Introduction
The task of biblical interpretation involves arriving at the intended meaning that the original author desired to relay to his first readers or recipients.1 Strictly speaking, this meaning resides in the words, phrases, and sentences that the author chose when he penned down his work.2 Thus, a perceptive interpreter must assume—and for good reason—that the original author organized his material and expressed his thoughts with intentionality. The interpreter, in turn, is now tasked with relaying that meaning in his or her own words to the reader. Since none of the biblical authors are still alive today to expound on what they wrote, to discern their intended meaning, the interpreter must study the biblical text as it stands today to ascertain its characteristics, and trace every possible thread that may lead to what the author had in mind when he sat down and started writing. Being removed by time, geography, culture, and language, a rewarding interpretive task must be undergirded by studying the history, audience, and diction of the original authors and their time. Moreover, since the ultimate goal of the interpretive task—especially as it relates to the Bible—is drawing applicational value for today’s audience, a successful interpreter must also be able to contextualize the text under study to the lives of modern-day readers. Thus, to effectively study and interpret any biblical text, the interpreter must possess—and be able to successfully apply—the six key skills outlined, and briefly discussed below.
1. Historical-cultural Awareness
As already alluded to above, especially for the Western interpreter, a solid understanding of the biblical history and culture is required for an informed interpretation of the biblical text. One must recognize that the Bible, though the inspired word of God, is a written text—and an ancient one. It was both written by ancient authors and for ancient readers. Hence, to get even a glimpse of what any of the biblical authors intended to communicate or what his original audience may have understood, we, as interpreters, must be well acquainted with their history and culture. In fact, the more historically and culturally aware the interpreter is, the more accurate his or her interpretation will be.
As it relates to biblical hermeneutics, historical awareness simply means being aware of the historical events that surrounded the biblical text in question at the time it was first authored. This involves researching the historical-cultural setting of the text.3 Cultural awareness, on the other hand, involves being informed of the cultural elements of the original audience—whether the Israelites or anyone else—that may have influenced the way the original readers understood and interpreted the text. As will be seen below, the significance of understanding the historical-cultural settings of a biblical text can help us interpret it more fully; the lack of such understanding can severely hinder our ability to grasp its meaning. Some examples may aid in understanding the importance of this crucial skill and how it should be applied in biblical exposition.
To illustrate the value of understanding ancient Near East culture, we can examine the narrative of Jacob and his second wife, Rachel. She was barren; but in her extreme desire to have a child, she says to her husband, Jacob, “Here is my maid Bilhah; go in to her, that she may bear upon my knees, and even I may have children through her” (Gen. 30:3).4 Sadly, the phrase “upon my knees” is lost in many of the modern English translations, most of which render it “on my behalf” or similar. But this was a common Near East custom in the days of Jacob, according to which the birthing maidservant would literally sit in the lap of her mistress while giving birth to her child, who will subsequently become her mistress’s offspring. The act of sitting on the knees of her mistress during delivery was to create the visual semblance as if it were the mistress herself who was giving birth. To appropriate the text to the modern English reader, most translations reframe this important Hebrew phrase; but in doing so the force of Rachel’s expression, and thus the reader’s understanding of the text become heavily diminished.
As an example of the pivotal role historical context plays in our interpretive process, let us take a look at one of the Bible’s most important and well-known prophecies, and that is, the virgin birth of Immanuel.
In Isaiah chapter 7 we read of Ahaz—the then-king of the southern kingdom of Judah—who was asked by the LORD through Isaiah to ask for a sign from the LORD. He refused, saying, “I will not ask, and I will not put the LORD to the test” (Isa. 7:12). Then Isaiah declares that, despite Ahaz’s refusal, the LORD will give him a sign nonetheless: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (Isa. 7:14). This prophecy was later understood, and quoted, by Matthew as a clear reference to the birth of Christ (Matt. 1:22–23). But what does Ahaz have to do with the birth of our Lord Jesus hundreds of years later? This is where the historical context of this prophecy proves essential.
Ahaz was attacked by Resin king of Aram and Pekah king of Israel (Ephraim, Israel’s Northern Kingdom). The plan was to replace Ahaz with the son of Tabeel, who would be loyal to Aram and Israel (Isa 7:1-6).5 To face this northern coalition, Ahaz seeks the help of Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria and presents gifts to him instead of seeking the LORD (2 Kings 16:7-9). God sends Isaiah to assure Ahaz that Jerusalem will not be taken by the northern coalition. Ahaz is encouraged to ask for a sign from the LORD as a token for the LORD’s promise. His real reason for refusing that sign, however, is his lack of faith as he had already made up his mind that it is Tiglath-pileser that would save him not the God of Israel.
The LORD’s assurance to Ahaz that a virgin would bear and give birth to a child meant to Ahaz, and to the rest of Judah, that the Davidic royal bloodline would continue and not perish according to Aram’s and Israel’s plan. Since the northern alliance aimed to destroy Ahaz and the rest of his family (i.e., the house of David), this prophecy signifies God’s promise that he would guarantee the continuation of the kingdom of Judah, thus leading to the virgin birth of the Messiah.6 Moreover, this sign of virgin birth also signifies to Ahaz that if the LORD can work a miracle such as this, which is naturally impossible, then he would be able to deliver Judah in an equally supernatural manner. Without this historical backdrop, Isaiah’s prophecy would seem so disjointed from its context. Understanding this prophecy against its historical background not only aids our interpretation, but reveals its depth and highlights its literary vividness.
The fact that this ancient prophecy was quoted by Matthew on the occasion of Jesus’s birth brings us to the second hermeneutical skill that every able interpreter must possess, and that is, canonical consciousness.
2. Canonical Consciousness
It is well understood by biblical authors as well as Bible interpreters that though the Bible contains sixty-six books, written by about forty different individuals over the course of some 1,600 years, in the end it is one, unified book that has one ultimate author, that is, the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20–21). Therefore, it is incumbent upon biblical interpreters to read each book—and passage—of the Bible as a piece of the bigger whole. Put differently, an interpreter must read and interpret each passage of the Bible not only in its immediate context but also in its wider canonical context.7
To illustrate, consider a beautiful mosaic, consisting of many small pieces. No one piece would be meaningful at all if isolated from the rest of the mosaic. But when all the pieces have been put together, the beauty of the work becomes ever so captivating. Thus, no biblical passage (or book) should be severed from the entirety of the Bible to which it so firmly belongs. Let us take the book of Jonah as an example.
Most of us are quite familiar with the main events of this book, and thus they will not be discussed here. Contained in what is known as the Twelve Minor prophets, Jonah is primarily a historical account. While all prophetic books in the Old Testament focus on the message of God as relayed by each prophet, containing little to no information about the prophet’s own life, Jonah—in the original Hebrew—contains only five words of Jonah’s prophecy. The book focuses instead on the events that took place during Jonah’s ministry.8 Though typically studied to showcase the exemplary repentance of the Ninevites, the message of Jonah is much more reaching. When read in its canonical context, Jonah begins to have a deeper significance.
It is noteworthy that the first five of the twelve prophets do not appear in chronological order,9 but the latter seven do.10 Hosea prophesies judgment against Israel for their disobedience (Hosea 2:9). Joel—which immediately follows—highlights the restoration of Israel’s provisions as a result of its repentance (Joel 2:19). Similarly, Amos warns against the heathen, including Edom, for their wickedness (Amos 1:11-12). Obadiah describes Edom’s destruction as a result of their wickedness and announces judgment against it for transgressing against God’s chosen people, Israel. Then comes Jonah to counter-balance the message of the preceding books by providing an example of God’s mercy and grace on a repentant, gentile nation. Thus, the book of Jonah serves as a transition between the preceding four books and the subsequent seven prophets.11 Read in the context of other OT prophets such as Obadiah (see above), the book of Jonah balances God’s judgment with his mercy and grace. Nahum, which is another, later prophetic book against Nineveh, completes the picture by reinforcing the principle that God’s forgiveness is preconditioned on continued repentance and abandonment of sin.12
The implications of reading Jonah within its canonical context are paramount: God accepts, forgives, and shows mercy toward all those who return to him regardless of their ethnicity, even if God had not made a covenant with their fathers! Ironically, Jonah was written to exemplify the repentance of the Gentiles and their return to God at a time when God’s own people, Israel, were abandoning him! In the book, God is portrayed as a righteous, merciful, and compassionate God who pursues the salvation of everyone—the gentile, wicked city of Nineveh as well as his own prophet who had gone astray. This simple example underscores both the value of reading even entire books in their canonical context and the beauty that is often missed when they are not.
3. Sensitivity to Genre
It is no secret that the Bible contains various literary genres. These include law, historical narrative, poetry, prophecy, and many more. It is equally evident that no one reads (and interprets) a history book the same way he or she reads a poem. Since the biblical interpreter endeavors to interpret the biblical text with all its varying literary genres, he or she must know how to interpret these different genres differently; that is, learn the “rules” of each.13 A prime example of that is the book of Proverbs.
While replete with practical wisdom for everyday life, many have erroneously understood the wisdom of Proverbs as a form of divine promises. But this is far from the intention with which the book was written. Biblical proverbs are neither absolute truths nor divine promises. They neither represent all-encompassing description of life’s situations, nor are they promises from God that guarantee a specific outcome if the reader were to follow them. Rather, proverbs are “general principles based on careful observation of the human experience.”14 Being general truths, proverbs by nature do not deny that exceptions occur; but they do not concern themselves with addressing or stating those exceptions—they simply omit them. In other words, proverbs are generalized statements of how life generally works; but they are by no means a description of how life always works. Lacking this understanding can lead to serious interpretive downfalls.
For example, among its many proverbs, the book of Proverbs says, “Honor the LORD with your wealth and with the firstfruits of all your produce; then your barns will be filled with plenty, and your vats will be bursting with wine” (Prov. 3:9–10). Interpreting this proverb in literal terms would render the Bible at odds with itself, for the Psalter (among other books) is full of laments at how the wicked prosper and the righteous suffers (see Ps. 10:1-11; 73:3-12). Thus, these proverbs, like all others, describe the general rule and not necessarily specific situations or individuals. Not every wicked individual will suffer; and not every righteous person will prosper. But these proverbs invite the Bible reader to realize the value of honesty, hard work, and honoring God in one’s material possessions. Thus, it is evident that one cannot interpret every genre of the Bible similarly or equally literally.
Nevertheless, the interpretive task does not end with our ability to distinguish between the different biblical genres. A capable interpreter must also be well-versed in the original biblical languages or, at the very least, be able to utilize available tools and resources to effect accurate interpretation of God’s word.
4. Literary and Linguistic Competence
Apart from a handful of sections written in Aramaic (mainly in Daniel and Ezra), the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek. Though many English translations do a fair job of capturing the essence of the original text, no translation is perfect. Even “word-for-word” translations exercise some level of “interpretation” when making rendering decisions. This is due, in large measure, to the fact that not every Hebrew or Greek word has an exact match in English that fits every context. This requires a certain level of linguistic literacy on the part of the biblical interpreter. This literacy includes the ability to identify biblical discourse (a complete “unit of thought”), a command of the original biblical languages, and ability to pinpoint and interpret figures of speech.15 For the sake of brevity, let us take the meaning of the Greek word prototokos (“firstborn”) as an example.
In Colossians 1:15 Paul writes about Jesus, “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn [prototokos] of all creation.” Rather than understanding it contextually to signify Jesus’s supremacy over all God’s creation, this word was interpreted by Arianism (early 4th century) and more recently by Jehovah’s Witnesses to affirm that Jesus was created by God the Father before all other creation. In other words, they interpret it in its temporal and not hierarchical sense. Though infrequent in the New Testament, this word appears more than 133 times in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint (3rd century B.C.). In many cases it is irrefutably hierarchical and not temporal. For example, in Psalm 89, the LORD speaks of David, saying, “And I will make him the firstborn [prototokos], the highest of the kings of the earth” (Ps. 89:27). Whether understood literally (about King David) or prophetically (about the future Messiah), this verse cannot be interpreted in its temporal sense, for neither David nor Jesus are the first kings of the earth in a chronological sense. Attached to the preeminent status of the firstborn son, this word became closely associated with supremacy rather than being exclusively a designation of time.16
This is one of manifold examples that illustrate the need for a literarily and linguistically skillful interpreter. The lack of this competency, as demonstrated above, can lead not only to misinterpreting the word of God but can also produce fatally flawed theology. This brings our discussion to the next skill that a talented interpreter must possess—a firm grasp of biblical theology.
5. Biblical Theology
At the heart of the Bible is its author—the Lord God. The Bible is God’s revelation about himself and his relationship with man, expressed through God’s dealing with mankind through the movement of history. For this reason, any Bible interpreter should be attuned to hearing what the Bible says about God and his involvement in human history. Recognizing these motifs and being able to interpret them properly—in their original context—is what is known as “biblical theology.”
It is essential for every effective biblical expositor to possess the ability to identify and interpret the theology of the Bible correctly. As the example below demonstrates, whether the interpreter can interact with the biblical text theologically can have significant implications for the church at large.
The progressive nature of the divine revelation contained in the Bible demands that every interpreter explain the theological themes of the biblical text in its original historical setting.17 Whereas systematic theology organizes its contents, and groups them by topic, based on our own needs and contemporary concerns, biblical theology seeks to investigate what each book or part of the Bible teaches about certain theological concepts, using the framework and terminology of the biblical authors themselves.18 Thus, one may set out to study the theology of the pre-exilic versus the post-exilic prophets or endeavor to study the theology of the synoptic gospels compared to that of the gospel of John.19 Therefore, “doing theology” in the realm of biblical interpretation starts from within the text itself, working our way outward, to learn what the text says about the theological themes it presents in its original context (historically, culturally, and linguistically). Hence, a seasoned interpreter, throughout his interpretive task, must possess a solid understanding of how certain theological motifs have progressed through the Scriptures.
A powerful example of that is the concept of “works” in Pauline theology versus that of James. In the second chapter of his epistle, James writes, “You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness’—and he was called a friend of God” (James 2:22–23). This verse seems to be at odds with what Paul writes in Romans, saying, “For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness’” (Rom. 4:2–3). However, properly understood each in their own context, it is reasonable to say that Paul was concerned with the works of the law—which had not yet been given at the time of Abraham—whereas James had in view the “good works” that result from one’s faith, not the works of the law. Paul was writing to show that by the works of the law, no one can be justified before God (Rom. 3:20). James, on the other hand, was writing to demonstrate that faith without true transformation—manifested through behavior—in the lives of believers is like a tree without fruits—dead. Thus, the correct theological meaning of any biblical text must take into account the original context in which it was written.
6. Proper Application
Bringing out practical applications for the lives of the believers is not a matter of choice; it is a commandment. The Holy Spirit commands us through James, saying, “Be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves” (James 1:22). Thus, this final skill (and step) of the interpretive process is the culmination of interpretation. It has been rightly termed, “one of the fruits of interpretation.”20
As mentioned above, the ultimate goal of the interpretative task is not interpretation in and of itself, but rather bringing out of the biblical text teaching that can edify the body of Christ in our modern age. To build upon the illustration given earlier of a mosaic, interpreting the Bible without contextualizing the text to the modern audience and without mining out its applicational significance is akin to creating the pieces of a mosaic, cutting them to the right size, and coloring the individual pieces but never putting all the pieces together to form the mosaic itself! They would remain as beautifully colored pieces with little or no value. This requires the interpreter to possess the skill and ability not only to interpret the biblical text but also to exposit it, that is, to explain it in a way that is meaningful and practical to the audience.
Because the Bible is a one-of-a-kind mosaic that comprises many different pieces, each belonging to a different genre of writing, an effective interpreter must be able to exposit the various genres within the Bible. Granted, not every part of the Bible lends itself equally to application. A strong argument can be made that one can find greater applicational value in, say, the gospels or the epistles than in the Old Testament genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1–9. Still, a capable interpreter is one who is able to contextualize various biblical genres to the needs of his audience.
Since not every Bible passage is equally adaptable to our modern age, and given that the Bible is a historical, literary, and theological text, Bible expositors must be well-acquainted with the historical, cultural, and linguistic variables of the biblical world as well as their own.21 Essentially, most misappropriations of the Bible have stemmed from either a wrongful understanding of the text or from erroneous parallelism between the historical-cultural setting of the biblical world and our own. Interpreters who lack this critical skill can be led astray from the truth of God’s word and, even more sadly, mislead others as well.
By way of illustration, some traditional churches (such as the Orthodox churches) have taken Paul’s exhortation in 1 Corinthians 7:5 as a prohibition on engaging in sexual intercourse during periods of corporate fast between married couples. In fact, these churches do not perform wedding ceremonies during periods of fasting for this very reason. No congregant is allowed to participate in many forms of worship (such as the Lord’s Supper) in these churches if he or she has recently engaged in sexual intercourse. This is a gross misunderstanding and misappropriation of this text. While Paul intends to encourage married couples to abstain, for a time, from sexual intimacy to focus on prayer and fasting, he by no means intends for this to be a prohibition. First, in the next verse Paul states that he intends this “by way of concession, not of command”! (1 Cor. 7:6). Second, he leaves it up to the couple—not the church—whether to abstain or not and for how long. Third, nowhere in the text does Paul indicate that sexual intercourse annuls one’s purity or hinders his or her prayer and fasting. Misunderstood in this way, this verse would be in direct contradiction to everything the Bible teaches elsewhere about the holiness of marriage.
Conclusion
In closing, it is important to mention that while the above skills are by no means exhaustive, they form the foundational bedrock for the proper interpretation of Scripture. It is evident that rightly interpreting the word of God requires hard work, years of study, and persistence; but the rewards are usually immense. Conversely, the consequences of misinterpreting God’s word or not studying it at all would not only cause us to lack in understanding or be misinformed, but it would in fact lead to eternal destruction. Rightly did Paul say to his disciple Timothy, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).
If this blog encouraged you, share it with a friend. Click here to join my mailing list so you can receive my latest articles and resources directly into your inbox before they are published. You can also connect with me on Facebook or LinkedIn.
1 Andreas J. Köstenberger and Richard D. Patterson, Invitation to Biblical Interpretation: Exploring the Hermeneutical Triad of History, Literature, and Theology, Invitation to Theological Studies Series, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2021), 49.
2 Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. and Moisés Silva, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007), 32.
3 Köstenberger and Patterson, Invitation to Biblical Interpretation, 81.
4 Any emphasis added to a biblical text throughout never appears in the original and is strictly mine.
5 Michael Rydelnik and James Spencer, “Isaiah,” in The Moody Bible Commentary, ed. Michael Rydelnik, and Michael Vanlaningham (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2014), 1019.
6 Michael Rydelnik, The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic? (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2010), 148.
7 Andreas J. Köstenberger and Richard D. Patterson, Invitation to Biblical Interpretation: Exploring the Hermeneutical Triad of History, Literature, and Theology, Invitation to Theological Studies Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2011), 154. Logos Software
8 Douglas Stuart, “Jonah, Book of,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament Prophets: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship, ed. Mark J. Boda and J. Gordon McConville (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 455-56.
9 Namely, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, and Jonah.
10 These are Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.
11 John H. Walton, “Jonah,” in Daniel~Malachi, vol. 8 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Tremper Longman III, and David E. Garland (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2008), 464.
12 Jason T. LeCureux, “Obadiah, Book of,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament Prophets: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship, ed. Mark J. Boda and J. Gordon McConville (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 573.
13 Köstenberger and Patterson, Invitation to Biblical Interpretation, 185.
14 Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2009), 448. See also William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2017), 496-98.
15 Köstenberger and Patterson, Invitation to Biblical Interpretation, 473.
16 Todd D. Still, “Colossians,” in Ephesians ~ Philemon, vol. 12 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2006), 290.
17 Köstenberger and Patterson, Invitation to Biblical Interpretation, 698. Logos Software.
18 Richard Alan Fuhr, Jr. and Andreas J. Köstenberger, Inductive Bible Study: Observation, Interpretation, and Application through the Lenses of History, Literature, and Theology (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2016), 341-42.
19 Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 579.
20 Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 602.
21 Fuhr and Köstenberger, Inductive Bible Study, 293.
