Matthew 6:23, "If the light that is in thee be
darkness, how great is that darkness." The apparent contradiction involves
the issue of how light can be darkness. Unger (p. 180) explains: "The truth
thrown into bold relief in this sentence is that if the spiritual light governing
the higher life be darkened, what will be the state of the region of life
governed by the lower nature--the realm of passions and appetites--which is
naturally dark and needs the presence of that light to keep it all in check."
Another example of oxymoron is Proverbs 12:10b, which speaks of the
"tender mercies of the wicked" as being "cruel".
14. Personification
This is a figure in which a thing, quality, or idea is represented as a
person or an animal in order to invest it with the capacity for some act. In
Isaiah 40:9, the city of Jerusalem (a thing) is personified as lifting up its voice
like a person and saying to the cities of Judah, "Behold your God!" Another
example is Psalm 148, in which the writer personifies the sun, moon, stars,
heavens, mountains, and hills as though they can utter praise to the Lord just
as angels (v. 2) and men (vv. 11-14). In other verses the trees clap their
hands as the seas waves clap their hands.
15. Paranomasia
This is a figure in which there is a pun or play on words for effect.
Matthew 16:18 is a play upon petros (Peter), a small rock, and petra, a large
shelf of rock. In Matthew 8:22, Jesus contrasts the spiritually dead with the

107
physically dead: "Follow me; and leave the dead [spiritually] to bury their
own dead [physically]." The statement is open to other explanations that
make sense also. The Greek word paranomasia is a combination of para
(beside) and onoma (name), and has the idea of placing one name beside
another name in the pun or play on words.
16. Metonymy
This is the exchange of one noun for another because the two are often
associated together or because one may suggest the other (Mickelsen, p. 185).
For example, in Luke 16:29, "Moses" is put in place of "writings"; in Luke
15:18, "heaven" is put for "God". A common example of the use of
metonymy today is, "City Hall says . . . ." What we actually mean is that the
city council or the mayor says this. In Jeremiah 22:29, "earth, earth, earth" is
used for "people".
17. Proverb
This is a brief, wise saying meant to govern life in some aspect, and
worthy of consideration because it has been proven valid by the test of time
and experience. In the Old Testament, it was called a mashal; in the LXX it
is translated into the Greek as paroimia; and in the New Testament it is called
parabole, the word for parable, as in Luke 4:23, "physician, heal thyself".
However, there is a difference between the proverb (a short maxim) and the
parable (a longer story).
18. Parable
This is best defined as follows: "A figurative narrative, true to life,
designed for the pedagogical purpose of conveying some specific spiritual
truth, usually relative to the kingdom program" (Stanley Ellison, "The
Hermeneutics of Parables", doctoral dissertation, Dallas Theological
Seminary, 1964). It is a narrative in the sense that it represents a transference
of knowledge from one sphere (the known) to another sphere (the unknown);
it deals with some specific truth in the sense that it usually is intended to
stress a central, overall idea so that the minute details do not in themselves
have specific meanings; it involves the kingdom program in that its purpose
must relate in some way to the development of the kingdom concept which
forms the main thrust of the Synoptic Gospel account.
B. Modern Use of Figurative Language
Common figurative expressions in our culture include: "He's a mountain of a
man!" . . . "The Saint Louis Rams" . . . "The New York Jets" . . . "Sugar" or
"Honey" (said to a sweetheart) . . . "Get on the bandwagon" . . . "Come down off
your high horse" . . . "I will go to bat for you" . . . "He's a real tiger" . . . "He looked
at me with his eagle eye" . . . "That's my cup of tea" or "That's not my bag" . . .

108
"Cool it" . . . "Oh, this smog kills me!" . . . "He's really flipped his lid" . . . "He
kicked the bucket".
C. Principles for Interpreting Figurative Language
1. Context
a. Examine the whole context to get the overall tenor. It may or may not be
a text predominantly loaded with figures, and this can make a difference.
Example: In Psalm 22:6 we find the statement, "I am a worm." Yet
in context, he is obviously a person, for he can speak words like "my
God" (v. 1), knows God is holy (v. 3), has fathers (v. 4), trusts the Lord
(v. 8), was taken from a womb (v. 9), etc. Other figurative language in
the context of v. 6 includes: "bulls of Bashan" (v. 12); "as a lion" (v. 13);
"poured out like water" and "heart is like wax" (v. 14); "dried up like a
potsherd" (v. 15); "dogs" (v. 16), explained by the next phrase--men are
in view!; and "lion's mouth" and "horns of the wild oxen" (v. 21).
b. Look at the next phrase. Sometimes in a poetic section containing
parallelism, the immediate context will explain the sense, as in Psalm
22:16.
c. Look for other factors in the more immediate context that show the sense
of certain expressions.
Examples:
In Psalm 22, many expressions point to such a thing as crucifixion.
They describe a person suffering as one does when stretched out on a
stake.
Jeremiah 4:6-7 states that a lion will come against Judah. How can
we identify this lion? The near context (v. 6) mentions "north"; Jeremiah
1:13 also speaks of destruction upon Judah from the "north". The farther
context (20:4) says "Babylon", and chapters 39-40 also speak of
"Babylon". The following observations may also be made:
"evil" (v. 6; 29:11)
"destruction" (v. 6)
description in v. 7b--a literal lion does not do this type of thing.
sword" (v. 10) in contrast to peace
chariots, horses, and spoiling (v. 13)
"alarm of war" (v. 19)
"horseman and bowman" (v. 29)
d. Cross-Reference

109
Example: In Jeremiah 4:6-7, "lion" here matches with "lion" in
Daniel 7, which means Babylon. Babylon had conquered in Judea
(Daniel 1). A concordance check on "lion" would quickly give you
passages to look up and tie together. Also use a Bible dictionary,
encyclopedia, and cross-references in good Bibles and weigh them
carefully.
e. Interpret literally and identify the analogy that transfers over.
Decide the natural sense at the base of the picture. This is your
starting point always. Once you have this, then transfer the idea over
solidly. See the proper sense in which what is true in the literal sphere is
true in the sphere being depicted.
Often manners and customs open up the meaning of a figure of
speech, as in Psalm 23. A knowledge of the custom associated with the
word or picture helps us see what the writer or speaker intended to
convey.
f. Recognize that sometimes the Spirit and not the strict letter of a
statement is the intended idea.
Example: Matthew 5:29-30 speaks of plucking out the eye and
cutting off the arm if either causes one to sin. Other passages on lust
teach that victory is in a committal of faith, a mental attitude of relying
on the Lord (cf. Galatians 5:16-17 and its context; Colossians 3:1ff;
2:20-23). Does the Bible elsewhere teach that self-mutilation would be
the answer to lust? No! It teaches that sin is more deeply rooted; it is in
the heart within (cf. Matthew 15; Mark 7).
g. Allow for anthropomorphisms in light of what Scripture teaches about
the nature of God.
Note two lines of detail in Scripture:
1) God is not a man (Numbers 23:19); no one has seen Him (John 1);
He is invisible (1 Timothy 6); He is a Spirit (John 4:24).
2) Yet God is pictured as having eyes (Proverbs 15:3; 2 Chronicles
16:9); arms (Deuteronomy 33:19); hands (John 10:28-29); hair like
wool (Daniel 7:10-11); books in which He keeps names and records
of men's works (Philippians 4:4; Revelation 20:11-14); etc.
h. Allow for phenomenal language, the language of observation.
Example: Joel 2:31 refers to the moon turned into "blood", referring
to red color, as blood is, not the liquid content of blood.

110
i. Allow for hyperbole.
Example: Daniel 1:20 and the sons of Israel were found to be "ten
times better" than other men.
XIII. CLAIMS THAT SOME "PARABLES" ARE NOT REALLY PARABLES
A. Some Claim that the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) Describes an Actual
Event in History.
This is not so because:
1. The words "a certain man" (v. 19) do not show that this story is
historical.They appear with several parables as a frequent device (Matthew
18:23; Luke 12:16; 14:16; 16:1; 18:2, "a certain city"; 19:12; etc.). So these
words can be used in definite parables. This is not ruled out by the fact that
the words can also, flexibly, appear for a specific historical person, for
example "a certain man" with dropsy (Luke 14:2; cf. Luke 21:2; Acts 3:2;
5:1; 10:1; 15:5).
2. The argument that it is not a parable because the text does not say it is will
not work, since several parables are not said to be parables (Matthew 9:15-17
= Mark 2:19-22; Matthew 13:44, 45, 47, 52; 18:12, 13; 18:23; Luke 7:41, 42;
11:5-8; 12:36-38; 14:28-30; 14:31-32; 15:8-10; 15:11-32; 16:1-8; 17:7-10;
etc.).
3. That the story uses actual names for the rich man ("Dives" in Latin) and
Lazarus is not a conclusive argument for the historicity of the events
described.
Ezekiel 23:4 uses names Oholah and Oholibah for two sisters, Jerusalem
and Samaria, in a Hebrew mashal, the word used for a parable, allegory, and
several other literary devices. And even if an event were historical, why
could not an incident in the natural world be used in a comparison (as a
parable) to depict something likewise true in the spiritual realm?
B. Some Claim that the Three Parables of Luke 15 are One Parable, not Three.
This is not so because:
1. "This parable" (15:3) refers to the first, not all three. As the lesson of Jesus
progresses, two more parables are given to add to the first that starts the
series.
2. The phrase "a certain man" in the third parable (15:11) is the way Jesus
begins several parables (see Section A. 1. above).
3. More than one parable can occur together with the same general, common

111
theme, for example the Treasure and the Pearl; the Wheat and Tares and the
Good Fish and Bad Fish; the Tower-Builder and the King Going to War; the
Patch and the Wineskins; etc.).
4. The phrase "Or what king" (14:31) is like "Or what woman" (15:8). It seems
to serve as the word "again" does to introduce a new parable in Matthew
13:45, 47 (cf. v. 53, "these parables").
5. The label "parable" is left out before many of the parables (see Section A. 2.
above).
C. The Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31-46)
It is best to say that this is not a parable per se but a direct prophecy of the
future judgment when Christ will divide mankind, yet the direct prophecy (which
the account is for the most part) does utilize some parabolic elements briefly within
itself for comparison (vv. 32b,33). Verse 34 returns to the straight-forward future
prophecy. It is accurate, however, to speak of "The Parable of the Sheep and the
Goats" since a parable is included within the package and forms the basic
illustration for the prophecy.
XIV. SYMBOLISM (Not a Complete List)
A. Persons
1. Bride (Revelation 19:7-9)
2. Body (Ephesians 3:1-13)
3. Cherubim (Genesis 3:24; Ezekiel 1, 10)
4. Shepherd (Psalm 23)
B. Animals
1. Dog (Philippians 3:2; 2 Peter 2:22)
2. Horse (Revelation 6:2-8)
3. Lamb (John 1:29)
4. Lion (Daniel 7:4; Jeremiah 4:7)
5. Beasts (Daniel 7:3; Revelation 13:1, 11)
6. Sow (2 Peter 2:22)
C. Numbers

112
See John J. Davis, Biblical Numerology
1. Three (Luke 11:5-8, three loaves, etc.)
2. Seven (Revelation 1:20; 4:6; 6:1 - 8:5; 13:1; 16; etc.)
3. Ten (Daniel 1:20; Exodus 7-12 [number used LITERALLY here]; Matthew
25:1-13; etc.)
D. Metals
1. Bronze (the bronze altar in Exodus)
2. Gold, Silver, Precious Stones (1 Corinthians 3:12; cf. Revelation 3:17)
E. Colors
1. White (Isaiah 1:18; Revelation 3:5; 7:14; 19:7)
2. Red (Isaiah 1:18; Revelation 6:4; 12:3)
3. Black (Revelation 6:5)
F. Objects

113
1. Book and books (Revelation 3:5; 20:11-15)
2. Water (John 15:3; Titus 3:5)
3. Fire (Ezekiel 20:47; Matthew 3:11)
4. Snow (Isaiah 1:18; Psalm 51:7)
5. Honey (Psalm 19:10)
6. Mountain (Daniel 2:35; Revelation 17:8-10)
7. Tree (Psalm 1; Jeremiah 17:15)
8. Growing Tree (Daniel 4:20-22; Ezekiel 17:23, 24; 31:2-18; Matthew 13:31,
32)
9. Crown (James 1:12; 1 Peter 5:4)
10. Blood (Joel 2:31)
11. Locusts (Joel 2; Revelation 9:1-11)
12. Sword (Hebrews 4:12; Revelation 2:16)
13. White Stone (Revelation 2:17)
14. Horn (Daniel 7:8, 24; Revelation 17:8-12)
15. Rivers (John 7:37-39)
16. Rivers Flooding Over (Daniel 9:26, 27; Isaiah 8:7, 8)
17. Lamp (Psalm 119:105; Revelation 4:5)
18. Star (Revelation 1:20; 9:1; 22:16; cf. Daniel 8:10, etc.)
19. Temple (1 Corinthians 3:10, 11; 6:19, 20; Ephesians 2:11-21)
20. Thorn in the flesh (2 Corinthians 12:7-10)
21. Scroll (Ezekiel 2-3; Revelation 10)
22. Potter's Vessel (Jeremiah 18)
23. Figs in Baskets (Jeremiah 24)
24. Weaker Vessel (1 Peter 3:7)
25. Milk (1 Peter 2:2, 3; Hebrews 5:11-14; 1 Corinthians 3:1-4)

114
26. Seed (Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23; Galatians 3:16; etc.)
27. Keys (Matthew 16:19; Luke 11:52; Revelation 3:7)
28. Candlesticks (Revelation 1)
29. Stone (Daniel 2:45)
30. Living Stones (1 Peter 2:4-10)
31. Bread (John 6)
32. Helmet and other parts of armor (Ephesians 6:17ff)
G. Actions--Used often in Jeremiah and Zechariah, for example:
1. Girdle (Jeremiah 13)
2. Yokes (Jeremiah 27)
3. Potter making and remaking a vessel (Jeremiah 18)
4. Flying Roll (Zechariah 5:1-4)
5. Woman in the Ephah (Zechariah 5:5ff)
6. Four Horns (Zechariah 1:18, 19)
7. Seething and Tilting Pot (Jeremiah 1:13)
H. Images or Visions
1. A man (Daniel 2)
2. A ladder (Genesis 28:11ff)
3. Sheet with animals (Acts 10:10-16)

115
TOPIC SIX: TYPOLOGY
I. Introduction
There has been a great contrast in the attitude of different scholars and preachers
toward typology.
A. Some make almost everything in the Old Testament a type.
They go wild. In doing so, they attract a heaping measure of suspicion to some
of their conclusions. They leave some items wide open to the charge of being farfetched and even strained to the point of absurdity. It is an easy pastime to drum up
a type if the interpreter does not care how he comes up with it. For example, some
have made typology out of the whole life of Samson. One instance is the episode
in which Samson slays the lion that meets him on his way to his bride at Timnath.
Later, on his return, he finds honey in the dried carcass. This, purportedly, is a type
of Christ fighting His way to His bride through many dangers (like the lion) and
bringing meat and refreshment out of even the most ravenous of foes, death itself!
If a man is out to get a type for a quick spiritual "truth" (?) and is not too concerned
about his methods--just so he gets that nice point--then it is an easy thing. Any
little matter can easily be magnified and stretched so that it will correspond to
something somewhere. In fact, he can turn his types out as though they were
cheaper by the dozen.
B. Some either completely or nearly deny typology as a legitimate field of study.
This was a severe reaction of some older evangelical writers as they viewed
with dismay certain students of typology who allowed themselves to be transported
away with eisegetical fancies. Today, some liberals feel this way also, as cited by
James D. Smart (The Interpretation of Scripture). These, however, are
outnumbered even by other liberals who, in grappling with the unity between the
Old and New Testaments, have various systems in which they recognize an Old
Testament typological thrust. They define this in different ways, and some of their
terminology often seems close to that of conservatives but still leaves doubt as to
what they really do mean after all. Smart's chapter helps by surveying various
scholarly ideas of typology up until 1961. (For modern views, see also Claus
Westermann, ed., Essays in Old Testament Hermeneutics, 1963; and G. W. H.
Lampe and K. J. Woollcombe, Essays on Typology, 1957).
C. Some take a middle position in that they are more restrained in finding types than
those described in Section A above, but do believe that types are legitimate,
differing from some described in Section B.
This is the position of the present writer. The validity of types can be
demonstrated (see Ramm's chapter), just as can straight predictive prophecy. Men
in this persuasion may be divided into two different groups, generally speaking.

116
1. Strict Group
These limit types rather severely or very severely (in the opinion of those
in the second group below). Only that is a type which the New Testament
specifically claims to be a type. The serious question here is, specifically
what type of statement in the New Testament constitutes a valid "claim" that
a given item was a type? Even those in this broad group differ here, with
some more strict than others.
Bishop Herbert Marsh (1757-1839), the writer usually referred to as the
early champion of this group, said that the New Testament must claim an Old
Testament item to be a type before we may rightly say it is. Yet he is not as
specific (and strict) as others want him to be in spelling out precisely what he
means by this. Marsh was Bishop of Peterborough, not far from London, and
Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University. He was in the Church of
England, and his work that discussed types was called Lectures on the
Criticism and Interpretation of the Bible (Cambridge, 1828).
Douglas Friederichsen, in a doctoral dissertation, insists upon setting
down more specific criteria for types than Marsh and by these disqualifies
some items Marsh accepted as types ("The Hermeneutics of Typology", 2
volumes, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1970). He felt that Marsh, despite his
seeming strictness to some writers, was too brief and general or fuzzy for him
and left the door open for others to latch on too quickly to a New Testament
reference to an Old Testament item as being sufficient authority to say it was
a type. Feeling Marsh's latitude was too great, he spelled out criteria which
relegated to the category of "analogous illustrations" some items Marsh
called types. Yet Friederichsen acknowledges that his own position limits
types more than any conservative writer he consulted in a very wide reading
of works on the subject.
Such students as Marsh and Friederichsen (the latter with probably the
most detailed specialized evangelical work of recent years on the
hermeneutics of the subject) agree in general that their strict view has these
arguments in its favor:
a. This is the only effective way to curb excesses (as in Section A above).
If we allow even Joseph to be a type because of certain correspondences,
then we are opening the door for any thing or person to be a type because
of some mere resemblance. The view is, then, partially reactionary and
defensive.
b. There are specific criteria for identifying what is a type. If a given Old
Testament matter does not conform rigidly to these qualifications, we
may not rightly feel free to class it as a type. (Cf. Friederichsen, Vol. 2,
for a specific list of four criteria which he develops down to the fine

117
points beyond any detail the present writer has seen: these tend to be
easily challenged and answered by those of the view below).
2. Moderate Group
Others, though also wishing to be restrained, do not feel that certain
more direct New Testament statements specifying types exhaust the list of
possible types. Still more may be detected by sensible interpretation that
looks critically and responsibly for solid, natural correspondences between a
possible Old Testament type and its possible New Testament antitype.
Joseph, to this group, could be accepted with reasonable confidence to be a
type because many correspondences are so clear and apparent in his case,
even though no direct statement in the New Testament links him with Christ.
A reputed exponent of this position is Patrick Fairbairn (The Typology of
Scripture, 2 volumes; cf. concise presentations of this view by Donald
Campbell, "The Interpretation of Types", Bibliotheca Sacra, July 1955, pp.
248ff; William G. Moorehead, "Type", in International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia, Volume 5, p. 3029; and Milton Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics,
pp. 345-46).
The present writer regards this position as the most acceptable. This is
true because it is more balanced in its sensitivity to the overall thrust of
Scripture and the various factors involved.
II. DEFINITION OF A TYPE
(Note: This definition assumes the miraculous element, unity of Scripture, analogy
of the faith, and progressive revelation.)
A type is an Old Testament person, animal, object, event, office, or institution
which first has its place and design in an actual historical situation itself but at the same
time is specifically intended by God (But how do you know God specifies it as a type?)
to pre-figure some greater future reality. This is usually and most prominently with
regard to Christ in His person and/or work.
Notice the elements of a type in this definition:
A. It is an Illustration.
That is, in some real manner in some one or more important aspects, a type
serves as a picture of the greater reality yet to come. The Old Testament is the
picture book preparing in unity for the New Testament.
The resemblance must be apparent so that the connection with the New
Testament really does make sense. The analogy should be obvious, not obscure,
direct, not round-about, the central idea easily recognized and not contrived. That
is, the connection lies on the top of things and does not need to be arranged by a lot
of special ingenuity. It is substantial, not shaky.

118
There is a specific divine intention and arrangement that is recognizable and
identifiable. For example, God specifically instructed the offering of a lamb
without blemish and with other qualifications to picture the greater Lamb, Jesus
Christ (Leviticus 1, etc.; John 1:29). Without the same kind of direct statement but
with a clearness that is adequate, He moved in the life of Joseph, taking the
initiative to arrange certain aspects as in his dreams of sovereignty, deliverance
from the pit and from prison, governance in being a deliverer, and other matters.
God specifically gave dreams to Joseph and later to the butler, baker, and even the
Pharaoh, thus setting the stage for His purposes and giving Joseph ability to
interpret, but beyond this, to deliver His people. There is much design apparent all
the way through the life of Joseph which makes it valid, in the opinion of this
writer and many others, to say that God meant him to be a kind of type of a greater
one, Christ.
B. It Involves a Person, Object, Event, or Institution.
1. Person
For example, Melchizedek was typical of Christ, whose priesthood is
after the order of Melchizedek (Genesis 14; Psalm 110; Hebrews 5, 7).
2. Animal
The Passover lamb (Exodus 12) was typical of Christ, the greater
Passover Lamb (John 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:7). The animal offerings of
Leviticus 1-7 were, in certain respects, typical of Christ.
3. Object
The brazen serpent, lifted up in the wilderness (Numbers 21), was typical
of Christ lifted up (John 3:14-15).
4. Event (or time or action)
The Passover, a historical deliverance of the Israelites, is a type of
Christ's deliverance of sinners (1 Corinthians 5:7).
5. Institution
The Tabernacle, in various aspects, foreshadowed Christ in His Person
and work (Hebrews 9-10).
C. It is Rooted in History.
There was actually the person, animal, object, event, or institution materially
on this earth at a specific time in history. Whatever the type was, it can be
interpreted by the literal method as serving some real function that was meaningful
in its own day and recognized by the people. This, however, does not mean that

119
people at that time grasped the full import or had an awareness of the antitype
specifically.
D. It Pre-Pictures Something Future.
That is, it is truly historical but beyond that is also a foreshadowing of a future
reality.
III. DISTINCTION BETWEEN A TYPE AND OTHER LITERARY DEVICES
A. Type and Prophecy
These two devices have in common the essential fact that both are divinely
designed to anticipate some future realization. Both have the predictive element,
yet they are distinct.
1. A prophecy is a direct utterance about something definitely yet future, and we
then expect to match with it some later fulfillment. A type, however, is a
person, animal, object, event, office, or institution which illustrates something
future. The predictive element in it becomes evident either from certain clues
in the Old Testament, from the vantage point of the New Testament, or from
both.
Neither prophecy nor typology resembles the future realization in every
exact point of detail.
2. A prophecy teaches doctrine. A type may only illustrate it.
In some measure, however, if we are careful in stating it, we can say that
a type teaches doctrine; yet we mean only that a type like the Old Testament
lamb teaches details about the doctrine of atonement for sin. Even here,
however, it is not the type (illustration) itself that clarifies this but the
statements about atonement which explain it in its Scripture references. We
need the clear statements to be certain.
B. Type and Symbol
There is an overlapping between a type and a symbol, and yet a valid
distinction can be made. At times, it is possible for an Old Testament item to be
both a symbol and a type. The lampstand in the tabernacle was a symbol of lightbearing and yet also a type of Christ as a greater light, the light of the world. The
priesthood of Israel was a symbol of Israel's relationship before God in a priestly
ministry and yet also a type of Christ and believers who, with Him, are priests.
1. Distinction between a type and a symbol:
Type

Symbol

120

It points to the future.

The time element is open in that it may be past,


present, or future. It is a timeless figurative
representation in which material objects stand
for moral or spiritual character, office, or
quality.

It is historical in itself. That is, the type is


some definite person, animal, object, event,
office, or institution.

It may or may not have specific reference to


some historical person, animal, object, event,
office, or institution. It may instead simply
employ the object to convey the idea.

2. Description of Symbol
The word "symbol" is from the Greek sun (with) and ballo (to throw),
that is, to throw one thing together with another so as to symbolize it.
Symbols or emblems may appear in a context where the details of the
passage point prophetically to a future realization of that which is the
essential significance of the symbols themselves. For example, cherubim in
Ezekiel 1 do not in themselves point to the future, but they symbolize
holiness and judgment. Details of the context here, however, point to the
future time when judgment will be unleashed by the God they represent (i.e.
588-586 B.C. and beyond this the distant future to which Ezekiel's prophecy
in chapters 34-48 ultimately reached).
Examples: Lion is a fitting symbol to depict the concept of strength and
dominion. This does not mean that every mention of "lion" in the Bible is to
be taken as symbolic. In some cases, "lion" refers only to the animal itself, as
when Samson killed the lion or Daniel was cast into the den of lions. Fire is
a symbol of purification (Isaiah 6:7) and of judgment (Matthew 3:10-12,
etc.). Cherubim seem to be related to holiness and judgment (Genesis 3;
Ezekiel 1, 10). Lamb symbolizes meekness (Isaiah 53). Horn symbolizes
dominion , success, or kingship (Daniel 7:7-8, 24).
C. Type and Parable
The word "parable" is from the Greek para (beside) and ballo (to throw).
Parables and types are also distinct.

121
1. A type has some definite historical reference (rooting), while a parable may
or may not have.
A parable may be something that could happen but may not have, or
something that does occur though the speaker is not necessarily looking at a
specific, isolated historical case. Or it could be something very much like
some actual case that did happen in history, for example, Luke 19:12ff is
much like the case of Archelaus of Matthew 2 when he traveled to Rome to
secure an appointment as successor of Herod the king and then returned to
Palestine (cf. M. C. Tenney, The New Testament: A Survey, pp. 64-65).
2. A type points to the future, while a parable can but does not necessarily do so.
A parable may only depict a situation of the present. A case of a parable
looking to the future is the Parable of the Ten Virgins (Matthew 25:1-12). An
example of a parable looking at the present is the parable of the old and new
wineskins (Mark 2:21-22).
D. Type and Allegory
The word "allegory", from the Greek allos (other) and agoreuo (to speak in a
marketplace or assembly), came to mean "to speak or write words that represent
some second thing".
1. A type and an allegory have in common the fact that each links one thing to
another which it represents.
But they, too, are distinct.
A type involves a historical basis in straight-forward language but
becomes an illustration also of something future. By contrast, an allegory is
an extended series of metaphors making a representation, but the basic
elements are not in themselves historical. They are construed or imagined in
order to represent, by analogy, some matter that is historical, or can be
enacted in concrete life on earth.
2. A type always foreshadows something future, while an allegory may but does
not necessarily point to the future.
The Good Shepherd (John 10) and the Vine and the Branches (John 15),
both allegories [those who refer to these as parables fail to make proper
distinctions], are not oriented to the future only; however, an allegory can, on
occasion, be employed so as to look to the future, as in Ezekiel's allegory of
the lioness and her whelps (Ezekiel 19).
E. Type and Sign

122
There are signs (miracles) to prove something or to picture it (John 2:1-11, cf.
v. 11; 20:30-31). There is much correspondence between a sign and a type, but
again, distinctiveness also. A sign, as in John's Gospel, may not have the
predictive element but simply speak of the contemporary situation, yet it has the
proof aspect. Illustrations are the feeding of the five thousand and the healing of
the nobleman's son.
Is Jonah just a "sign", as Matthew 12:39-40 says? Or is he both type and sign?
Perhaps both, but not necessarily; it may be simply that the kind of sign in Jonah's
case is repeated in Christ's (the proof element). A problem in seeing typology in
Jonah's being a type of resurrection is that Jonah was in the great fish by
disobedience to God's will; Christ was in the tomb as a result of full obedience.
F. Type and Vision
A type involves, among other things, elevation--a leap from a lower to a
higher--and starting with a normal historical matter. A vision may involve either
direct instruction about what to do now or a straight prediction about the future
with no move from something now (a type) to something later (an antitype). A
vision is often not a normal occurrence that can be seen and photographed
historically, but is in the realm of a dream, trance, or revelation that is seen only by
the recipient. Examples of visions are Ezekiel 8:1ff; Acts 9 (Paul seeing Christ);
Acts 10 (Cornelius' experience); Acts 16:9; etc.
G. Type and Dream Vision
A direct prophecy may come in a dream, for example Genesis 28 (Jacob's
ladder); Genesis 37,40 (Joseph's and Pharoah's dreams); and Daniel 2, 7
(Nebuchadnezzar's and Daniel's dreams). Such is not a type, but it is direct
prophecy, prophetical in the realm of a dream (cf. John 1:51). Such a dream is not
a concrete physical occurrence, historical as a type is, but is in the realm of the
inward consciousness, though it is factual and real in that sphere just as much as a
historical occurrence is in its realm.
H. Type and Illustration
A type points from a lesser to a greater, whereas an illustration has the same
principle on the same level in the Old and New Testaments.
The following is a partial list of illustrations included in the Scripture:
1. David and the shewbread (cf. Matthew 12)
2. Job's patience (cf. Job; James 5)
3. Elijah's prayer (cf. 1 Kin. 17-18; James 5)
4. David sparing Saul twice (1 Samuel)

123
5. Saul doing carnal things (1 Samuel 13-31)
6. Abraham refusing spoils (Genesis 14)
7. Caleb asking for the mountain where the giants are (the hard task)
8. Jethro suggesting to Moses that he get help to divide the labor (Exodus 18)
9. Jeremiah wanting to write a letter of resignation (Jeremiah 20)
10. Abraham being magnanimous in giving Lot first choice (Genesis 13)
11. Nehemiah refusing to come down from the wall and his work
12. Ezra preparing in the law of his God (Ezra 7:10)
13. Ahaz declining to believe God (Isaiah 7)
14. Ezekiel bearing up well when his beloved dies (Ezekiel 24)
15. Ezekiel sitting where his people sit (Ezekiel 3)
16. Daniel purposing to remain pure (Daniel 1:8)
17. Daniel trusting God for a solution (Daniel 2)
18. Daniel praying for others (Daniel 9)
19. The three friends of Daniel being steadfast toward God in a trial (Daniel 3)
20. Hosea's love for his wife even when she was unfaithful (Hosea 1-3)
21. Amos' willingness to leave his work and be God's prophet (Amos 7)
22. Jonah's disobedience (Jonah 1, etc.)
23. Israelites putting their own interests ahead of God's (Haggai 1)
24. An unclean thing making the clean dirty (Haggai 2)

124
IV. DETERMINATION OF A TYPE
This section discusses the issue of how we may determine if a given item in the Old
Testament is a type and it includes the criteria to look for. (See also the chart at the end
of this study of Typology).
The determination of a type is one of the most debatable areas of the subject and,
therefore, one of the most difficult. What is clearly a type in the thinking of one
interpreter is not a type at all to another who may choose to designate it as a parable, an
allegory, a symbol, or only an analogous illustration. Obviously, the critical question
that is really determinative here is: What are the criteria for what constitutes a valid
type? That is, what qualifications, guidelines, or essentials must be present to
demonstrate that one item is truly a type and another is not? It is easy to see that the
more loose one is about the criteria on which he insists, the longer will be his list of
items that pass as types. The converse of this is also true. Of course, interpreters here
are divided according to their convictions.
Among those who believe that types are legitimate, there are the three broad groups
discussed previously in Section I. The student will find it profitable, to the degree of
the time and quality of examination he can give it, to read in sources cited for the
various positions. This course is of a survey nature, and any detailed investigation may
have to wait until a later opportunity.
The position of this writer is given previously in Section I. C. 2. under typology
(please refer back to it), the view championed by Fairbairn and Terry. I appreciate,
however, the motives and serious work of Friederichsen, generally following Marsh, to
set criteria to curb wild excesses by those who see too much as typical. All of these
views are discussed in Section I above. In my understanding, we may recognize a
legitimate type as I specify below. These guidelines are not original but used by many
others as well (cf. for example, Joseph Frey, The Scripture Types, volume I, p. 24;
Campbell, "The Interpretation of Types", p. 253, cited previously).
One clarification is necessary before this subject is discussed further. A type may
be either innate or inferred. To say that it is innate means that there is a specific or
definite statement in some way solidly showing it to be a type (see Sections B and C
below). To say that it is inferred means that, in the honest grappling and distilled
judgment of the interpreter, there is evidence such as manifest analogy and strong
suggestion or inference from New Testament statements sufficient to make it a safe and
sane conclusion.
Some suggested criteria which hopefully will help the student decide whether or
not a given Old Testament possibility for a type is really to be regarded as a type are as
follows:
A. Is it historical?
That is, can one be sure the possibility is actually historical in the Old
Testament? The lamb an Israelite would offer at the Tabernacle was a historical

125
reality; in fact, there were many lambs pointing on to "the Lamb" (John 1:29, etc.).
But the trees choosing a king in a made up story (Judges 9) were not in themselves
claimed to be historical; this is a story (fable) of imagination and utterance to
illustrate a situation in the context which is historical.
B. Is there specific indication in Scripture?
The first Adam is a type of the last Adam, Christ, as shown by a direct
statement calling him a "type of the one to come" (Romans 5:14). The word "type"
or "figure" here is the Greek tupos. (The writer recognizes that some deny to tupos
here the theological sense of a type and see some other meaning. For example,
there is the position that Paul is claiming no more than that Adam was, in the sense
the context specifies, analogous to Christ). Another area of specific indication is in
Hebrews 5 - 10 where various aspects of the Tabernacle and priesthood are typical
of Christ's redemption and priesthood.
C. Is there a direct interchange of terminology?
The Passover of Israel, when the nation was delivered on the basis of blood in
Egypt (Exodus 12), is typical of Christ who is our Passover (1 Corinthians 5:7).
Here the name of an Old Testament matter is employed by the New Testament
writer in such a way as to register a clear impression that the Old Testament item is
regarded as a type. That the Passover prefigures Christ is clear from a direct
interchange of terms. In the same kind of way, the lamb of the Old Testament is
linked with Christ as a type to the antitype, for the sinner may be purified by the
blood of Christ "as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" (1 Peter 1:19).
Here, John 1:29 aids the connection, for Christ is called "the lamb of God". Another
such case is the Old Testament manna (Exodus 16) as a type of Christ, the bread
from heaven (John 6); in this instance, Christ specifically has the background of the
manna in view and claims point-blank, as if to be the corresponding antitype that
fulfills, "I am the bread of life" (v. 35; cf. also vv. 32, 33, 48, 50, 51, etc.).
D. Is there a manifest and sensible analogy? Is there one or are there several
analogies?
Here, the interpreter sees a type-antitype relationship where certain factors
involving the two line up in a distinct, natural analogy of resemblance, and where
direct New Testament statements clearly have in view just such truth as the Old
Testament item depicts, but on an elevated level. Here we need more than pious
intuition, personal whim, or dogmatic preference as a valid go-ahead signal. This
principle, though reasonable in itself according to this writer, suffers much at the
hands of its friends. Some are not careful to weigh an item against New Testament
evidence in such a responsible way as to make a solid, safe, and sane association.
Any flimsy similarity is enough for them. Preachers often select men or aspects of
the Old Testament times as types and snatch up certain small, arbitrary points upon
which to hang their sermons. James Hastings has aptly called this the practice of
"hanging great weights on small wires" that are likely to break (The Greater Men

126
and Women of the Bible, volume II, p. 498). Any good principle may be misused
and discredited by exaggeration. We must be careful that the so-called type is a
true picture of that to which it purportedly points without dubious straining or
round-about explanation. We must be hard on ourselves (as we often are on others)
to guard against "managing" certain details conveniently toward the effect we have
our hearts set on, unless there is reasonable evidence.
Several examples of possible types that appear to this writer to fall into this
category of manifest and sensible analogy are listed below:
1. Joseph
Why? His life and experience have several solid analogies to Christ as a
deliverer raised up by God. These are easily gleaned from Old Testament
records in a natural and spontaneous way without straining. It is true,
unfortunately, that some become over-ambitious in fishing out alleged
analogies until some of their points are rather farfetched and labored (cf. for
example, A. Habershon, A Study of Types, appendix; A. W. Pink, Gleanings
in Genesis; cf. also a more restrained list in W. Graham Scroggie, The
Unfolding Drama of Redemption, volume I, p. 129). That does not destroy
the validity of correspondences which are clear as attested by a great number
of capable interpreters. We must not throw out the baby with the bath water.
Or, to use another picture, we must not cut away the good parts of the potato
while getting rid of the dark spots. Joseph was a reasonably fitting type of
Christ, and much divine arrangement in his life and experience appears to
have made him so.
2. The brazen serpent (Numbers 21; John 3)
Christ draws a clear analogy in John 3:14, likening the lifting up of the
brazen serpent to the lifting up of the Son of Man. The fact that there is
simply an "as" connection does not really prove that this is only an analogous
illustration. The "as" connection may be used where a true type is involved
in the comparison, for example, 1 Peter 1:19, "as of a lamb unblemished and
spotless . . . ."
3. The smitten rock
God told Moses to smite the rock (Exodus 17) and at a later time and
place commanded him simply to speak to the rock. In disobedience, he
smote it instead on this second occasion (Numbers 20). Here, there must be
good reason for the distinct commands of God in similar episodes. It seems
to the writer that the smiting of the rock is arranged and designed by God to
be a picture of the act which opens to men the abundant blessing of the
gracious God. This is true in the historical context itself as the water supply
meets the need of the people of Israel. The same is true in the corresponding
New Testament situation when Christ, the greater Rock (cf. 1 Corinthians

127
10:4 and other passages), is smitten (Isaiah 53:4). This is once and for all
(Romans 6:10; Hebrews 10:10), with the result that blessing is opened up to
men, even "rivers of living water" by the Holy Spirit (John 7:37-39). In the
second episode, God instructs Moses simply to speak to the rock for blessing
(Numbers 20). It seems reasonable and solid to connect this with the greater
blessing available today in Christ the Rock when we come and speak boldly
to Him and experience the flow of His grace to meet all of our needs
(Hebrews 4:16). When we see that He was smitten once for us, and take this
death as meeting needs more ultimate than simply to satisfy physical thirst,
we realize that the one smiting was sufficient. Now it is our part only to
speak and to take Gods flow of supply by faith. In this case of a possible
type, there is manifest analogy between the two historical situations (Old
Testament) and the clear statements of more ultimate provisions by God
(New Testament).
E. Is there evidence of specific divine arrangement?
God specifically told Israelites to bring sacrificial lambs. He specifically
commanded that the furniture of the Tabernacle be made and set up, and orientated
the furniture with a relationship of fellowship between the one who offered and
Himself. He specifically arranged things in Joseph's life to make him a deliverer
of his people (Genesis 37:5-11; 45:7-8; 50:20; etc.), and so he is reasonably
regarded as a type of the greater Deliverer, Christ. God specifically arranged (when
He commanded Moses) that a fiery serpent be erected on a standard, so that
whoever in the camp should look at it by faith in God who made the promise might
live (Numbers 21:8-9), and so Christ makes a connection with Himself (John 3:1415).
F. Is there an elevation from the type to the antitype?
That is, do we see a clear movement from the lesser to the greater? We do in
John 1:29; 3:14-15; 1 Corinthians 5:7.
G. Is there specificity?
While a symbol involves that which can be true at various times without any
necessary specific elevation from a lesser to a greater (i.e. a "horn" often
symbolizes dominion or kingship, as in Daniel 7:7-8,24 and Zechariah 1:18-19,
etc.), a type should point on to and finally drop down on one specific New
Testament person, animal, object, event, office, or institution. The sacrificial lamb,
in God's arrangement, always points on through the centuries to Christ, the greater
sacrifice, and so there is a specificity in that Old Testament lamb in a sacrificial
context. The serpent lifted up in the wilderness, in addition to serving its Godarranged function historically, points on specifically to Christ lifted up.

128
EVALUATION OF POSSIBLE TYPES
ITEM

Lamb

Brazen Serpent

David

A
HISTORICITY

Yes (Leviticus 1-7


etc.)

Yes (Numbers 21)

Yes (1 Samuel, 1
Kings, etc.)

B
SPECIFIC
INDICATION

John 1:29

John 3:14-15

Possibly Jeremiah
30:9; Ezekiel 34:23,
24; 37:24

C
EXCHANGE OF
TERMS

Lamb, sins taken


away

Look, Live; Believe,


Have Eternal Life

Acts 2:20,
Throne of David;
cf. 2 Samuel 7:16

D
ANALOGY

Sin-bearer

Faith in Gods
provision

Ideal king and


shepherd

E
DIVINE
ARRANGEMENT

Yes, God gave order

Yes, God told Moses


(Numbers 21)

Yes, God had greater


David in mind

F
ELEVATION

Israel to world

Physical to spiritual;
Temporal to eternal

David to Christ

G
SPECIFICITY

Yes, uniquely
Christ

Yes, uniquely
Christ

Yes, uniquely
Christ

CONCLUSION

Yes

Yes

Yes

129
EVALUATION OF POSSIBLE TYPES (continued)
ITEM

Joseph

Adam

Melchizedek

A
HISTORICITY

Yes (Genesis 37-50


etc.)

Yes (Genesis 1-5)

Yes (Genesis 14;


Psalm 110; Hebrews
7)

B
SPECIFIC
INDICATION

No

Romans 5:14;
1 Corinthians 15:45

Hebrews 7, the very


name used

C
EXCHANGE OF
TERMS

No use of his name


Yes, idea of deliverer

First Adam,
Last Adam
1 Corinthians 15:45

King/priest,
particularly
priest...order of
Melchizedek

D
ANALOGY

Several sane ones

Head of race

Continuing
priesthood

E
DIVINE
ARRANGEMENT

Yes (Genesis 37:610; 45:5-9)

Yes, God set Adam in


creation, Christ in
new creation

Yes, God lead


Melchizedek in
Genesis 14:18; and
cf. Hebrews 7)

F
ELEVATION

Physical to spiritual
deliverance

Given life, gives life;


his one act superior
in result

Literary record to full


eternality

G
SPECIFICITY

Yes, uniquely
Christ

Yes, uniquely
Christ

Yes, uniquely
Christ

CONCLUSION

Yes

Yes

Yes

130
EVALUATION OF POSSIBLE TYPES (continued)
ITEM

Ladder

Moses = Raised
Hands

Sheep

A
HISTORICITY

No, a dream vision


(Genesis 28:12)

Yes (Exodus 17)

Many historical, but


no specific sheep

B
SPECIFIC
INDICATION

No, John 1:51 does


not clearly claim

No

Gods people (1 Peter


5:2, 3)

C
EXCHANGE OF
TERMS

Similarity in John
1:51

Not unless we use


lifting up holy
hands
(1 Timothy 2:8; cf.
Luke 24:50)

Could make a case,


yet sheep in both Old
and New Testaments
= believers, so no
change

D
ANALOGY

God bridges heaven


and earth

Prayer in contact
with God

Stray; submit
meekly; etc.

E
DIVINE
RRANGEMENT

Yes, but not as type;


rather as
dream/vision

Maybe; nothing
specific in Exodus 17

God uses the picture,


but it is timeless, a
symbol

F
ELEVATION

Ladder to Christ; or
no elevation because
supernatural in both

No; both mean


contact with God by
men

No; men same in Old


and New Testaments
as sheep

G
SPECIFICITY

Yes, uniquely Christ

No, true of all Gods


people; all can pray

Yes, but timelessly


true and not unique

CONCLUSION

No, a dream vision

No, an illustration

No, a symbol

131
EVALUATION OF POSSIBLE TYPES (continued)
ITEM

Jonah

Elijahs prayer for rain

Elijah and John

A
HISTORICITY

Yes (2 Kings 14:25;


etc.)

Yes (1 Kings 17:1;


18:1)

Yes (1 Kings)

B
SPECIFIC
INDICATION

Matthew 12:39-41, but


seems to focus on
proof (sign) element, a
miracle

Not really; James 5


refers to it as an
illustration

Matthew 11, 17; Luke


1; can be simply a
symbolical name

C
EXCHANGE OF
TERMS

Jonah inside great fish


for three days (could
just focus on time
element as proof)

Not really

Not really

D
ANALOGY

Jonah did not die; point


may be three days, not
that Jonah died, etc.

Prayer today (James


5:17)

Similar ministry
(Malachi 4)

E
DIVINE
ARRANGEMENT

God arranged it, but as


a sign, not a type (cf.
wording in Matt.
12:39-41)

No more than other


spiritual aspects of
faithful people

Malachi 4--just direct


prophecy, using name
Elijah as symbolical
of role or function

F
ELEVATION

greater than Jonah


(Matthew 12:41)

No; believers in both


cases

No; Matthew 11:11


does not say this

G
SPECIFICITY

Possibly; , uniquely
Christ

No; illustration for


believers in OT and NT
could pray!

No, can just be direct


prophecy

CONCLUSION

No

No

No

132
EVALUATION OF POSSIBLE TYPES (continued)
ITEM

Furniture in
Tabernacle forms a
cross

Elishas stick for


retrieving lost ax
head

Enoch

A
HISTORICITY

Arbitrary; may not be


a cross

Yes (2 Kings 6:6-7)

Yes (Genesis 5)

B
SPECIFIC
INDICATION

No

No

No, just a reference


to rapture of
believers (1
Thessalonians 4)

C
EXCHANGE OF
TERMS

No

No

No

D
ANALOGY

Cross, but cf. A


above

Raising Christ who


was lost in heart of
earth (not so; He was
not lost!)

Rapture of believers

E
DIVINE
ARRANGEMENT

Dubious; nowhere
hinted at in Scripture
wording

Dubious

No indication that
God was arranging it
with reference to
anyone else

F
ELEVATION

Yes; if true, it would


be

Yes; if true

No; rapture is rapture


in either case

G
SPECIFICITY

Yes, so claimed

Yes

Yes

CONCLUSION

No

No

No

133
EVALUATION OF POSSIBLE TYPES (continued)
* Continue with your own example below:
ITEM

Call of Isaiah

Five bars in
Tabernacle

A
HISTORICITY

Yes (Isaiah 6)

Yes (Exodus 26:26)

B
SPECIFIC
INDICATION

No

No

C
EXCHANGE OF
TERMS

No

No

D
ANALOGY

Consecration to holy
service

Middle bar = deity of


Christ; others the
items of Acts 2:42)

E
DIVINE
ARRANGEMENT

God did it, but not as


a type

No true one; only


imagination,
straining

F
ELEVATION

No

Yes, imagined but


far-fetched

G
SPECIFICITY

Yes

Yes

CONCLUSION

No

No

134
TOPIC SEVEN: PROPHECY
I. THE IMPORTANCE OF PROPHECY
Why is prophecy important?
A. Because it unfolds the Person and program of God!
This is very important and a lot of space in the Bible is devoted to it. Lewis
Sperry Chafer says that "at least one-fifth of the Bible was, at the time it was
written, an anticipation of the future" (Systematic Theology, volume I, p. xxxii).
B. Because of the symmetry it gives to the student as he avoids two bad extremes.
1. Play it down.
The Christian may play down or skip over sections devoted to prophecy,
or he may even be hostile toward it. He fancies that his task is to concentrate
on the center of God's message, truth relating to salvation and spiritual living.
But this can badly distort the message of the Bible by pulling salvation and
godliness away from the prophetic setting to which they are so frequently
vitally wedded. Prophecies have already been fulfilled in Christ's Person and
work of salvation, and others are yet to be realized in the final triumph of
Christ and the consummation of His salvation purposes. One can have a true
perspective of the one only by leaving it in its proper perspective with the
other. They are like Siamese twins. When the Christian sees them in their
proper relationship and balance as parts of one whole, he gains the symmetry
Christ intends.
2. Ride a hobby horse to death.
If you make the pious claim that you are going to concentrate only on
salvation and spiritual living, you may fragment the Word. The same is true
the other way, too, for one can focus on prophecy and virtually do nothing
else. Or he can treat prophecy in such a fashion as to be concerned only with
proving his system and possibly lose the essence of salvation and godly
living at the heart of prophecy. On the proper side, one can write much to
prove a system and still maintain a sensitivity to salvation and spiritual
fervor.
C. Because of its stimulation to godly living.
Right at the heart of the prophetical message wherever one goes in the Bible is
the message of holiness communicated by the God Who is Holy. Portions of
prophecy abound with voices exhorting us to the godliness of living faith. Even
John, the beloved apostle, the last writer of a New Testament book, speaking as the
last voice giving inspired Scripture to us, emphasizes the relation between the hope

135
set before us and the purity of life it begets within us (1 John 3:1-3; Book of
Revelation). Hudson Taylor, founder of the China Inland Mission now called
Overseas Missionary Fellowship, studied the biblical truth of the coming of Christ
and was so profoundly gripped by it that he took rigorous inventory of his life and
living quarters. He wanted to be prepared for the coming of his Lord, and desired
that Christ would be pleased even with what books and magazines He might find in
his possession! (A Retrospect, by Hudson Taylor).
II. DIFFICULTIES IN THE INTERPRETATION OF PROPHECY
A. The Confusion of Terminology
Ramm shows that different scholars use the same terms with different
meanings in mind. When one uses the word "literal" in reference to interpretation,
he may have in view the normal, sensible, customary idea of the words. Another
person, using the same word, is disdaining a type of interpretation that he feels-rightly or wrongly--is wooden, letteristic, and not sensitive to the possibilities of
such factors as hyperbole, figurative language, etc. (cf. Ramm, Protestant Biblical
Interpretation, Latest Rev. Ed., pp. 241-44).
B. The Ambiguity (Indistinctness) of Prophecy
The possibilities of meaning in a given prophecy are not always evident on the
surface or at the time the prophecy is first given or even to us today. Also, there
may be in one prophecy both a near and a far aspect of fulfillment.
C. The Amount of Prophecy
As Chafer estimated, at least one-fifth of the Bible was prophecy at the time it
was first given (ST, IV, 256), and in another place, he says prophecy makes up
almost one-fourth of the Bible (ST, VII, 257)--20% is almost 25%. The sheer bulk
of predictive material in various parts of the Bible and at widely separated times
adds to the complexity of determining the proper integration and correlation of all
the facets and the fulfillment points to which they all reach. J. B. Payne shows a
great number of prophecies in his Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy.
D. The Argument over Prophecy
If the Biblical factors involved in prophecy were so absolutely unequivocal
that all interpreters could basically agree on one general system, it would be a
relatively simple matter. But since factors in Scripture are understood and
correlated in different ways, different systems result, new views on points are often
popping up, and the divergence in these is sometimes quite radical. The variation
goes back basically to the principles of interpretation which determine how a
given person views the same details of prophecy.

136
1. The problem of discussion on the issues
a. No person has learned all of the truth or sees the whole picture with
perfect accuracy and objectivity. It is a big problem, and some people
cannot get at the root questions to settle the matter properly for the
following reasons:
1) Lack of adequate preparation, tools, and the like so as to be
equipped to do a competent job.
Many Christians are in this class, and we who have had the
unspeakable privilege of special training should see ourselves as
stewards who must share with them what we can say is so from
honest study.
2) Lack of time due to responsibilities along lines of Christian service
other than study.
Christians have to depend upon others in whom they can place
their confidence to do a trustworthy job, and get their convictions
about certain matters on the run.
3) Lack of vital interest to pursue the issues down into the depths and
stay with them with dogged persistence until they can come to some
solidly defensible conclusions.
Much of the literature of prophecy has been popular and
shallow, failing to get underneath the issues in a serious and
determinative way. Books often handle the big questions with a
"once over lightly" kind of style. It is amazing how some think they
have dug deeply and gone to great lengths when they have actually
hardly scratched the surface and left many key questions unthought
of and untouched.
4) Lack of objectivity.
One is unable to view the issues calmly apart from the past
perspective of some beloved pastor's teachings, the views of the
denomination, the desire for security, or some unpleasant experience
connected to a certain view that colors his thinking.
5) Lack of ability to think logically, perceptively, and precisely in order
to know what is a valid argument that probes a point and what is
inconclusive.
Some can study for years and only rearrange prejudices and
misconceptions within their system.

137
b. There has been misrepresentation in the literature and discussion of all
groups involved.
This is inexcusable but happily forgivable. Each system has its
proponents who say, "This fact is sufficient for anyone who accepts the
Bible as the Word of God," implying falsely that those of another
prophetical system do not! (cf. F. E. Hamilton, The Basis of Millennial
Faith, p. 79). Dispensationalists sometimes misconstrue amillennialists
as being Romish, holding the fanciful allegorical views of Philo, or
spiritualizing every passage. At the same time, amillennialists and nondispensational premillennialists label dispensationalists as destroying the
unity of Scripture, teaching different methods of salvation in the Old
Testament and the New Testament, etc. One popular book against
dispensationalism a few years ago displayed the author's ignorance of
and misrepresentation of the system he was discrediting on many of its
pages.
It is our hope that we might live like the sons of God even in this
area of life, by being knowledgeable, honest, and charitable even where
we may disagree. However, to argue firmly for a view along careful lines
and refute other views can be done in love or a lack of it.
c. There are areas of agreement as well as disagreement.
The dispensationalist and the non-dispensationalist can often agree
on precious doctrines of the faith outside the particular field of prophecy,
such as the inspiration of Scripture or the resurrection of Christ. And
even in the matter of eschatology they are in harmony on certain points.
We need to think through on the true grounds on which we might have
Christian fellowship lest we exclude brethren today who stand exactly in
the place of past defenders of the fundamentals whose books we gladly
use and for whom we thank the Lord.
2. The systems of interpretation
There are more systems than will be considered in this survey. Some are
more crucial to the normal conservative Christian leader than others; these
are discussed below.
a. Amillennial
The word itself is a compound of "a", the alpha privative meaning
"no", as in a-theist; "mille", meaning "a thousand"; and "annum",
meaning "years". The label for the system is derived from Revelation 20
which refers six times to a thousand years. The amillennial theologian
(1) does not believe that there will be a millennium in the literal sense of
a thousand-year period, and (2) does not place it chronologically
between Christ's second advent and the ultimate state. Rather, he sees

138
the thousand years as symbolical in some sense, either the present church
age on earth or else in the bliss of heaven after a believer dies (George
Murray, Millennial Studies; F. E. Hamilton, The Basis of Millennial
Faith; also Hamilton, "Amillennialism", Zondervan Pictorial
Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume 1, pp. 129-33).
There have been liberal amillennialists (Elmer G. Homrighausen,
Contemporary Religious Thought, ed. by T. S. Kepler, p. 372) and
conservative amillennialists (Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church;
Edward J. Young, works on Isaiah, and Daniel; H. C. Leupold, works on
Isaiah, Daniel, and Zechariah; Keil and Delitzsch, Old Testament
commentaries, etc.; Martin J. Wyngaarden, The Future of the Kingdom;
R. C. H. Lenski, commentaries on the whole New Testament; William
Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors (on Revelation), and also Simon
Kistemakers commentary (on Revelation); Louis Berkhof, Systematic
Theology).
Amillennialists insist on these crucial points. Many details of Old
Testament prophecy to Israel were never intended to relate to Israel
distinctively but to the church which would one day be the new Israel.
Details about the restoration of Israel to the land and enjoyment of
blessings such as crop prosperity and harvest abundance expect a
spiritual and not a material-literal fulfillment. The literal details were
only cultural accommodations important to Israel in the historical day so
that they could visualize graphically the idea of blessing in concrete
terms that would be most communicative to them. In the actual form of
fulfillment, the cultural features (i.e. a restoration to Palestine, etc.) fall
away and the blessing is on a higher level.
b. Postmillennial
The thousand years are understood symbolically as referring to a
long duration but not necessarily a thousand years exactly. They will
transpire in a golden age (era) during the last part of the present age as
Christ rules spiritually among church saints (so L. Boettner, The
Millennium; R. J. Rushdoony, Thy Kingdom Come; Norman Shepherd,
"Postmillennialism", ZPEB, 4:822-23; W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic
Theology; Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology; B. B. Warfield, "The
Millennium and the Apocalypse", Biblical Doctrines, pp. 643, 664; cf.
answer to postmillennialism of Boettner in Floyd E. Hamilton,
"Amillennialism", ZPEB, 1:132. Other postmillennial advocates are: J.
Marcellus Kik, Matthew Twenty-Four, also Revelation Twenty, also An
Eschatology of Victory; and Iain Murray, The Puritan Hope). Shepherd
says that while the theology of the liberal social gospel is postmillennial,
it is very different from orthodox postmillennial thought.

139
Instead of a millennium wrought by the power of God, the gospel
of social betterment offered an optimism rooted in a naturalistic
evolution culminating in a man-made utopia. This is, in effect, a
demythologized postmillennialism . . . (p. 823).
At around the 1980s forward what is called Dominion or
Reconstructionist Theology advocates a postmillennial perspective.
Among the many writers are Greg Bahnsen, Gary North, Curtis
Crenshaw, Kenneth Gentry, David Chilton and David Clark. Two
commentaries on the Book of Revelation are examples. David Chilton
wrote The Days of Vengeance, An Exposition of the Book of Revelation
(Fort Worth, TX: Dominion Press, 1987, 721 pp.), and David S. Clark
did The Message from Patmos: A Postmillennial Commentary on the
Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989, 148 pp.). Gentry
elaborates his system in Before Jerusalem Fell, and more briefly in his
chapter in Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin Pate.
That Book also has Robert L. Thomass chapter defending a
premillennial view of the Revelation and answering Gentry. For detail by
a premillennialist answering Preterist arguments, cf. Mark Hitchcocks
five article series in Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 163 (Oct-Dec) and 164 (four
issues); cf. also J. Randall Prices chs. 14-15 in The End Times
Controversy, ed. by Tim La Haye and Thomas Ice, his answer to
Preterists. Hitchcock and Price mention other sources. The one above ed.
by La Haye and Ice has 17 chapters responding to Preterist reasoning.
c. Premillennial (non-dispensational)
Premillennial means previous to the millennium, that is, Christ's
coming to this earth is premillennial. Premillennialists hold that Christ's
Messianic Kingdom will begin with an actual period (segment) lasting a
thousand years before there is a transition out into the ultimate eternal
state. Here, there is agreement with the premillennial dispensational
view. But in some details the view is different. The church is the "new
Israel" or "Israel of God" (Galatians 6:16) in the present age. This
system tends to spiritualize many of the Old Testament prophetic
passages and apply them to the church, as in Isaiah (cf. Gleason Archer,
"Isaiah", in Wycliffe Bible Commentary); to deny a literal future temple
with sacrifices in Ezekiel 40-46; to teach a posttribulational rapture of
the church and so to see the rapture in the second advent context of the
Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24-25; etc. Exponents of this view include
past or present scholars: Alexander Reese, The Approaching Advent of
Christ; Erich Sauer, The Triumph of the Crucified and From Eternity to
Eternity; Robert Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days; George E. Ladd,
The Blessed Hope, also Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God,
and Jesus and the Kingdom; and Clarence Bass, Backgrounds to
Dispensationalism.

140
d. Premillennial Dispensational
This position agrees with the view immediately above in regard to
the coming of Christ before the millennium and the actuality of a
thousand years on earth following Christ's advent. It is called
"dispensational" because it sees several distinct administrations of God
by which He rules in different ages. Older dispensationalists often
taught seven of these--innocence, conscience, civil government, promise,
law, grace (or church), and Messianic Kingdom. There is latitude here,
however, and three are the most crucial--law, grace, and kingdom; some
prefer to label these Israel, church, and kingdom.
The idea of a "dispensation" (from the Greek oikonomia, meaning
economy, administration, stewardship, or way God rules His household)
leads to the title. Features of the position are matters like these:
distinction between Israel and the church so that Israel has a distinctive
future yet to come and the church is a body formed by God and
completed in this present age; a pretribulational rapture of the church out
of the world, with the tribulation then relating more particularly to Israel
(Revelation 7:3-8; 12:1ff) and the nations (Revelation 7:9ff); and specific
fulfillment of details in the prophets relating to the Messianic Kingdom,
such as a literal temple and sacrifices which are not expiatory (thus do
not conflict with Christ's once-for-all sacrifice) but memorial. However,
even here certain dispensationalists do not accept all of these features.
Some, for example, do not believe there will be a rebuilt temple and
sacrifices resumed as a literal fulfillment of Ezekiel (so J. S. Baxter,
Explore the Book, cf. on Ezekiel).
It is good to remember that dispensationalism does not necessarily
stand or fall on the basis of certain views taken on certain passages by
certain men who are dispensationalists. Just as in other systems, there is
variety or flexibility of opinion on the meaning of many particular
passages of the Bible, with some scholars being more solid and accurate
in their exegesis at certain points than others. Certain claims made by
some but not studied through carefully have embarrassed the
dispensational system but are not necessary to the overall position and so
should not be used against it by responsible, fair, and honest scholars of
other persuasions. The same is true of the other systems.
Normative dispensationalism of the 1950's-1970's, and after, as held
by many who have most competently articulated the position, is different
on some points from popular-type dispensationalism farther back.
Among the more definitive works on most points are: Charles C. Ryrie,
The Basis of the Premillennial Faith and Dispensationalism Today; John
F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom; The Revelation of Jesus Christ
(on Revelation); and Daniel, Key to Prophetic Revelation; Charles L.
Feinberg, Jeremiah; The Prophecy of Ezekiel; The Minor Prophets; and

141
Amillennialism or Premillennialism?; Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of
the Kingdom, and Daniel's Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks; Merrill F.
Unger, Zechariah; W. E. Vine, Isaiah; J. D. Pentecost, Things to Come;
Leon J. Wood, Daniel, A Commentary; Robert L. Thomas, "1 and 2
Thessalonians"; Expositors Bible Commentary, ed. F. C. Gaebelein;
Bible Knowledge Commentary, 2 volumes, eds. J. F. Walvoord and Roy
B. Zuck; plus Bibliotheca Sacra, a quarterly theological journal
emanating from Dallas Seminary, and for some years then discontinued
the Grace Theological Journal from Grace Theological Seminary.
In the past fifteen years or so, while the above works in many
respects continue to represent dispensational views on most passages and
some writers continue, the same or newer voices articulate reasoning for
more continuity between divine purposes for Israel and the church in the
present age and forward. They do this while maintaining a distinctive
future fulfillment of land promises given to Israel, with distinctions
between a millennial phase of the kingdom and the ultimate aspect in
new heavens and new earth. Among the newer works are: Donald K.
Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend, eds., A Case for Premillennialism, a
New Consensus (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992, 289 pp.); and in a
Progressive Dispensational vein Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock,
Eds., Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, The Search for
Definition, 10 writers, with responses from non-dispensationalists
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992, 402 pp.). Recent dispensational works
are by John S. Feinberg, Ed., Continuity and Discontinuity. Perpsectives
on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, Essays in
Honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1988,
410 pp.), and Robert L. Saucy, A Case For Progressive
Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993).
Some sources that represent in many cases what many
dispensationalists hold in common are: Bibliotheca Sacra, The Master's
Seminary Journal, and entries in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 2
vols., eds. J. S. Walvoord and Roy Zuck (Wheaton: Victor Books, 19831985), on various prophetical books. Also cf. The MacArthur Study
Bible notes on such books as Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Matthew, the
Thessalonian Epistles, and Revelation.
3. The crucial questions that divide interpreters
a. The most determinative issue (the real crux) in separating one system
from another is how one uses the method of hermeneutics.
Should I be literal or non-literal in my interpretation? If literal, how
literal should I be? The answer is that no one is literal in the physical
sense on every point without being sensitive to recognize, to some
degree or another or at some point or another, the flexible possibilities of

142
language. Even when we interpret figurative language, however, we
should seek to see a literal truth behind the comparison or analogy or
correspondence out of one realm into the other. Our aim should be to see
this in the sense that the writer or speaker (or the Lord speaking
through him) intends it at the moment it is given.
There are certain problems the interpreter of prophecy has to face,
and the way a given interpreter handles these shapes the direction and
content of his position. Some of these are stated below. The purpose
here is not to deal with each of these to solve them but simply to survey
what the issues are.
b. Why does the New Testament actually quote or allude to the Old
Testament prophecies?
It connects with the church verses originally relating to Israel (Isaiah
54:1 with Galatians 4:27; Jeremiah 31:31-34 with Hebrews 8:6-13; Joel
2:28-32 with Acts 2:17-21; Hosea 2:23 with Romans 9:25-26; and
others). In doing this, do the New Testament writers claim or infer that
the fulfillment expected for Israel has actually come true in the church
and that the church therefore is the spiritual Israel that the Old Testament
meant, and, as such, heir of all that the Old Testament promises? A whole
host of related questions would then follow.
Or, on the other hand, are the New Testament writers indicating only
a partial fulfillment today of certain spiritual blessings which even
Gentiles need as much as Jews, and with a fulfillment yet ahead for
Israel which will involve both the spiritual and the material aspects
found in the prophecies?
Or, are the New Testament writers at some points citing Old
Testament passages only to show clear analogies between what is
promised to national Israel and what is realized by the church?
c. What should we do with the Old Testament details about armaments,
means of travel (Isaiah 66), and nations surrounding Israel?
Are we to view these as literal, or not? There are passages referring
to weapons (swords, spears, bows, arrows, etc.) to be used in battles at
the time the prophecies are fulfilled. Will soldiers use such armaments
in that day, a wholesale retrogression from the advanced weapons
employed already in our time? Or are these arms framed in terms of
Israel's culture in the prophet's own day but actually descriptive of the
latest arms available at the time the battles are fulfilled? And what about
references to Assyria (Isaiah 11, etc.) and such nations which have
passed from the world scene? Will those be revived to appear under the
same ancient names, or do the words really refer to future nations in the

143
same areas, which may be called by different titles in the time of
fulfillment (as "David" refers at times to Christ the greater David, and as
"Elijah" refers to John the Baptist)? Or do they point to a future enemy
not even from the same area but conceived under the image of the past
name (as "Jerusalem" refers to "Sodom" and "Egypt" of Old Testament
times in Revelation 11)?
If we say that the prophets used terms suitable to their culture to
depict different forms of arms or nations in a future culture or setting,
does consistency then make it necessary to say that promises involving
the land, Israel, Jerusalem, and the temple may be fulfilled in a different
form also? That is, do they anticipate spiritual realities of New
Testament times?
d. What do we say about the alleged silence of the New Testament
regarding the specific detail of Israel's restoration to Palestine?
Amillennialists love to bring this up in efforts to enhance their own
system in which land promises evaporate as such and refer instead to
spiritual blessings for the church (cf. A. B. Davidson, Old Testament
Prophecy, last chapter). They argue that even Romans 11:25-26, though
speaking of a future for Israel, has nothing to say that is right to the point
on this precise question of restoration to the land.
e. What do we say about the silence of the New Testament concerning the
specific detail of a millennial temple and system of animal sacrifices (as
in Ezekiel 40-46)?
A tribulation temple is found by some in Matthew 24:15; 2
Thessalonians 2; and Revelation 11:1, 2. At the same time, how do we
understand that section in Ezekiel in relation to the point in Hebrews
about Christ's sacrifice ending all sacrifices that anticipated Him
(chapters 9-10)? Some dispensational discussions of this are: C. L.
Feinberg, chapter in Prophecy in the Making, ed. Carl F. H. Henry; H.
Freeman, An Introduction to the Old Testament Prophets, on Ezekiel 4048; Ralph Alexander, Ezekiel; Paul Enns, Ezekiel. Cf. also Ezekiel in
The MacArthur Study Bible.
f. What do we say about the type of fulfillment for Israelite restoration
passages in view of the type of fulfillment already realized in matters of
Christ's first advent?
These were often quite literal. Should other prophecies, not yet
fulfilled, also be understood according to the pattern already
demonstrated? Note the specific nature of fulfillment of the prophecies
regarding Christ's birth in Bethlehem, tribe of Judah, death, resurrection,
seating in heaven, etc.

144
g. How should we correlate the Old Testament prophecies with details in
New Testament passages like Matthew 24-25, Romans 11, and
Revelation? Revelation 7 even refers to specific tribes of Israel.
h. How do we relate prophecies of a future for Israel to the phenomenal
return of Jewish people to Palestine in this century, and the rebirth of a
nation in 1948?
Recent events show that the premillennial conception can be correct in
regard to Israel having its literal land.
i. What do the Old Testament contexts themselves indicate about the form
of fulfillment the prophecies can be rightly expected to take?
Ezekiel 36:28 promises the very "land I gave to your fathers." Isaiah
11:10ff speaks of boundaries by Egypt and the Euphrates.
j. What does the overall teaching of the Gospels contribute to the question
of the type of fulfillment we can expect for Old Testament prophecies
about the kingdom? Is the kingdom Jesus taught only a reign in the
heart? Luke 17:21 often is used to support this view; also John 18:36.
III. PRINCIPLES FOR INTERPRETING PROPHECY
A careful study of Daniel and Revelation will provide an overall, panoramic
framework. If a student really comes to grasp these exegetically, other details will
usually fit in a meaningful way.
A. The Fundamental Principles are Basically the Same as for Scripture in General
Ramm's chapters on perspective and specific principles provide much that
comes into focus here, and he repeats the essential guidelines as "fundamentals"
(pp. 245-250). These are:
1. Word Study
Study the terms used in the passage. For example, in Isaiah 7:14, we
need to determine the meaning of such terms as "almah" (virgin or young
woman?) and "Immanuel" (does this mean this child is God or does it simply
have the designation like Isaiah, which means "salvation is of the Lord"?).
2. Historical Appropriateness
Determine the historical background.
3. Context
Integrate with the context.

145
4. Cross-Reference; Analogy of the Faith; Correlation
Realize the non-systematic nature of prophecy and the sacred trust of
correlating factors that fit together in the proper relationship so that there is
harmony. Cross-reference to decide which passages are true parallels and to
see how a given passage may throw light on another.
B. Some Helpful Steps
As a result of several years of grappling with prophetical passages and seeing
different methods of getting at their meaning, the writer suggests the following
steps. Some are helpful in certain passages and do not come into play in others, but
if the student learns how to use them all competently he will be able to deal with
most of the factors in the prophetic Word adequately. Facility, or course, will come
only with continuing proper application of the principles.
1. Does the literal, natural sense make sense?
Often it will. Sometimes, however, the sense that seems most natural at
first glance may be weakened or ruled out by certain considerations given to
the passage.
Illustration:
In Isaiah 7:14, the natural sense might at first seem to be that a woman is
Isaiah's own day will give birth to a son. But as the student observes, he can
put down weighty factors to test this initial conclusion.
a. Word study and cross-reference
Such a child would not be "God with us" (Immanuel), as was Jesus
Christ.
b. Wider context
Other parts of Isaiah expect a child also, and He is God (9:6; 11:1ff),
and this puts 7:14 into an overall context.
c. Immediate context
The context calls for a supernatural, extraordinary child as a sign.
After God gives Ahaz that opportunity to ask for a sign, in heaven above
or Sheol beneath (anything he desires, just so he asks for something
big!), Ahaz refuses and then the Lord Himself gives a sign. It is more
likely that it will be an extraordinary thing than an ordinary matter like
some woman in that day having a child.
d. Near context that may or may not really fit

146
A child is born shortly afterward in 8:3, but it is given a different
name, interestingly. Mahershalalhashbaz even has a meaning ("haste ye,
haste ye to the spoils") quite different from Immanuel ("God with us"),
speaking of judgment through the Assyrians rather than the blessing of
the Lord's presence.
e. Cross-reference on a key word
Matthew 1:21 definitely makes the fulfillment a virgin (Greek
parthenos), whereas Isaiah's own wife, who might be thought of as the
one giving birth, already had a child, Shearjashub, and other candidates
are beset with difficulties also.
Whatever conclusion the student finally comes to, he must face
these and other observations like them. The point is that the sense that
seems initially to be the natural and obvious one may not be the right
one. Yet it is often safe to take the natural sense, and especially so if it
has stood the test after one has rigorously challenged it.
2. Are there any similar prophecies or statements in the same general section or
book which shed light?
Look for repetition, a pattern.
Illustration:
In the case of Isaiah 7:14, similar prophecies would involve verses in
which a child is to be born (9:6; 11:1; 53:1). Often Ezekiel 1-24 has direct
proclamations, or signs, or parables, or visions, all referring in one way or
another to the same general fact--coming judgment upon Jerusalem via
Babylonian invasion. Matthew 24:32 - 25:46 has several successive sections
forming a pattern on "Be prepared" for the second coming of Christ.
3. Are there clues defining the time in which this is to occur?
As we bombard the passage with questions and comb it with
observations, clues may come in the following forms as well as others:
a. The context speaks of other features that will be true at that same time.
These set the tone, tempo, or tenor of the type of time it will be, and
may aid us in coming to a sensible decision about what time that has to
be. There are a number of Old Testament passages speaking of the near
judgment upon Jerusalem through God's instrument, Babylon, and the
student who pores over these soon develops a mental set by which he can
discern that a specific passage to which he comes has a description that
fits as the fulfillment.

147
b. There may be key words or phrases (terminology) customarily used for
some specific time period. These are tell-tale clues.
Illustration:
Daniel 11 - 12. Daniel 11 begins with Greek and Persian rulers and
goes on with Egyptian and Syrian struggles during the intertestamental
times. The student soon is aware of this. Then he sees that 11:21-35 is
clearly of one person, and it even appears that 11:21-45 all relates to one
leader. Just to help the student let us mention that the Syrian leader
Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.) is in view in verse 21 and the
verses following, a fact well-confirmed and available in any good
commentary he might consult. As he reads 12:1, he notices the phrase
"at that time", and if he is alert, this sends him scurrying back into ch. 11.
The great tribulation time for Israel is clearly in view in 12:1, and even
resurrection in 12:2-3. "That time" obviously relates to the last part of
ch. 11 also and his question is, "Where in ch. 11 does the scene move out
from inter-testamental leaders to the far future time?" He realizes that
there has been a shift somewhere, and that is an important fact to realize.
As he explores the questions, it is admittedly difficult to find an
exact point where the shift occurs. He, like many others, might settle
upon certain verses like 36 or 40. In checking other sources, he will
receive some help. It is, for example, more difficult to relate details of
vv. 36ff to Antiochus than was true in vv. 21-35.
c. Later Scripture may speak of the same thing as not yet fulfilled. This
pushes the realization beyond another definite point.
Illustration: Daniel 9:27 speaks of an abomination that desolates.
Christ, in His Olivet Discourse, referred to this and placed it yet in the
future (Matthew 24:15). In fact, the context of His words integrates it
with the unprecedented trouble in Palestine (v. 21) and the immediate
time leading up to the second advent (vv. 23ff). This later Scripture aids
the student in understanding where the details of Daniel 9:27 fit into the
prophetic picture.
4. Does the passage telescope the near event with the far?
This factor in both the Old and New Testaments is well established. It
becomes a key possibility for an interpreter to have in his mental equipment
as he approaches a prophetical section.
Illustrations:
Isaiah 13, in speaking of judgment upon Babylon, refers specifically to
the Medes as the Lord's instrument (v. 17). A near fulfillment of the
judgment is evident. Other details in the context, at the same time, seem to

148
be descriptive of judgment on a wider scale, upon the whole world when
certain phenomena occur (vv. 10, 11, 13). This would appear to be in the far
future, in the tribulation period climaxing with the second advent of Christ,
when phenomena of this precise nature will occur (cf. Matthew 24:29;
Revelation 6; etc.). If so, the near judgment upon Babylon is a launching pad
to project the subject of judgment on to the distant future.
In Matthew 24, in response to the disciples' question about the temple,
Christ speaks of judgment upon that temple but goes on to cover the sweep of
the present age right up to judgment in the distant day. Events of A.D. 70,
relating to the city and temple, seem to blend with events in the far
perspective.
5. Does the New Testament give some fulfillment for this specific passage?
There are various possibilities in the New Testament use of the Old
Testament:
a. It may be claiming a definite fulfillment.
This is beyond dispute in Matthew 1:21, which specifically says,
"That it might be fulfilled" and cites Isaiah 7:14 in reference to Mary
giving birth to Jesus. The same is true, by direct use of the word
"fulfilled", in Luke 4:18-21 where Christ says, "This day is this Scripture
fulfilled in your ears" (referring to Isaiah 61:1-2a); or in Matthew 8:17 in
relation to Isaiah 53:4.
In other New Testament formulae used in connection with citations
of the Old Testament, it is debatable if fulfillment is actually in view. An
example is "This is that" (Acts 2:16, introducing 2:17-21 where he is
citing Joel 2:28-32) where some believe that Peter means only "this is
like that" and is not claiming that a promise given specifically to Israel in
its Old Testament context is being fulfilled to the church. Rather, in their
understanding, the Joel quote is yet to be fulfilled in the day when Israel
is restored and Peter is using it here only to show that if God promised to
pour forth the Spirit upon men in the ultimate day, it is reasonable that
such a phenomenon now should be explained as from God also.
However, this conclusion is not without problems if we make certain
observations to test or challenge it. Peter does say, "This is that," not
"This is like that." Another observation is the wording of verse 33. Still
a further factor is that Peter quotes from two other Old Testament
passages, Psalms 16 and 110, to show fulfillment now though he does
not use the word "fulfilled" there either. In such a context, one could
argue that the burden of proof is upon the interpreter who denies any
sense of real fulfillment here. An added observation (possibility) is that
the Old Testament context relating to Israel's restoration need not be

149
slighted if one sees the telescopic principle in Joel. Like other prophets,
Joel might be clustering in one unit of prophecy details that can come to
pass over a span of time, some at one point and others at another even
after a considerable time lapse. In such a perspective, the outpouring of
the Spirit might begin at Pentecost as an initial aspect of fulfillment,
though other details in the same cluster reach on to the time immediately
approaching the second advent.
b. It may be claiming an analogy.
This is a possibility when Paul quotes Hosea's words given to Israel
and refers them to Gentiles (Romans 9:25-26; Hosea 1 - 2).
c. It may be furnishing background for some New Testament truth.
This is true for 2 Corinthians 8:15 and Exodus 16. Here, the same
broad principle is at work in both cases. Those who have more share
with those who have less, and this supplies the need of all. So Paul can
use that Old Testament episode as an apt illustration of the case in point.
d. It may be relating Old Testament typology to its New Testament antitype.
Writers in the New Testament often relate the Old Testament
shadows to their corresponding substance in the New Testament times;
they refer to the Old Testament items as pointing, by their predictive
elements, to these (cf. section on Typology).
6. Does the New Testament passage that allegedly shows fulfillment agree in
details?
Illustration:
Some say that the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21 is the fulfillment of
Ezekiel 40-46 which speaks of a very large temple in Pales-tine. However,
while there are some similarities between the two, there are several marked
differences that should instill caution against equating them. Some of the
distinctions are:

150
Ezekiel 40-46 Temple

New Jerusalem

Death occurs (for animals)

No death

Sin occurs

No sin

Dimensions much smaller

Dimensions much greater

There is still a sea, etc.

No sea

It appears better to say, as many do, that the temple in Ezekiel 40-46 is
on the earth during the millennium between the second advent and ultimate
state, while the New Jerusalem is the eternal dwelling place of the redeemed
with their God after the millennium. Revelation 21, then, does not show the
fulfillment of Ezekiel 40 - 46.
7. Is the passage figurative?
The interpreter needs to challenge his thinking with the question, "Have I
been objective enough with the possibilities of figurative language in this
passage, or have I lazily decided without much thought that it must be taken
literally?"
Illustration: Isaiah 11:6-9
Suppose I feel that literal animals are in view with their natural ferocities
removed during the future millennium on earth. I still need to be objective in
looking at the other side and looking at it honestly, more in the spirit of one
who is after the truth than buttressing his own "view" or fortifying his own
ego. I should be willing to assault my own system with even the hardest and
most convincing arguments I might use if I were a lawyer for the other side.
Then I can settle the issue fairly and squarely. I must be severe with myself
lest what I believe stands in my convictions simply because I have never
faced the really determinative reasons for another view, which may be right.
a. Let us look at the possibilities for figurative language so that animals
could represent men here.
1) Animals are figurative for people elsewhere in Isaiah and other Old
Testament literature:
Wolf (Jeremiah 5:6; Ezekiel 22:27); lambs (Isaiah 40:11) or
sheep (5:17); leopard (Daniel 7:6, symbol of Greece; Jeremiah

151
13:23, men); young lions (Isaiah 5:29; Ezekiel 19:1-9; 38:13);
fatling (possibly Isaiah 5:17); cows (Amos 4, symbol of rich wives);
bear (Isaiah 59:11); lion (Daniel 7, Babylon; Hosea 5:14); asp
(Isaiah 14:29); cockatrice (Isaiah 14:29; 59:5; Jeremiah 8:17; Psalm
58:3-5).
2) Isaiah abounds in figurative language to mean men, so that there is a
suggestive overall context in which expressions in ch. 11 may also
be symbolical.
Examples: Egypt is a fly and Assyria a bee (7:18); a wandering
bird cast out of its nest means Moab scattered by judgment (16:2);
Israel's watchmen are dumb dogs (56:10-11); Leviathan the sea
monster depicts enemies of Israel and of good (27:1); a ravenous
bird from the east means Cyrus of Persia (46:11); a branch is
Messiah (4:2; 11:1); root and blossom burned in judgment depicts
wicked Israelites judged by God (5:24); the vineyard equals Israel
(5:1-7); briars and thorns represent the wicked (9:18-19; 10:17);
trees stand for people (10:33-34; 61:3); a tried stone represents
Messiah (28:16); grass equals men (40:7); water depicts spiritual
blessing (44:3-4); waters of an overflowing river symbolize Assyria
invading (8:7-8); tails of smoking firebrands picture leaders of Syria
and Israel (7:4); head means an ancient and honorable leader in
Israel, and tail stands for a prophet who teaches lies (9:14-15); an ax
and saw are Assyria in God's hands as an instrument (10:15); a razor
that is hired pictures Assyria which is to shave or level the land of
Judah (7:20).
3) The context here is emphasizing spiritual realities among MEN,
including relief from former enmities; therefore, animals might
represent people as a vivid picture.
4) Reference to a child in the same verse with animals (11:6) does not
prove that the animals could not depict human beings also. In
10:19, a child is distinguished from trees, yet even the trees here
symbolize people.
The point in the above arguments is to show what one might do
if he wanted to be objective in looking carefully at the evidence that
animals could symbolize people. But there is the other side also.
b. Let us look at the evidence for the literal interpretation that animals here
represent actual animals and not people.
1) It is true that Isaiah elsewhere uses animals to symbolize people (cf.
Part "a" above), but never in as detailed a fashion (cluster) as would

152
be the case here, unless in Isaiah 34:6-7; Jeremiah 51:38-40; or
Ezekiel 39:17-20.
It may be a significant observation that all three of these cases
use animals in a slaughter or sacrifice context, whereas Isaiah 11 is
different. In this context, we see a heaping up or clustering of at
least fourteen animal names. Amillennial commentators usually
interpret animals as people in Isaiah 11, yet contrary to this, even
Edward Young, an amillennialist himself, is swayed by the point
here (Isaiah, vol. I, p. 390). He believes that the Isaiah 11 verses
involved here refer to the eternal state, the new heavens and new
earth, and feels that animals will return to an Eden-like felicity with
people. Yet nowhere does Young show proof that animals will be in
the eternal state. He reasons that the text cannot mean the
millennium because the state is one of absolute peace (but that is
Youngs opinion), and no sin exists any more. An objection to his
view is the observation that the text nowhere says the state is one of
absolute peace or no sin at all. Also, Isaiah 65:20ff puts the same
thought as Isaiah 11 into a context where sin still is present.
2) Certain details here seem to be more natural if understood of actual
animals.
Examples: "lion eating straw like the ox" (v. 7); child playing
on the hole of the asp and putting his hand on the viper's den (v. 8); a
little child leading them (v. 6). None of the three passages cited in
section 1 immediately above gives such details.
3) The context is admittedly emphasizing spiritual realities among
men, but it can also be describing harmony in other facets of earthly
existence where enmity is found.
If the natural sense makes sense, it may be wise not to take
another sense. If the text means animals, the statements fit plausibly
as a solution to the animal problem that existed since the fall. Before
the fall of man and the entrance of death, the diet God had ordained
for animals was every green herb (Genesis 1), but with the fall some
animals became carnivorous. Here, however, the wolf, leopard,
young lion, bear, and lion are feeding with herbivorous animals. In
a millennial state in which other features turn to Eden-like
conditions, why not life among animals and between animals and
men?
4) The fact that certain objects are symbolical of people in some
passages does not mean that they are in ALL passages.

153
c. There may be a mingling of details true of an immediate person with
those speaking of Christ.
This factor comes into play in certain Messianic Psalms (2; 16; 40;
45; 69; etc.). Jesus told his hearers that they could find Him in the
Psalms (Luke 24:44). The psalmist could describe things true of himself
or some other near person to some extent, yet have the Messiah
ultimately in view as he is led by the Spirit who knows all things to say
more than the psalm writer personally realizes.
Illustration:
Psalm 40:12 and 69:5 both describe one in distress who even
recognizes sin and acknowledges it. Yet both are so used in the New
Testament as to make clear that elements in them point to Christ. One
might ask, "How can a passage in which one is guilty of sin refer to
Messiah?" Though some fine expositors take the position that the sin in
view is that which Christ takes upon His sinless self as He becomes the
substitute for sinful men, it is also possible that some elements in the
passages relate to a near person and others to Messiah, and some could in
certain measure be true of both (J. J. Stewart-Perowne, The Book of
Psalms, vol. I, p. 48; C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Psalms, vol. II, p. 35).
d. Correlate consistently with other facets of a total pattern. Interpret this
passage with a sensitivity toward relating it harmoniously with other
parts of a total picture if possible. Use cross-references and analogy of
the faith care-fully.
e. Do not try to prove the meaning of one debated passage by using a
"proof text" that is just as much debated.
For example, it will not prove the point that Isaiah 14:12-21 refers to
Satan by adducing Ezekiel 28:11-19 as referring to Satan, or vice versa.
One text is as much a problem as the other, so to say that one refers to
Satan because the other does will make it necessary to prove that the
other does refer to him.
f. Be valiantly objective.
As I move through the interpretive process, I must from time to time
ask myself the hard questions: Am I being objective with the truth of
God I am handling, or am I managing this passage toward the conclusion
I feel I must come to? Are my reasons rather dubious or strained and
lacking adequate evidence? And what are my motives? Am I working
toward shocking people with some different view? I need to face it.
There is a certain brand of listeners who thrive on novel ideas, and the
more the Bible teacher can throw out to them of this nature, the more
authoritative and scholarly he will be in their eyes. I must not mistake it.

154
Some prophecy men catch on to this quickly and make hay while the sun
shines! Do I feel that my success rides on being sensational or appearing
to be smarter because I "found" a "truth" others missed? The writer has
personally wondered how it might temper some more startling prophecy
speakers if they had to face the probing questions of some seminary
classes on a regular basis. They would not be able to get away with so
many flimsy novelties and subjective personal hobby horses so easily,
and it could be rather healthy. This is real to me because a certain
portion of my time is spent in helping students of God's Word test wild
ideas on which they have heard some speakers dogmatize. They can do
this by the sober record of Scripture and careful, objective principles.

155
APPENDIX I
A PARTIAL LIST OF QUESTIONS FOR EVALUATING A COMMENTARY
I. Is it objective?
II. Does it present background of passages?
III. Is there a good introduction to the book of the Bible?
IV. Is it organized well, for example giving a good outline of the Bible book(s)?
V. Does the author document his sources well? If his work is recent, does he use a good
amount of more recent scholarship (books and articles)?
VI. Does the author present different views on problems, or just his own? Check a few main
problem passages?
VII. Does the author give arguments for different positions, not just his own? Is he fair to
other viewpoints?
VIII. Is there competency in the original languages so that you can regard the work as accurate
and trustworthy?
IX. Does the author present word studies?
X. Does the author come to the point or tend to wander?
XI. Does the commentary have warmth? Is there a balance or some good blend between the
critical and the devotional?
XII. Is the work good doctrinally?
XIII. Is the work stimulating because of suggestions for good application?
XIV. Is the work good homiletically, that is, does it give material that helps you in thinking of
ideas for sermons?
XV. Is the work committed? Does it nail things down or tend to leave them unresolved and
just hanging?
XVI. Is the author abreast of recent discoveries and studies that are relevant?
XVII. Does the author use soundness of logic? Some authors tend to give arguments that are
arbitrary in that they do not prove what the authors think they prove.
XVIII. Is there fresh material?

156
XIX. Does the author follow the theme or argument of a Bible book, or is his commentary the
type in which you cannot see the forest for the trees?
XX. Is the commentary a verse-by-verse treatment, or does it skip over verses, often ignoring
some entirely (to your chagrin)?
XXI. Does the commentary deal with the text competently or tend to introduce novel views
different from anybody else and not actually supported well?
XXII. Does the author argue only within a certain limited branch of scholarship, citing only or
almost only what those writers within that group say and so confining the reader just to
that exposure? Or does he show a breadth in reading and awareness of possibilities in
interpretation?

157
APPENDIX II
LIST OF PARABLES AND SOURCES FOR STUDYING PARABLES
A. Some Parables in the Gospels (Other items in the New Testament have been called
"parables" by some, but below are most of the main passages regarded as parables.
Some, for example, call John 15:1-6 a "parable", whereas others would call it an
allegory, understanding it to be an extended metaphorical picture. Consult Topic
Five (Parables, etc.) of the syllabus for definitions of various literary devices used
in Scripture, and note the suggested distinctions between such devices as parable,
allegory, metaphor, simile, etc.)
1. The Sower and the Soils (Matthew 13)
2. The Wheat and the Tares (Matthew 13)
3. The Seed Growing in Secret (Mark 4)
4. The Mustard Seed (Matthew 13)
5. The Leaven (Matthew 13)
6. The Hidden Treasure (Matthew 13)
7. The Pearl of Great Price (Matthew 13)
8. The Dragnet (Matthew 13)
9. The Householder (Matthew 13)
10. The Ungrateful Servant (Matthew 18:23-35)
11. The Laborers in the Vineyard (Matthew 20)
12. The Wicked Tenant Farmers (Matthew 21)
13. The Ten Virgins (Matthew 25)
14. The Talents (Matthew 25)
15. The Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25)
16. The Good Samaritan (Luke 10)
17. The Importunate Friend (Luke 11)
18. The Rich Fool (Luke 12)

158
19. The Waiting Servants (Luke 12)
20. The Faithful Steward (Luke 12)
21. The Barren Fig Tree (Luke 13)
22. The Seats at the Feast (Luke 14)
23. The Slighted Invitation (Luke 14)
24. The Tower (Luke 14)
25. The King Going to Battle (Luke 14)
26. The Lost Sheep (Luke 15)
27. The Lost Coin (Luke 15)
28. The Lost Son (Luke 15)
29. The Rich Steward (Luke 16)
30. The Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16)
31. The Unprofitable Servant (Luke 17)
32. The Unjust Judge (Luke 18)
33. The Pharisee and the Publican (Luke 18)
34. The Pounds (Luke 19)
B. Some Suggested Sources for the Study of Parables
1. Books on Parables (List Not Exhaustive)
Bailey, Kenneth, Poet and Peasant; also Through Peasant Eyes
Bruce, A. B., Parabolic Teaching of Christ
Dodd, C. H., The Parables of the Kingdom (liberal)
Ellisen, Stanley, Parables in the Eye of the Storm
Findlay, J. A., Jesus and His Parables
Fonck, Leopold, The Parables of the Gospel
Habershon, Ada, The Study of the Parables (a woman writer)

159
Hultgren, Arland, The Parables of Jesus, A Commentary (this, Ellisen,
Kistemaker, and Snodgrass are top works)
Hunter, A. M., Interpreting the Parables (liberal, but helpful on the main
point of each parable)
Jeremias, Joachim, The Parables of Jesus (liberal)
Kistemaker, Simon, The Parables of Jesus
Lockyer, Herbert, All the Parables of the Bible
Longenecker, Richard, Ed., The Challenge of Jesus Parables (some fine
chapters)
Morgan, G. Campbell, The Parables and Metaphors of Our Lord; also
The Parables of the Kingdom
Pentecost, Dwight, The Parables of Jesus
Snodgrass, Klyne, Stories with Intent (most comprehensive discussions)
Swete, H. B., Parables of the Kingdom
Trench, R. C., Notes on the Parables
Wallace, Ronald S., Many Things in Parables
2. Other Works
Allis, Oswald T., "The Parable of the Leaven", The Evangelical
Quarterly, XIX (1947), 254ff.
McCormick, R. D., "The Purpose and Interpretation of the Synoptic
Parables", B. D. thesis, Talbot Seminary, 1958.
3. Commentaries
Cf. these and/or others in J. E. Rosscup, Commentaries for Biblical
Expositors, 2004.
a. Matthew
Barbieri, Louis, Matthew in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed.
J.F. Walvoord and Roy Zuck
Blombert, Craig, Matthew (New American Commentary)
Broadus, John, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew

160
Carson, Donald A., Matthew (Expositors Bible Commentary)
Davies, W. P and D. C. Allison, Matthew (3 vols.)
English, E. S., Studies in the Gospel According to Matthew
Gaebelein, A. C., The Gospel of Matthew. Dispensational
Hendriksen, William, Commentary on Matthew
Hill, David, The Gospel of Matthew (New Century Bible)
Kent, Homer, Matthew (Wycliffe Bible Commentary) Dispensational
Morris, Leon, The Gospel According to Matthew
MacArthur, John, Matthew (4 vols.) Dispensational
Plummer, Alfred, An Exegetical Commentary on The Gospel According
to Matthew
b. Mark
Cranfield, C. E. B., The Gospel According to St. Mark
English, E. S., Studies in The Gospel According to Mark
Hendriksen, William, Commentary on the Gospel of Mark
Hiebert, D. E., Mark, A Portrait of the Servant
Lane, William, Commentary on The Gospel of Mark (NICNT)
Plummer, Alfred, The Gospel According to St. Mark
Swete, H. B., The Gospel According to St. Mark
Taylor, Vincent, The Gospel According to St. Mark
Wolff, Richard, The Gospel of Mark
c. Luke
Bock, Darrell, Luke 1:1-9:50 and Luke 9:51-24:53 (Baker Exegetical)
Geldenhuys, Norval, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (NICNT)
Godet, F. L., Commentary on The Gospel of Luke
Marshall, I. Howard, The Gospel of Luke

161
Morgan, G. Campbell, The Gospel According to Luke
Morris, Leon, Luke (Tyndale)
Plummer, Alfred, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Gospel
According to St. Luke (ICC)
Stein, Robert, Luke (New American Commentary)

162
APPENDIX III
SAMPLES OF POSSIBLE TYPES
I. Samples of POSSIBLE Types
These may or may not meet the proper criteria--you decide.
A. Persons
Aaron, Abel, Abraham, Adam, Amelek, Antiochus Epiphanes (Daniel 8, 11),
Balaam, Boaz, Cain, David, Edom, Eliezer, Esau, Esther, Eve, Firstborn, Isaac,
Isaiah, Ishmael, Israel (as a nation), Jacob, Jezebel, Jonah, Joseph, Joshua, Joshua
and Zerubbabel (in Ezra, Haggai, and Zechariah), Lot, Melchizedek, Moses,
Nehemiah, Rachel, Rahab, Samson, Sarah, Solomon.
B. Animals
Bulls, goats, lamb, lion, Leviathan (Isaiah 27:1), red heifer, serpent, sheep,
swine.
C. Objects or Places
Ark of the Covenant, Ark of Noah, Babylon, Bethlehem, burning bush, cities
of refuge, coats of skins, Elisha's stick for retrieving the lost ax head, Egypt, fig
tree, firstfruits, honey, Jerusalem, ladder of Jacob, leaven, leprosy, manna, Moriah
(Mount), offerings of Leviticus, olive tree, oil, old corn of the land, pillar of cloud
and fire, rainbow, Rahab's red cord, rock which followed Israel, rod of Aaron, rod
turned into serpent (Exodus 4), salt, sea, Sodom, stones in the Jordan River, stones
in the temple, stone pillow of Jacob, temple, tree at Marah (Exodus 15), veil of the
Tabernacle, veil worn by Moses, vine.
D. Events or Actions
Crossing over the Jordan, crossing the Red Sea, circumcision, entering Canaan,
the exodus, the Flood, smiting the rock, securing a bride for Isaac, wanderings in
the wilderness.
E. Offices
1. Priests
2. Prophets
3. Shebna
F. Institutions

163
Circumcision, feasts (Leviticus 16, 23), kingship, priesthood or any of the
priestly garments, prophet, the Tabernacle with its main furniture (or any one main
piece of furniture in itself), Sabbath.

164
APPENDIX IV
SOME SUGGESTED SOURCES FOR THE STUDY OF TYPES
A Books
Fairbairn, Patrick, The Typology of Scripture, 2 vols.
Frey, Joseph, The Scripture Types, 3 vols.
Friederichsen, Douglas, "The Hermeneutics of Typology", 2 vols., doctoral
dissertation from Dallas Theological Seminary (available at The Masters
Library)
Habershon, Ada, A Study of Types (a woman writer)
Jukes, Andrew, The Law of the Offerings
Pink, Arthur W., Gleanings in Genesis; also Gleanings in Exodus; also Gleanings in
Joshua
Zuck, Roy, Basic Bible Interpretation (chapter on Typology)
G. Articles
Campbell, Donald, "The Interpretation of Types", Bibliotheca Sacra, 112 (1955),
248-55.
Darbyshire, J. R., "Typology", Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol.
12.
Feinberg, Charles L., "Tabernacle", Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible,
V, 572-83.
Fritsch, Charles T., "Biblical Typology", Bibliotheca Sacra, 103 (1946), 293-305,
418-30; 104 (1947), 87-100, 214-22.
Cf. other biblical dictionaries and encyclopedias under Type, Typology, or
individual subjects such as Tabernacle, Red Heifer, Golden Lampstand,
Veil, Ark of the Covenant, Mercy Seat, etc.

165
APPENDIX V
A BRIEF LIST OF PROPHETICAL PASSAGES
Some Selected Prophetic Passages
See also further passages in sources below in Section B, especially in the works by
Lockyer, Payne, Pentecost, and Tan.
Genesis 3:15; 12:1-3, 7 (related to other texts in Genesis connected with the Abrahamic
Covenant); Genesis 49:10.
Deuteronomy 18:15.
2 Samuel 7:16.
Psalm 2 (as a whole or particular verses such as vv. 6-7); 16:9-10; 45; 72, 89, 110.
Isaiah 7:14; 9:5-6; 11:1-5; 11:6-9; 11:10; 11:11-16; 13:17-22 (Will literal Babylon be
rebuilt in the future tribulation period, or did the historical destruction adequately
fulfill these passages and others? Cf. Jeremiah 50-51 and Revelation 17-18); 42:14; 49:1-6; 50:4-9; 52:13 - 53:12 (The student may choose one passage and interpret
who the "servant" is, but needs in some degree to look at the so-called "servant
songs" as a whole); 53:4-5 (Is healing in the atonement? Cf. Matthew 8:17 and 1
Peter 2:24.); 61:1-3; 65:17-25.
Jeremiah 31:15; 31:31-40.
Ezekiel 21:26-27; 40-46 (Will this be fulfilled in a literal temple or not? If so, in which
temple and why?).
Daniel 2 (identify the stone); 2 and 7 (interpret the third or the fourth kingdom); 9:24-27
(What period is denoted by the first sixty-nine weeks? What period is denoted by
the seventieth?); 12:2-3.
Joel 2:28ff related to Acts 2 and the prophetic picture as a whole.
Zechariah 12:10; 14:2 (When has this been fulfilled, or when shall it be?).
Matthew 13 (Take any one of the eight parables and focus on it in particular.); 16:28
(When will this occur for the "some" and who are the "some"?); 24-25 (The student
might select some specific section or verse within this and work on it in particular,
e.g. 24:4-14; 24:28; 24:45ff; 25:1-13; 25:14-30; 25:31-46; etc.).
Luke 17:21.
John 20:22.

166
Romans 11:26 ("all Israel will be saved").
2 Thessalonians 2:1ff (One problem is, what time does this refer to? Another is the
interpretation of the restraining element.).
Revelation 2-3 (The student could deal with one specific area, e.g. is the "overcomer"
the really spiritual Christian as distinguished from the carnal, defeated Christian, or
is he the true Christian as distinguished from the professing but not true Christian?
Or what is the interpretation of the "white stone", or any of the other blessings
promised to the overcomer?); 4:1 (Is the rapture here or not?); 6-16 (chronology of
the seals, trumpets, vials?); 6:2 (identity of the rider on the white horse?); 7:1-8
(Israel or the church?); 14:1-2 (Are the 144,000 on earth or in heaven here?); 17
(identity of "mystery Babylon"); 20:1-6 (Are the "thousand years" literal and future
to the present age, or are they symbolical and already transpiring in the present
age?); 21-202 (Does the New Jerusalem come down during the millennium, or is it
a picture of the eternal state after the millennium, or what?); 21:1 (Will the earth be
annihilated and completely replaced by a new earth, or will the earth be renovated
and continue into eternity?).

167
APPENDIX VI
SOME SUGGESTED SOURCES FOR FURTHER EXAMPLES OF PROPHECIES
See the many sources classified during the discussion of prophecy earlier in Topic
Seven, but note in particular the following:
Crim, Keith, The Royal Psalms
Heinisch, Paul, Christ in Prophecy
Lockyer, Herbert, All the Messianic Prophecies of the Bible
McClain, Alva J., The Greatness of the Kingdom
Payne, J. Barton, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy; John Walvoord has a book on this
subject also.
Pentecost, J. Dwight, Things to Come
Tan, Paul Lee, The Interpretation of Prophecy
For commentary on individual books of the Bible, cf. works annotated in J. E. Rosscup,
Commentaries for Biblical Expositors, 2004 ed.

168
APPENDIX VII
LIST OF SELECT SOURCES FOR PROBLEM PASSAGE PAPERS
See also further sources in Appendices II through IV of this syllabus and larger lists
in Cyril J. Barber, The Minister's Library; J. E. Rosscup, Commentaries for Biblical
Expositors, 2004 ed.
I Genesis
Bush, George. Notes Critical and Practical on the Book of Genesis (Minneapolis: Klock
& Klock Christian Publishers Inc., 1979), reprint.
Davis, John J. Paradise to Prison, Studies in Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1975).
Hamilton, Victor P. Genesis, 2 vols.
Kidner, Derek. Genesis, Tyndale Old Testament Commentary series (Wheaton: Tyndale,
1968).
Leupold, H. C. Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963).
Matthews, Kenneth. Genesis.
Morris, Henry M. The Genesis Record (San Diego: Creation Life Publishers).
Ross, Allen P. Genesis, in Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed. J. F. Walvoord and Roy
Zuck, vol. 1.
Waltke, Bruce. Genesis.
Wood, Leon. Genesis.
I. Matthew (cf. Parables list above for more sources)
Blomberg, Craig. Matthew in NAC (Nashville: Broadman, 1992).
Broadus, John. Commentary on Matthew (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press).
Davies, W. D. and Dale Allison, Jr. Matthew in ICC, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1988).
Hendriksen, William. The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1974).
Toussaint, Stanley D. Behold the King: A Study of Matthew (Portland: Multnomah
Press, 1980).

169
II. Parables (cf. also better commentaries on Matt., Luke)
Bailey, Kenneth E. Poet and Peasant (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976). Very good.
Habershon, Ada. Study of the Parables (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1967).
Ellisen, Stanley. Parables in the Eye of the Storm.
Hultgren, Arland. The Parables of Jesus, A Commentary.
Hunter, Archibald M. The Parables of Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976).
Eschatological crisis of the end already fulfilled in first advent.
Jeremias, J. The Parables of Jesus (New York: Scribner, 1971), rev. ed. Liberal; sees
contradictions, believes in realized eschatology as did A. M. Hunter and C. H.
Dodd.
Kistemaker, Simon. The Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980).
Very good.
Morgan, G. Campbell. Parables and Metaphors of Our Lord (Westwood, NJ: Revell,
1976). Often good; strange at times as on Four Soils.
Trench, R. C. Notes on the Parables (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House).
III. John
Carson, Donald A. John in Expositors Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).
Godet, Franz Commentary on the Gospel of John, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
reprint).
Hendriksen, William. The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1961).
Laney, J. Carl. Gospel of John in Moody Gospel Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press).
Morris, Leon. Commentary on the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971).
Pink, A.W. Exposition of the Gospel of John, 3 vols.
Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Gospel According to St. John, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1954).
IV. Luke
Bock, Darrell. Luke 1:1-9:50 and Luke 9:51-24:53 (Baker Exegetical).
Hendriksen. William, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978).

170
Geldenhuys, Norval. Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (NICNT), (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1952).
Godet, Franz. Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, reprint).
Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978).
Morris, Leon. Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974).
Stein, Robert. Luke (Nashville: Broadman, 1992).
V. Jonah (in connection with Matthew 12:40-41)
Feinberg, Charles L. The Minor Prophets (Chicago: Moody Press, 1976), rev. ed.
Laetsch, Theodore. The Minor Prophets (St. Louis: Concordia, 1956).
Pusey, E. B. The Minor Prophets, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1961).
VI. Manners and Customs
Bailey, Kenneth (cf. under C. Parables)
Freeman, James M. Manners and Customs of the Bible (Plainfield, NJ: Logos
International, 1972).
Gower, Ralph. The New Manners and Customs (Chicago: Moody Press, 1987).
Wight, Fred H. Manners and Customs of Bible Lands (Chicago: Moody Press, 1953).
VII. Hebrews
Bruce, F. F. Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1964).
Davidson, A. B. The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1950).
Delitzsch, Franz. Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2 vols. (Minneapolis:
Klock & Klock Christian Publishers Inc., 1978).
Hewitt, Thomas. The Epistle to the Hebrews, Tyndale New Testament Commentary
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960).
Hughes, Philip E. Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1960).
Kistemaker, Simon J. Hebrews.

171
Kent, Homer A., Jr. The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1972).
Montefiore, Hugh. The Epistle to the Hebrews, Harper New Testament Commentaries
(New York: Harper & Row, 1964).
Thomas, W. H. Griffith. Hebrews: A Devotional Commentary (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1962).
Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Epistle to the Hebrews, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
reprint).
Wuest, Kenneth E. Hebrews in the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
VIII. Hebrew (Old Testament) Lexicons (cf. other strategic tools, Appendix VI.)
Botterweck, G. J. and H. Ringgren, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old
Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957).
Harris, Laird, Bruce K. Waltke and G. Archer. A Theological Wordbook of the Old
Testament, 2 vols. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980).
IX. Greek (New Testament) Lexicons (cf. other strategic tools, Appendix VI.)
Arndt, William and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960).
Abbott-Smith, G. A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1956), reprint.
Kittel, Gerhard and G. Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10
vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-1974).
Liddell, H. G. and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1968).
Also see the following books:
Brown, Colin, ed. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1977).
Vine, William E. Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Nashville: Nelson,
1978).

172
X. Concordances (cf. notes Appendix VI., Section I.)
A. King James Version
Strong, James, ed. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to the Bible (Philadelphia:
Nelson, 1977).
Young, Robert, ed. Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1955).
Winter, Ralph D. and George V. Wigram, eds. The Word Study New Testament and
Concordance, 2 vols. (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1978).
B. New American Standard
Thomas, Robert L., gen. ed. New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of
the Bible (Nashville: Holman, 1981).
C. New International Version
Goodrick, Edward W. and John R. Kohlenberger III, eds. New International Version
Exhaustive Concordance (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999).
XI. Bible Encyclopedias
Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vols.)
The New Catholic Encyclopedia (cf. under Catholic list)
Encyclopedia Judaica (cf. under Jewish list); also, cf. The Jewish Encyclopedia
Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (a new ISBE is out in recent
years, 4 vols.)
Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, ed. Philip Schaff and J. J.
Herzog
Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. M. C. Tenney
XII. Interlinear Greek New Testaments
Marshall, Alfred, ed., Bagster's Interlinear Greek-English New Testament (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan).

173
XIII. Liberal Views
See the individual volumes in the International Critical Commentary, ed. S. R. Driver
et. al., covering the whole Bible. Some vols. by evangelicals, i.e. Cranfield, Rom.
The Interpreters Bible, 12 vols., ed. G. A. Buttrick (New York, 1964).
On parables, see such men as J. Jeremias and C. H. Dodd.
On Genesis, see commentaries by John Skinner (International Critical Commentary
series); Gerhard von Rod; and E. A. Speiser (Anchor Bible series).
XIV. Jewish Views
The Jewish Encyclopedia, multi-volume source
Encyclopedia Judaica, multi-volume source
Cf. J. Rosscup, Commentaries for Biblical Expositors, 2004 ed. for Jewish works on
individual Bible books
XV. Catholic Views
The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 vols, ed. W. J. McDonald (New York: 1967).
Jerome Bible Commentary, ed. R. E. Brown, J. A. Fitzmyer, and R. E. Murphy
(London, 1968). Often very good.
New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, ed. R. C. Fuller (London, 1969). Often
very good.The Catholic Biblical Quarterly (a journal)
Ott, Ludwig. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Excellent.
Rahner, Karl, ed. Teaching of the Catholic Church. Excellent.
Smith, George. The Teaching of the Catholic Church, 2 vols. Excellent.
XVI. Problem Passages (cf. Appendix VI., Section IV.)
XVII. Manners and Customs (cf. Appendix VI., Section V.)

174
APPENDIX VIII
TOOLS FOR USING HEBREW AND GREEK
EVEN IF YOU'RE ONLY A BEGINNER
Also Cf. Appendix VI. And VII.
Topic One: Old Testament (Hebrew)
I. RECOMMENDED TOOLS
A. Concordances to the whole Bible
Four stand out:
New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance, gen. ed. Robert L. Thomas
Instructions for use: Find alphabetically the English word used in
NASB, observe number assigned to it, use that number to go to section that
gives definitions of Old Testament Hebrew words, and note what your word
is in Hebrew and English, along with a definition and a list (column) of all
the places where that word appears. You may also use the numbering system
to go into the two-volume Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (cf.
B.1). It is set up according to the numbers in Strong's Concordance, also
Youngs Concordance (Nelson ed.), and the NASB Concordance uses these
same numbers! (Cf. I.C. below). Einspahr (also I.C. below) as well refers
verse by verse and word by word to BDB (cf. section C), pointing the user to
the exact one-fourth of a page in BDB where a word is defined.
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, ed. James Strong
Instructions for use: Look up English word out of the King James
Version, find the listing, secure the number assigned to your word, then turn
back to the section that gives Old Testament Hebrew words, find the number,
and get the Hebrew word, the English transliteration of it, the definition
(briefly), and back at the original reference place, the complete handy listing
of all the places where the number (word) appears; you can also use the same
number, the Strong's number, to go into the Theological Wordbook of the Old
Testament, 2 vols., as mentioned above. Finding your Strong's number there
at the end of vol. 2 in the index (left side of the column), you note that
another right hand column tells you the exact page in Theological Wordbook
(i.e. within its 2 vols.) to find to locate a detailed discussion of the very word.
Young's Analytical Concordance of the Bible, ed. Robert Young.

175
The recent Thomas Nelson Publishers reprint ed. of this is coded to
Strongs and NASB numbers. Handily, this work gives your English word,
then lists on the same page the definition and all Hebrew or Greek words for
which the English word is used. The basis is the KJV.
NIV Exhaustive Concordance.
Unlike the three concordances above, this one uses a different numbering
system for Bible words.
B. Further Works That Define Hebrew Words
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT), 2 vols., ed. R. Laird Harris,
Gleason Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke.
As mentioned above, vol. 2 has, at the end, an index which lists all
numbers of the Old Testament words in Strong's Concordance, NASB
Concordance and Youngs (Nelson ed.) and the pages of the TWOT which
have a discussion on a given word! Be sure to save precious time by using
the index.
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), 10 vols.
Also cf. a 1-vol. condensation of this which is very good. The Greek
work stephanos, crown, is ca. 4 1/2 pp. in the condensation compared to ca.
30 pp. in the 10-vol. work.
Although this is a New Testament tool primarily, this work discusses
Old Testament Hebrew words that are backgrounds to and related to New
Testament Greek words; therefore, it contains quite a lot about Hebrew words
as well. Volume 10 is the index volume, and in it you will helpfully find an
index to English words pointing you to the specific volumes and pages that
discuss Hebrew words that these English words translate. You also will find
an index to Greek words, an index to Hebrew words, and even an index of
Bible verses discussed verse by verse from Genesis 1:1 through Revelation
22:21! On a given verse, you might pick up a lot of helpful information, i.e.
find out which volumes of the ten and which pages discuss a given word.
Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies, ed. William Wilson
Look up a word from the KJV. Wilson gives the O.T. Hebrew word(s),
definitions into English, and references (examples).
Dictionary of Old Testament Words for English Readers, ed. Aaron Pick.

176
Originally The Bible Students' Concordance, London, 1845, this was
reissued in 1977. Find your English word, then see listed below it the
Hebrew words (both the Hebrew and the English that translates the Hebrew),
with brief definitions and with examples from verses of the Old Testament.
An Expository Dictionary of Old Testament Words, ed. W. E. Vine.
Old Testament words are given at the center of the page in the English
translation, then a brief definition. See Vines Expanded (Bethany House,
1984). This edition gives, alongside each word, in the margin, the Strongs
number for that word. It also lists two other helps, pp. to go to in Arndt and
Gingrich for a N.T. Greek word (cf. Topic two, I. B. 1 later), and also Colin
Brown (Topic Two, I. C. 3 later). Remember that the Strongs number listed
is also the key to (i.e. it is the number to point you to) the NASB and Youngs
concordances, and it gets you to the page you need in TWOT (cf. I.B.1).
Nelson's Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, eds. Merrill F. Unger
(formerly chairman of the Old Testament department at Dallas Seminary) and
William White, Jr.
C. Hebrew-English Lexicon (Hebrew words, with meanings in English)
A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, eds. F. Brown, S. R. Driver,
and C. A. Briggs (popularly called "BDB"). Those who know Hebrew can look up
a Hebrew word directly. Those who do not are provided with a help, below:
Remember that the NASB Concordance has, in square brackets, the very
page in BDB where an OT word is defined.
Einspahrs Index to Brown, Driver, & Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, compiled by Bruce
Einspahr, who desired to simplify use of BDB for students. Starting with Genesis
1:1 and going verse by verse and main word by main word through the Old
Testament, Einspahr lists for you the exact page and quarter of the page to go to in
BDB to find a precise word (see Section II below for recommended procedure).
This resource is extremely useful for O.T. words, as John Alsops similar work is
on the N.T. words; cf Alsop at Topic Two; I.B.1. which directs the user to the exact
quarter of a page defining a N.T. Greek word, in Arndt and Gingrichs N.T. GreekEnglish lexicon. Remember, also, that Vines Expanded Ed., 1984, Bethany
House, gets you to Arndt and Gingrich as well as to Colin Browns 3 vols. on N.T.
words (cf. Topic Two later).
D. Theological Dictionary
Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, eds. G. J. Botterweck and
Helmer\Ringgren. This seeks to supply help on Old Testament words as TDNT
does on New Testament words.

177
II. RECOMMENDED PROCEDURE
In order to get into Old Testament word meanings one can go to various sources, as
listed above. That is not an exhaustive list since there are other special tools and even
fine commentaries that throw a lot of light on a given verse and/or word. A student can
get at the basic information in various ways which are not so difficult after a brief, basic
check of how a given word study book is set up. Here are a few examples:
A. Locate the word you wish to pursue first in one of the four concordances.
Remember that Strong's, Youngs, and NASB Concordance use the same
numbers, which get you to the very page(s) in Theological Wordbook, vol. 2 (at the
end).
1. Method One
Using the NASB Concordance--First find your English word in the
concordance. Then notice the reference number to the right of your word. If
italicized, it is a Greek word referring you to the New Testament Greek
dictionary section of the concordance. But if a block-letter it refers you to the
Old Testament Hebrew-Aramaic section of definitions in the rear of the
volume. Go to the Hebrew-Aramaic dictionary number. Here you will see
the primary root of the word, its various translations and its frequency of
appearance in a given translation. In addition, you are informed of the word's
location on the pages of BDB (cf. page 165 above), so you can then move on
to BDB for a much fuller definition of the word.
You also can use the Strongs, Youngs or NASB number of a word to go
to volume 2 (index) of Theological Wordbook (cf. Topic One, I. B. above)
and locate the page number within these 2 volumes of a much more detailed
discussion of your word. Use of the NASB concordance will enable you to
skip looking up a word in Einspahr's Index to BDB (cf. Topic One, I. C.
above); the concordance tells you the page in BDB so that you do not need to
go to Einspahr to find that out. If you do look in Einspahr, though, it also
will direct you to the very quadrant of the page, and the very sub-point within
that quadrant.
2. Method Two
Using Strong's Concordance--Turn alphabetically to your English word
from the King James Version of the Bible. You'll see a column listing all the
occurrences of that word in the Old or New Testaments. At the right of each
occurrence there is a number. Use that number to turn forward to the Hebrew
(or Greek) dictionary section of Strong's. Once you locate the number, you
will find the Hebrew word, the English spelling (transliteration) of it, and a
concise definition. To learn more detail about the word, your next step is to
move to one of the following references:

178
Theological Wordbook (2 Volumes)--Go to volume 2 at the
end (index) and look up the exact number on the left side of
the column that Strong's gives for the word (Youngs by
Nelson and NASB concordances also do this with the same
numbers). Then notice that TWOT also lists at the far right
of the column the exact page within the 2 TWOT volumes
where you will find a detailed presentation on that word.
For a source with far more O. T. words defined cf. the next
paragraph, below.
Einspahr's Index to BDB--He lists each Old Testament
verse consecutively and tells you the following: the
Hebrew word, the English translation of that word, and the
precise page and quadrant of the page to go to in BDB.
Then, in BDB, you find a detailed discussion on what the
word means and places where it appears in the form in
which your verse gives it.
Alsop does the same for words in the N.T., pointing a user to the page in
the Arndt and Gingrich Greek-English lexicon (cf. topic two later).
3. You also could consult one of the other word study aids (works) listed above
in Part I, Section B.
4. If Einspahr should not list (as in some cases) at a given O.T. verse a word you
are looking for, this may be because the word is a common one and has
been used already in the immediately preceding verses, that is, Einspahr has
already dealt with it.
5. Further instructions on how to follow Einspahr
You also may follow the directions and numbering system in the
Hebrew-Aramaic dictionary of the NASB concordance in order to enter
BDB; in that case, look for block letters for O.T. to locate BDB page to turn
to.
Or one can go to Strongs or Youngs concordances.
Note that Einspahr refers to page sections in BDB. The pages are
divided into quarters, as shown below. Alsop on the N.T., does the same to
get the user to Arndt and Gingrichs Greek-Englich Lexicon, verse by verse
in the N.T.
The NASB concordance also guides a user to the very page and quarter
of a page in a lexicon where a word is defined in detail.
a.

c.

179

b.

d.

Therefore, if you see the page reference "592d" in Einspahr, you realize
that this indicates the lower right quadrant of page 592 in BDB.
Section designations for each word, such as "1 2a" following "592d"
indicate the direction once the page and quadrant have been located. Under
that particular section dealing with the form of the Hebrew word that appears
in your verse, section 2a under part I will contain the word you are after.
Example:
Consider Psalm 1:1 (Einspahr, page 265). You are interested in the
English word "walk". You will find the following entry in Einspahr:
Psalm 1:1 WALK 235a 2 3e 2
This indicates that the word is from the Hebrew root Halak, and you
are directed to page 235 in BDB, and to quadrant "a" at the upper left of the
page. The designations A2 3e 2" are to be read as follows: The first "2"
indicates the Roman numeral of the section in which your word is located;
here in BDB it is "II". In BDB, the Roman numeral II (where definition of a
word first starts) begins at the lower left of page 234. Once you have found
this, locate subdivision 3 under II. This subdivision 3 is located in the upper
right quadrant of page 234 and lists "--of moral and religious life". Section e
under subdivision 3, located in quadrant "a" of page 235, lists "walk in".
Section 2 under 3e lists "bad sense" and also cites Psalm 1:1. Thus, we see
that this is the very word you are interested in from Psalm 1:1. Therefore,
from the information given in BDB, you would understand this usage of your
Hebrew word "walk" to be figurative walking, not literal walking. It has a
moral or religious connotation due to what point 3 tells us. It means walking
in this kind of sense, based on e. And all of this, morally or religiously, is in
a bad sense, based on section 2 under 3e, as in receiving evil counsel.
Again, remember that Alsop has a N.T. version of this kind of help,
which directs the student to the page in Arndt and Gingrich where a N.T.
word is discussed.
B. For further study:
Consult TDNT (cf. page 164 above) for any further study. Go to the index
volume, Vol. 10. Even though this is a New Testament source, many Old Testament
Hebrew words also are dealt with at some length. The index of Old Testament

180
words will point you to the very volume and pages where you will find word
meaning and background. The index of English words and also the index of
passages verse by verse make this very usable to English readers.
Example:
Using our former example of Psalm 1:1, we find the following information in
Volume 10 of TDNT: "I:28c; 321; 633; IV:365; 366n36; 572; 898n16; V:53; 54; 93;
VI:571; VIII:225". Thus, information on Psalm 1:1 is found in five of the ten
volumes (1, 4, 5, 6, and 8). Directions such as those for volume IV which lists
"366n36" refer you to page 366, note number 36. Later on in volume IV another
footnote is referenced as note number 16 on page 898.
Remember, that the TDNT Index volume has helpful indexes on Hebrew (O.T.)
words, Greek (N.T.) words, English words, and Bible passages verse by verse,
Genesis through Revelation.
III. EVEN FURTHER TOOLS FOR HELP ON WORDS OR CONCEPTS
A. Bible Encyclopedias
Check on key words such as creation, tabernacle, Joseph, serpent, Jephthah,
etc. There are several different encyclopedias, such as:
The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Merrill C. Tenney, 5 vols.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr, 5 vols. There is also, in
recent years, a new ISBE.
Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, ed. Philip Schaff, 4 vols.
Hastings' Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings, 13 vols.
Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, ed. C. Pfeiffer et. al., 2 vols.
Anchor Bible Encyclopedia, 6 vols.
B. Bible Dictionaries
Again check key words or concepts or look for background material.
New Bible Dictionary, 3rd edition
Unger's Bible Dictionary, by Merrill F. Unger
Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, ed Merrill C. Tenney, 1 vol.
Smith's Bible Dictionary, by William Smith

181
IV. SOURCES ON PROBLEM PASSAGES
Arndt, William, Bible Difficulties; also Does the Bible Contradict Itself? Also cf. R. A.
Torrey, Difficulties in the Bible.
Archer, Gleason, Jr., Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties
Geisler, Norman etc., When Critics Ask.
Haley, John, Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible
Kaiser, Walter, et al., Hard Sayings (covers O.T., Gospels, Paul).
Laney, J. Carl, Answers to Tough Questions.
Stein, Robert, Puzzling Texts of the N.T.
See also the section in the library stacks which gives still other works. Always look
first to see if a work has indices, and what kinds of indices so that you can get to your
passage as quickly as possible.
V. SOURCES ON MANNERS AND CUSTOMS

Often lexicons, while giving word meanings, tell you information on how a
word was used.

A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 6 vols., is often richly


helpful on New Testament verses.

William Barclay, Daily Study Bible, 17 vols., on the New Testament, often is
rich on manners and customs.

Fred Wight, Manners and Customs of Bible Lands, is very helpful. Cf. also
George Gower, The New Manners and Customs of Bible Lands.

James Freeman, Manners and Customs of the Bible.

William Thomson, The Land and the Book.

On parables: Kenneth Bailey, 2 vols. in 1, Poet and Peasant (four parables of


Jesus) and Through Peasant Eyes (several more parables of Jesus); Stanley
Ellisen, Parables in the Eye of the Storm; Arland Hultgren, The Parables of
Jesus, A Commentary. Also cf. Simon Kistemaker, The Parables of Jesus.

Victor Matthews, Manners and Customs in the Bible.

Students find many of the problems resolved by comparing top commentaries


discussed in J. Rosscup, Commentaries for Biblical Expositors, 2004 ed.

182

David J. Williams, Pauls Metaphors.

On Jewish customs, cf. Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the
Messiah, 2 vols.; also entries in Encyclopedia Judaica, a multi-volume work.
Topic Two: New Testament (Greek)

VI. RECOMMENDED TOOLS


A. Concordances
See the four concordances listed in this appendix under Topic One above-Strong's, Young's, NASB and NIV. All of these are English concordances to get
you into the word meanings in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek.
There is also a concordance in Greek, called A Concordance to the Greek
Testament, eds. W. F. Moulton and A. S. Geden. This progressed from a first
edition in 1897 to the fifth in 1977. Words are listed in the Greek, and the New
Testament references and portions of the verse (in Greek) where the word appears
is listed in columns under each word heading. A student who does not know the
Greek can still look up a word by having a list of the Greek alphabet in the right
order as he consults this concordance. Words are listed in all capital letters, so he
will have to follow the capital letter form.
See also The Word Study Concordance below.
B. Lexicons
1. William Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, eds.
A Lexicon of the Greek New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature. Words are given in the Greek and lexical discussion of meanings
is in the English though Greek is interspersed. Words are defined in an
orderly classification, with different possible usages and examples in the New
Testament. A student who does not yet know Greek can look up a word by
noting the order of the letters in the Greek alphabet from a list in front of him
and turning to the pages in Arndt and Gingrich that list words beginning with
that letter. It is slow at first but one can gain speed quickly.
2. A quicker way is to use John R. Alsop
Index to the Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich Greek Lexicon. This does for each
verse of the N.T. what Einspahr (Topic One, I. C. above) does for every verse
of the O.T. Alsop gives verses from Matthew 1:1 forward through the whole
New Testament. At each verse, an English transliteration of most Greek
words of that verse is given, then the English meaning, then the page and

183
section in Arndt and Gingrich where the student will locate a discussion
defining the word.
3. V. Wigram and Ralph Winter
The Word Study Concordance, eds. George (Tyndale Publishing House).
This volume is part of a 2 volume set, the second volume of which is The
Word Study New Testament. In the WSNT, the English translation of a verse
has numbers printed by words in a system pointing the reader to specific
pages in Arndt and Gingrich. The numbering system is also keyed to William
Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament,
and also TDNT (see page Topic One, I. B. above).
4. G. Abbott-Smith, ed.
Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, This is more brief than
Arndt and Gingrich but is usually helpful on meanings of N.T. words in much
the same way.
C. Dictionaries that Deal with the Greek
Some of the finest and most enlightening discussions of Greek words are
included here, so these are of great value.
TDNT, 10 vols. (cf. Topic One, I. B. above). Volume 10 is the index volume.
A student will find in it an index of English words and through this learn the exact
volumes and pages that discuss a given word. There is also an index of Greek
words, one of Hebrew words, and even a verse-by-verse index from Genesis 1:1
forward through the Bible telling the reader in which volumes and on which pages
he will locate comments on the verses. A thick, handy one-volume abridged edition
boiling things down to a nutshell has been available for several years.
W. E. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. This thick work
lists words right out of the KJV in the center of the page (so they are easy to find!),
and then lists below all the Greek words that translate into those English words.
Discussion is in English, with definitions and copious examples in the New
Testament where a given word is used. There is also the Vines Expanded edition
of Vine's (Bethany House, 1984) that also lists where to read on a word in Arndt
and Gingrich, Colin Brown, etc.!
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin
Brown, 3 vols. This outstanding work lists key New Testament words in the
English and then gives English explanations at some length. It is highly competent
like TDNT, but a kind of concise version as a vigorous effort to provide help on
Greek words. The English index to words helps you find a given word quickly.
The index of Greek words also helps those who can go at it that way.
D. A. T. Robertson

184
Word Pictures in the New Testament, 6 vols. This is a commentary covering
most verses. It is by a famous Southern Baptist Greek grammarian. Often "ATR"
will identify the form of a Greek word or the significance of a construction. Many
times he spells out the rich background (custom) relating to a word, showing how it
was used in New Testament times.
E. R. C. Trench
Synonyms of the New Testament, has lengthy discussions on many key words
in cases where two or more Greek terms may translate into the same English word.
He attempts to show commonality as well as distinctions. A revision of this famous
work has been out for several years.
See also Bible encyclopedias, dictionaries, and other helps previously
discussed in this appendix.
VII. RECOMMENDED PROCEDURE (as for O.T. words, Topic One)
A. Step One
Locate the Greek word you wish to know more about by starting with the
English word out of the NASB. Go to the NASB Exhaustive Concordance (cf.
Topic One, I. A. above). This concordance will refer you to its Greek dictionary by
means of an italicized reference. In the Greek dictionary, located in the rear of the
concordance, you will find that much information is available to you. The origin
and derivation of the word is listed in its primary meaning. The root word is listed.
In addition, the ways the word has been translated in the NASB and its frequency
of occurrence are given.
Now look up the same word in the Abbott-Smith lexicon (cf. page 1 back). If
the Greek letter order is still strange to you, refer to the alphabet in the front of the
book. Abbott-Smith may list your particular verse (i.e. the one you are studying)
under the word you are researching. If you find any new information about your
word, write it down and document it.
B. Step Two
You can also go to Alsop's Index to the Arndt and Gingrich Greek lexicon (cf.
Topic Two, VI. B. 2. above); it will list your very verse and direct you to the precise
quarter of a page in Arndt and Gingrich where you will find more information on
your word.
Alternatively, you can use The Word Study New Testament with its companion
volume, The Word Study Concordance. You will quickly learn the numbering
system on each New Testament verse and be able to turn right to a page where there
is help on your word in any of three sources (cf. Topic Two, VI. B. 3. above).

185
Or, you can go straight to the TDNT index volume (Vol. 10), where you will
find an index of English words. Once you have located your word, it will tell you
to go to a particular volume (in volumes 1 through 9) and page, or several volumes
and pages. Also, you can consult the verse-by-verse index and find out which
volumes and pages discuss your verse. Or, you can look at the index of Greek
words, or the index of Hebrew words and turn to the appropriate volume and page.
Or, you can go to Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words to
find your English word and with it a listing of Greek words. In the Vines
Expanded (Bethany House, 1984) edition of this work, you can also find a listing of
pages in Arndt and Gingrich and Colin Brown on which your word is discussed.
You can even go to The New International Dictionary of New Testament
Theology. Here you look up the English word or the Greek word or both. Cf. Topic
Two, VI. C. above.
Beyond these, you can consult other sources listed in this appendix.
C. Step Three
In the index volume of TDNT (Vol. 10), Greek words are indexed on pp. 61-84
and a verse-by-verse index is found on pp. 372-592. If a volume and page listing is
in boldface type, this tells you that this location will provide you with a large body
of information. For example, p. 451 tells you that information on John 10:6 is
found in two separate volumes--V:751; 856 and also VI:223; 495n100. The most
important information will be located at Volume V, p. 856, since this is the boldface
designation.
D. Step Four
For rich word study, do not forget the following:
Colin Brown's 3-volume work, The New International Dictionary of New
Testament Theology discussed above.
You can follow up study in Colin Brown by going to H. E. Dana and Julius R.
Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. The English index at
the rear of the volume lists subjects such as "future tense" on p. 178, "purpose
clauses" on pp. 266-68, etc. There is an index of Scripture references as well on pp.
355-68, and you may find your verse.
A. T. Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament, 6 vols., discussed
above.
E. Good commentaries on your passage that deal even with matters of the Greek.
See J. E. Rosscup, Commentaries for Biblical Expositors (2004 ed., available
at the Book Shack) for a list of commentaries and annotations as to their value.

186
John Glynn also has a work on commentaries, 2003.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi