Truth Magazine

By Ronny E. Hinds

Among the very first books I bought, over forty years ago, was Alexander Campbell’s Christianity Restored. I must confess the reason I bought it was for the articles contained in the latter two-thirds of the book. But, through the years that has not been the reason I have gone to it many times. The first one hundred pages contain an excellent discussion on principles of Bible interpretation, especially figurative language. The discussions are usually brief, with numerous Bible examples.

What Campbell understood is important for us to understand when we are reading and studying Scripture. Campbell said, “God has spoken by men, to men, for men. The language of the Bible is, then, human language. It is, therefore, to be examined by all the same rules which are applicable to the language of any other book, and to be understood according to the true and proper meaning of the words, in their current acceptation, at the times and in the places in which they were originally written or translated. If we have a revelation from God in human language, the words of that volume must be intelligible by the common usage of language . . . by the use of the dictionary and grammar. Were it otherwise, and did men require a new dictionary and grammar to understand the book of God — then, without that divine dictionary and grammar, we could have no revelation from God: for a revelation that needs to be revealed, is no revelation at all” (22). I suggest you read again those words and thoughtfully reflect on their implications about our personal, individual responsibility and capability of understanding Scripture. “Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17).

The Bible never calls itself “The Bible.” It calls itself “Scripture.” Jesus said, “Have you never read in the Scriptures?” (Matt. 21:42). This is important. Scripture refers to written, not spoken, revelation from God. What God first spoke through men he has caused to be written so we could know with certainty (Luke 1:1-4; 1 Cor. 14:37-38; Rev. 21:5) what he expects of us. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17; note: the ASV and NASB use the words “sacred writings” in verse 15). The value of written revelation is obvious. It can be studied, examined, researched, and reviewed again and again. The Bereans “searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11). Unlike the spoken word, which is forever absorbed into the atmosphere never to be heard from again, Scripture remains forever as the precise expression of God’s eternal words and will. Jesus said, “and the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35).

All words of human communication are to be under- stood either literally or figuratively. By literal I mean their original, natural, ordinary, simplest meaning. Literal means, “being actually such” (Random House Unabridged Dictionary 836), with no allusions suggesting other meanings. It is usually the first thought that enters our minds upon reading or hearing a word. By figurative I mean there is an additional meaning, where words “are diverted to a meaning which they do not naturally denote” (Horne’s Introduction, T.H. Horne, I:322). But, and this is important, the diverted meaning still has a connection to the original, natural meaning. The American Heritage Dictionary uses the word “resemblance” in defining figurative. Figurative language involves a comparison being made, where something is like what it literally is, but something else is being implied. Let me illustrate. “That argument doesn’t hold water.” “I jumped out of my skin.” “Stand up for the Word of God.” Each of these sentences are obviously figurative yet we cannot correctly understand them if we do not first have a literal understanding of what it means to “hold water,” “jump out of” and to “stand up.”

It is important to understand that identifying a word or words as figurative does not mean we are saying something is not real. There is a tendency in all of us to think that figurative language does not speak with the same force or validity as literal language. That is not so! Figurative language teaches literal truth! I do not think it is an over- statement to say that figurative language teaches literal truth with greater force and strengthened validity. E.M. Bullinger in his book Figures of Speech says figurative language is designed “to increase the power of a word, or the force of an expression” (V). He explains: “We may say, ‘the ground needs rain’; that is a plain, cold, matter-of-fact statement; but if we say ‘the ground is thirsty,’ we immediately use a figure. It is not true to fact, and therefore it must be a figure. But how true to feeling it is! How full of warmth and life! Hence, we say, ‘the crops suffer’; we speak of a ‘a hard heart,’ ‘a rough man,’ ‘an iron will.’ In all these cases we take a word which has a certain, definite mean- ing, and apply the name, or the quality, or the act, to some other thing with which it is associated, by time or place, cause or effect, relation or resemblance” (XV). Without using figurative language our human communication would remain ordinary, limited, and often dull.

Basic Bible Interpretation, by Roy B. Zuck, offers the following reasons for using figures of speech:

1. They add color or vividness. Psalm 18:2, “The Lord is my rock and fortress.”

2. They attract attention. Philippians 3:2, “Beware of dogs”; James 3:6, “And the tongue is a fire.”

3. They make abstract or intellectual ideas more concrete. Deuteronomy 33:27, “The eternal God is your refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms.”

4. They aid in retention. Hosea 4:16, “For Israel is stubborn like a stubborn calf”; Matthew 23:27, “For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness.”

5. They abbreviate an idea. Psalm 23:1, “The LORD is my shepherd.” Multiple ideas are in “shepherd.”

6. They encourage reflection. Psalm 52:8, “But I am like a green olive tree in the house of God”; Isaiah 1:8, “So the daughter of Zion is left as a booth in a vineyard, as a hut in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city.”

As we think about this, the question inescapably comes, how do we know when we are reading literal or figurative language? Since Scripture is written in human language the same rules (if that is what you want to call them), that govern the discerning of literal and figurative language in our human literature should be used to understand the language of God’s literature.

First, as a basic, general rule “an expression is figurative when it is out of character with the subject discussed, or is contrary to fact, experience, or observation” (Zuck, 145).

It is important to understand that identifying a word or words as figurative does not mean we are saying something is not real. There is a tendency in all of us to think that figurative language does not speak with the same force or validity as literal language. That is not so! Figurative language teaches literal truth! I do not think it is an over- statement to say that figurative language teaches literal truth with greater force and strengthened validity. E.M. Bullinger in his book Figures of Speech says figurative language is designed “to increase the power of a word, or the force of an expression” (V). He explains: “We may say, ‘the ground needs rain’; that is a plain, cold, matter-of-fact statement; but if we say ‘the ground is thirsty,’ we immediately use a figure. It is not true to fact, and therefore it must be a figure. But how true to feeling it is! How full of warmth and life! Hence, we say, ‘the crops suffer’; we speak of a

‘a hard heart,’ ‘a rough man,’ ‘an iron will.’ In all these cases we take a word which has a certain, definite mean- ing, and apply the name, or the quality, or the act, to some other thing with which it is associated, by time or place, cause or effect, relation or resemblance” (XV). Without using figurative language our human communication would remain ordinary, limited, and often dull. 

Basic Bible Interpretation, by Roy B. Zuck, offers the following reasons for using figures of speech: 

1. They add color or vividness. Psalm 18:2, “The Lord is my rock and fortress.”

2. They attract attention. Philippians 3:2, “Beware of dogs”; James 3:6, “And the tongue is a fire.”

3. They make abstract or intellectual ideas more con- crete. Deuteronomy 33:27, “The eternal God is your refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms.”

4. They aid in retention. Hosea 4:16, “For Israel is stubborn like a stubborn calf”; Matthew 23:27, “For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness.”

5. They abbreviate an idea. Psalm 23:1, “The LORD is my shepherd.” Multiple ideas are in “shepherd.”

6. They encourage reflection. Psalm 52:8, “But I am like a green olive tree in the house of God”; Isaiah 1:8, “So the daughter of Zion is left as a booth in a vineyard, as a hut in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city.”

As we think about this, the question inescapably comes, how do we know when we are reading literal or figurative language? Since Scripture is written in human language the same rules (if that is what you want to call them), that govern the discerning of literal and figurative language in our human literature should be used to understand the language of God’s literature.

First, as a basic, general rule “an expression is figurative when it is out of character with the subject discussed, or is contrary to fact, experience, or observation” (Zuck, 145).

The literal should always be assumed first, but if that raises difficulties in our comprehension then consider a figurative usage. An obvious example. When John saw Jesus he said, “Behold! The Lamb of God” (John 1:29). Certainly, because it raises an impossibility, a contrary to fact situation, an absurdity, no one would understand Jesus was a literal lamb. But, in using that word, Scripture is intending for us to transfer to Jesus certain qualities (demeanor, behavior, sacrifice) that belong to a lamb. Such language immediately gets our attention and vividly reveals ideas we are to believe concerning Jesus. Literal language could do this, but not as pointedly and with as much interest. Other examples. God said he had made Jeremiah “a fortified city and an iron pillar, and bronze walls” (Jer. 1:18). Isaiah 55:12 says, “the mountains and the hills shall break forth into singing before you, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.”

Second, we must watch for literal interpretations that would put us in conflict with other texts, or involve us in doing things we know Scripture says is wrong. John 6:53, “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you” compared to Acts 15:29, “abstain . . . from blood.”

Third, study the word’s or verse’s context for qualifying, explanatory adjectives or phrases. John 6:32, “bread from heaven,” and “the true bread.” 1 Peter 2:4, “a living stone.” First Thessalonians 4:13, “those who have fallen asleep” are explained as “the dead” (4:16). Ephesians 2:1, the “dead” here are “dead in trespasses and sins.” Obviously, “the dead” in “let the dead bury their own dead” (Matt. 8:22), could not be literally dead or else how could they bury them?

Fourth, on some occasions the text itself tells us we are reading figurative language. John 2:19-21, “Jesus answered . . .‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’. . . But He was speaking of the temple of His body.” Revelation 1:1, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants . . . And He sent and signified it . . .” Galatians 4:24, “which things are symbolic.”

I remember well my first “conflict” with someone over literal and figurative language. I had preached on the Lord’s supper and made the statement “the bread represents the Lord’s body.” A visitor, as we shook hands, was quick to correct me that the text did not say “represents”; it said, “this is My body.” What followed was a brief discussion of literal and figurative language. I told him it had to be one or the other. If the bread did not “represent” Christ’s body then it was literally his body. Such was impossible because Jesus had personally taken, blessed, and broke the bread. Furthermore, if he believed the bread he had eaten that morning was literally Christ’s body he was a believer in the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. His mistake was failing to see the figurative use of language and it led him to a false idea.

We all must be exceedingly careful when discerning (Heb. 5:11-14) between literal and figurative language. It can reach out and snag any of us. Zuck (146) in explaining that we should always take a passage in its literal sense un- less there is a good reason not to, uses the numbers 144,000 and 12,000 from Revelation 7 as an example of “no reason not to take those numbers in their normal, literal sense.” Apparently, his premillennial views have blinded him to the figurative use of those numbers. Think! If the numbers are literal then why not those whom the text says compose those numbers — “all the tribes of the children of Israel” (7:4). If so, then only literal Jews, no Gentiles, make up the 144,000. Furthermore, according to Revelation 14, this is a male only group, virgins everyone, with the Father’s name written on their forehead (vv. 1-4). Professor Zuck has ignored his rule number three: “The figurative is intended if the literal meaning is an absurdity” (146).

Understanding literal and figurative language is really at the heart of the discussion over what Scripture means by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Sometimes we speak of it as direct or indirect. No one I know would argue that Scripture teaches the Holy Spirit does not dwell in us — “the Holy Spirit who dwells in us” (2 Tim. 1:14). The question, which is usually never asked, is, does he dwell in us literally or figuratively? How are the texts that speak of the Holy Spirit being given to us, abiding in us, etc., to be understood? Literally or figuratively? Those who believe in a personal, direct, actual, physical indwelling must argue from literal explanations or else they are without any supporting texts. But if they are right, then explain the texts that speak of the Holy Spirit as “on” someone? John 1:33, “the Spirit . . . on Him”; Luke 2:25, “the Holy Spirit was upon him”; Luke 4:18, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me.” Also, consider 2 Samuel 23:2, “The Spirit of the Lord spoke by me, and His word was on my tongue.” Where exactly were the Spirit’s words? A personal, direct, literal indwelling is not the way we understand the indwelling of God the Father and Jesus the Son, nor (think about this!) our indwelling them (1 John 4:15; Col. 1:27; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 8:9). I am afraid some have been influenced by denominational doctrine more than they like to admit when dealing with this issue. We cannot rightly say, as so many do when discussing this, “that is just what it says and I believe it.” Scripture also says mountains shall sing and trees shall clap their hands (Isa. 55:12)! Such an attitude is not “rightly dividing” the involved texts (2 Tim. 2:15). The question is, are the texts speaking with literal or figurative language?

Much more could be said about this topic because human language (and so Scripture), is filled with figurative usage — more than we realize at first glance. We could at- tempt to discuss all the various kinds of figurative language; but I have no desire for such. Bullinger’s book has a table of contents of 28 pages with over 200 categories! Besides, in my opinion, determining the kind of figure we are dealing with is really not necessary to understand the text. It might be interesting and reveal some additional ideas, but practically speaking, unnecessary for an accurate, understandable explanation of the text. Sometimes we can make things too complex, losing the basic message that God is seeking to reveal. Keeping things simple and understandable must be always kept in mind.

By Bobby Witherington

“. . . how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I wrote before in a few words, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)” (Eph. 3:3, 4). “Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17). “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). 

These Scriptures are a few among so many which stress the fact that it is possible for one to “understand” the will of God, or that it is possible for a person to “know the truth.” However, even among those who regularly study the Scriptures, there are multitudes who do not know the truth. In fact, there are vast numbers who are described by 2 Timothy 3:7, “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Moreover, the apostle Peter alluded to the writings of the apostle Paul, some of which is “hard to understand,” concerning which he said “those who are untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures” (2 Pet. 3:16).

Hence, on the one hand, we have the plain affirmation by Paul that we can know what he knew if we read what he wrote and, on the other hand, Peter stated that some who read what Paul wrote “twist” those “things . . . to their own destruction.” Moreover, as we have just documented, Jesus said, “You shall know the truth,” and Paul said some are “never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

Rest assured, in these verses, Peter, Paul, and Jesus did not contradict one another! By reading the Scriptures, we can come to a knowledge of the truth, but many who continually read the Scriptures never come to a correct understanding of the same. Of course, there are many reasons for this, one being the fact that some simply do not “love” the truth (2 Thess. 2:10), and therefore read the Scriptures in order to prove their own presumptions — not with a fervent desire to actually learn what the Bible teaches.

However, in the judgment of this writer, most people who read and yet fail to come to a knowledge of the truth are not intellectually dishonest. But clearly there is something terribly lacking in their method of Bible study! It is one thing for an intelligent person to read the Scriptures, and it is something else for a person to read the Scriptures intelligently. If it is to be understood, the Bible, like any other book, has to be studied intelligently. Regardless of the curriculum, certain common-sense principles of interpretation must be utilized — one of which is “the law of context,” sometimes called “the law of frame of reference.”

But What Do We Mean By “Context?”

“Context” is defined as (1) “the parts directly before and after a word or sentence that influences its meaning . . .” (2) “. . . the immediate environment, attendant circumstances or conditions; background” (World Book Dictionary). Hence, generally speaking, “context” denotes the “immediate environment” in which a Scripture appears — especially, the verses which precede or follow a particular verse. More- over, “context” may also include the paragraph, or chapter, or the overall subject matter of the book in which a Scripture appears. Also, the broader context may very well include the particular covenant of which a reference is a part, and on occasion may even be affected by the prevailing culture at the time a given Scripture was penned. In other words, “context” may include the “immediate environment” (the Scriptures before and after), or it may include a much broader background. However, most of our difficulties in understanding a given text are due to a neglect to properly analyze its “immediate environment.” And this is the area which will receive the greater emphasis in the remainder of this article.

Examples Which Illustrate the Value of Context

1. Mark 10:9: “Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” Based on this Scripture, a mother of Siamese twins reportedly refused to allow surgery to separate the children, and she justified her refusal by citing this passage! However, in context, the Lord was referring to “a man” whom God has “joined to his wife” — this is the union which Jesus said “let not man separate.” This verse, taken out of context, could be misused so as to prohibit surgery to separate Siamese twins, or even splitting wood with which to build a fire!

2. Matthew 19:14: “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” A large number of people cite this reference when they are called upon to justify infant baptism. However, “baptism,” either for infants or adults, is not mentioned even once in this entire chapter. What is mentioned is the fact that some brought “little children” to Jesus that he might “put His hands on them and pray.” In this case, neither the text nor the context says a word about infant baptism.

3. 1 Corinthians 1:17: “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel . . .” Baptist preachers (and others) often cite this verse in order to prove that baptism is not a requirement for salvation. However, the purpose of baptism is not the object being considered in the “immediate environment” (context) of this passage. Contextually speaking, there were “contentions” among some at Corinth, some saying “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” Paul knew that the validity of baptism is not determined by who does the baptizing, and he did not want to be a party to their partyism. Moreover, Paul’s principle mission was “to preach the gospel” — it was not to baptize. He had baptized “Crispus and Gaius” and “the household of Stephanas,” but he was thankful that he had personally baptized only a few at Corinth, “lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name.” However, the fact remains that all who obeyed the gospel at Corinth had heard, believed, and were baptized (Acts 18:8)! Moreover, even in the context of 1 Corinthians 1:17 Paul revealed that in order for one to be “of Christ” (a Christian!) two things had to occur: (1) Christ had to be crucified for that person, and (2) that person had to be baptized in “the name” of Christ. Hence, the seven verses before 1 Corinthians 1:17 gives the context for that verse, and they also necessarily infer that one must be baptized!

4. Matthew 5:48: “Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.” Some read this verse and conclude that the Bible contradicts itself. They point us to Romans 3:23 which says “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” and to 1 John 1:8 wherein we are told that “if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” They then tell us that “no one is perfect,” so they conclude that Jesus either commanded the impossible or else the Bible is self-contradictory! However, this is another instance in which context is ignored. Granted, each one of us should strive for sinless perfection. But sinless perfection is not the subject under consideration in the context of this verse. Go back to verse 43 and you will note that Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’” However, in contrast to what others had “said,” Jesus said, “But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to them who hate you, and pray for those who spite- fully use you and persecute you” (v. 44). Then in verse 45 we discover the reason for such admonition, it being “that you may be the sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.” You see, contextually speaking, the perfection herein required is that we develop the quality of love which God possesses — the kind whereby we are able to love both our neighbors and our enemies.

Concluding Thoughts

There are many other verses which could be readily cited — verses which are taken out of context and used to teach error. Without further comment, we could cite Acts 16:31 from which some mistakenly conclude that one is saved by faith only, or Acts 2:29-31 which certain false teachers use to teach the doctrine of premillennialism concerning the reign of Christ, or Galatians 6:10 which some brethren misuse to teach local church support of human institutions. And the list goes on.

Someone has observed that “a text considered apart from its context becomes a pretext.” And so it does. God’s “word is truth” (John 17:17), but truth handled inaccurately (cf. 2 Tim. 2:15) results in error believed, preached, and practiced. Hence, we conclude by urging one and all to examine every passage in the light of its context. In view of the length of eternity, and the value of souls, too much is as stake for anyone to do otherwise!

By Daniel H. King 

The Bible And History

The Bible is a literature which is filled with written depictions of occurrences which are said to have happened along a time line from the very beginning of the universe through the first century A.D. Those events which are re- corded in the Old and New Testaments may be reckoned as being either truly historic happenings, or imagined and mythical in their essential nature. While some moderns consider a few of the incidents which we read about in the Book of Books to be imaginary, most will admit that almost all that we find therein is historical. And even those parts which they question are suspicious only because they may not be otherwise established to have occurred other than the fact that they are found in this particular literature. (Moreover, this particular literature is always more suspect than any other.) The same may be said of many ancient documents which have not been, and may never be, validated by external proof. The interesting fact is that many historical incidents which are claimed to have happened in biblical time, and are recorded in the Bible, have now been externally attested by the study of ancient Near Eastern documents uncovered through the activities of modern archaeologists. They are attested as genuine history by contemporary documents, most often from non- Israelite sources.

So, the material which we discover between the covers of this Book claims to be thoroughly historical in nature. This basic fact of the biblical writings is extremely well recognized, as the following quotations show: “For what is the OT from the Christian point of view — and from no other point of view can it be rightly understood — but the record of God’s gradual revelation of himself to Israel in his purpose of redeeming love with a view to the establishment of his universal kingdom? The Incarnation was to be the culminating point of that revelation and that purpose” (A.F. Kirkpatrick). “The Bible is through and through of historical nature and spirit” (G.H.A. Ewald). 

The book of Hebrews commences with the following “history-centered” words: “God, who at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son.” The revelation of God happened in time, that is, in real history. And because the sum and substance of this literature claims to be the revelation of God, the nature of this history is particularly important. As one writer put it: “Unless the Bible is infallible, there can be no moral obligation to accept the facts which it records; and though there may be intellectual error in denying them, there can be no moral sin” (Froude, Theological Difficulties). Taking the opposite angle from Froude, since he denies the infallibility of Scripture, but accepting his line of reasoning, we would suggest the following: Since the Bible is infallible (cf. John 10:35), there is a moral obligation to accept the facts which it records, and there is moral sin associated with denying them. So, the Scripture rather naturally makes demands upon its readers, and such demands as may not easily be ignored! The historical element of the Bible is both quintessential proof of its infallibility and often its greatest liability, to some the reason for questioning its infallibility, for like any other ancient document it provides a record of many events which may not otherwise be capable of external validation.

Encounter With God

There is one more important element present in this idea of the revelation of God in history. It is that the Bible does not represent mere history, or “naked” history. Scripture portrays the meeting of man with God in time. Men like Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah and Paul, meet God in the biblical narrative as it were “face to face.” Emil Brunner compared God in the act of revelation to “a tall man, (who) stoops down to a little child and lowers Himself upon His knee, so that the child may look into His face” (Offenbarung und Vernunft, 413). Ultimately, of course, this is illustrated in the appearance among the sons of Adam, of God in the person of his Son Jesus Christ: “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 14:8, 9; cf. 2 Cor. 4:6; Col. 2:9). The Bible is the ultimate historical meeting between man and God, not just of Abraham and God, or of David and God, but of you and God, and me and God. We meet with God in our own historical setting and cultural milieu, through the retelling of our spiritual ancestors’ experience as it is recorded in the Book.

Some modern scholars have attempted to study the biblical materials as pure history, and subtract from it the spiritual dimension. This is so because they view them- selves as secular historians and the Bible as part of that history which they wish to study and to comment about. But what they seek to do is impossible. The Bible is not secular history. The remarks of Floyd Filson are helpful in this regard: “The commonly accepted procedure in writing history is to describe the human situation in the light of the natural world. This method recognizes that man is more than an animal; he is gifted with intellectual and spiritual capacities that make him truly human. But history on this view is the story of human experience, and religion is described as man’s experience in the observable world of nature. All of this is undoubtedly an integral part of history, but it is a question whether this is the whole of it. Our story deals mainly with Biblical material, and for the Biblical writers, God is the chief actor in history; his will and action are decisive. Can we do justice to the Bible history if we reject or ignore or are neutral toward its central faith and outlook? Can we adequately describe Biblical history in a way that excludes God’s role?” (A New Testament History: The Story of the Emerging Church xi).

These things being true, it is most important indeed to appreciate both the nature of the Bible as essentially religious and historical, and the nature of the history itself as real and understandable. As we suggested earlier, part of it is even verifiable by means of external sources. The Bible is no more entirely religion than it is entirely history. It is tragic, therefore, when we do not value this historical element in the Bible and see how indispensable to the rev- elation it is, and how inescapable a study of it is to the fullest comprehension of the message of the Word of God. It truly brings to life the ancient writings and makes them seem “contemporary.” It makes of the biblical world a real place peopled by flesh-and-blood individuals like ourselves, with their hopes and dreams, anxieties and fears. The stories come alive on the page and teach us lessons that are eternal in both their application and their importance.

A word of caution must, however, be always in the mind of the student of the historical aspect of the Scripture. As a discipline it should not be pursued in its own interest or for its own sake. It needs to be remembered that the definitive purpose of the Bible is not to recount history but to bring man into an encounter with God. That is what the Book is about. So long as history and the historical in Scripture is studied as an adjunct and aid to the most complete appreciation and discernment of the principal message, then it is kept in its proper place and is valuable. The study of Greek is precisely parallel. The student of Greek who specializes in the Koine language of Scripture, but who in the course of his concentration upon the linguistic nuances of the NT literature — misses the opportunity to know Jesus of Nazareth — he has failed entirely. This is true of every other academic pursuit which deals with what is in the Bible. The principal purpose and the principal Person of this Book is so crucial to one’s own soul and the very reason for his being that a purely scholastic or pedagogic approach to it is a relative waste of time.

A Few Historical Illustrations From the Old Testament

The people of Israel constituted a covenant community based on God’s acts in history. The tie that bound this people together had deep roots in history and specially as God had dealt with certain personages of her historic past. It was not merely a history of great ancestors in whom they could take pride. Rather, it was a history of God’s relations with these men and women. God had chosen, redeemed, judged, disciplined, forgiven, taught, and trained them. All this was done in history, with all the events connected therewith occurring in real historic circumstances, and set in a cultural and historical “background.”

Most of such things may not be “essential to salvation,” that is, the things which it brings out or sheds light upon may not be matters upon which our souls depend, but they are certainly important for deeper appreciation of what is going on in the text and what may be described in the text. That said, we reiterate our belief that an appreciation for the historic implications of what we read in the Bible, and an understanding of antiquity, particularly Near Eastern antiquity, is essential to the fullest enjoyment of Scripture. How could it be otherwise? 

A few brief illustrations of how history and the general background and setting of Scripture may illuminate the Word of God, will prove helpful for those who may not otherwise understand. We shall enlist the aid of several cases which have proven helpful and interesting to this author in his own study of the book of Genesis. 

The period of the patriarchs, described in the book of Genesis, has always proven challenging to the modern Bible student. During that period the characters did a number of things which have left us shaking our heads and wondering, “Why?” Archaeological work in one of the cities of the ancient kingdom of Arrapkha, called Nuzu, between the years 1925-41, yielded large numbers of literary texts which bore directly upon many of the interesting customs of the patriarchal age. The people of Nuzu were Hurrians, the Horites of the Bible. Several parallels came immediately to the attention of the researchers.

First, there was the biblical story of Abraham’s adoption of his slave Eliezer as his heir (Gen. 15:2-3). At Nuzu it was a custom for a childless couple to adopt a son to serve them as long as they lived and bury and mourn over them when they died. In exchange for these services, he was designated as heir of all their possessions and lands. The Lord says in Genesis that Abraham and Sarah are to have a legal heir instead of the slave (15:4). This also coincides with Hurrian law, which states that if the adopter should beget a son after the adoption, the adopted must yield to the real son the right of being the chief heir.

Second, there is Sarah’s strange act of providing her husband with Hagar in her barrenness (Gen. 16:2), as well as Rachel’s giving of Bilhah to Jacob for the same reason (Gen. 30:3). Hurrian marriage contracts found at Nuzu actually require that the wife who fails to bear children, provide her husband with a handmaid who will bear them. When Sarah wanted to cast out Hagar from Abraham’s household, the Bible says that the patriarch himself hesitated to do so (Gen. 21:10-12). In fact, this was expressly forbidden under Hurrian marriage law.

Third, Esau’s sale of his birthright to Jacob (Gen. 25:30-34) has always appeared to be a very strange idea when considered from a modern standpoint. At Nuzu, however, there are several examples of contracts involving the sale of birthrights to others. On one tablet, an individual named Tupkitilla exchanges his inheritance share for three of Kurpazah’s sheep. He got a much better price than Esau!

Fourth, in Genesis 31, Laban insists that Jacob take no wife in addition to his daughters (v. 50). This prohibition against a bridegroom taking another wife was often found in the marriage contracts discovered at Nuzu. Evidently many fathers-in-law had precisely the same concern for the welfare of their daughters as did Laban. Laban’s gift of a handmaid to each of his daughters at the time of their marriage (Gen. 29:24, 29) is also paralleled in the Nuzu texts. Apparently this was done in the event that the daughter could not provide children for her husband. Jacob’s servitude to Laban in exchange for his daughter’s hand in marriage is also paralleled in Hurrian society. One contract at Nuzu shows a man who sells himself into slavery to the master if he will provide him with a wife. In his instance, Laban had to be satisfied with a mere seven years for each of his daughters. Rachel’s theft of her father’s gods was never fully understood until the Nuzu material was interpreted. Under Hurrian law, the possession of the family gods carried with it more than a mere religious significance. It also signified leadership of the family with respect to the ancestral estate. In essence, it was comparable to a modern deed of ownership to the family property! This is what Rachel had stolen when she took the household gods, and this explains Laban’s relentless pursuit and eager search for his most treasured possessions.

These four examples are indicative of the nature and importance of the thousands of other comparably illumined texts from Genesis and the rest of Scripture. Old Testament study has been enriched greatly by the historical studies which have arisen out of discoveries from the Egyptian Execration Texts, the Mari Texts, Tell el-Amarna, Ras Shamra (Ugarit), and numerous cities in Palestine. Entire books have been written on each of these areas of investigation, along with many more like them, which have shed enormous amounts of light upon incidents which are related in the course of telling the story of the Hebrew people. With our space limitations we cannot go on relating them, even though it is our inclination to do so. This field is so rich in resources that no student can ever take in all there is to learn!

What is the importance of all this? Does it actually have application for the understanding of the text of Holy Scripture, or is it simply academic exercise? G. Ernest Wright, biblical archaeologist and Old Testament scholar, made the following observation: “It is very likely that the exposition of the Bible by a person widely trained in the literatures of the ancient Near East will differ in perspective rather mark- edly from the exposition by one who knows nothing of the biblical environment. . . . The type of literature, its author- ship, its historical setting, its personality interaction within history, and above all a sensitivity for the biblical world which produced the literature all these are necessary if we would really understand the Bible” (“Historical Knowl- edge and Revelation,” in Translating and Understanding the OT, ed. by H.T. Frank and W.L. Reed, 292, 300). This being true, it is important that we have a grasp of this field and do sufficient study in the area to understand at least the more significant instances of historical illustration of the biblical text.

New Testament History

As to the New Testament, we are confronted with the identical challenge. Because we want to know what Scrip- ture meant to those to whom it was first given, we make a great effort to learn all that we may about those to whom it was first given. This way we may make the proper applica- tion of the principles and teachings of the text of Scripture to our own daily lives and our contemporary situation. As Dr. Alan Johnson has written, “Historical/Cultural matters take us into a wide variety of areas and details. In the NT alone matters of political, economic, social, geographical, religious, and philosophical background, and a great many details of culture, such as clothing, homes, and food, clamor for attention as we assess the precise intent of the biblical materials. No one person could possibly master all the background materials now available; and even if one could, he would have to admit that there are gaps which perhaps never will be filled in” (“History and Culture in NT Interpretation” in Interpreting the Word of God 129). We must make some time for general reading in the introductory works of this field, or else we and our hearers will be the poorer for it!

What A Wonderful Time To Be Alive!

There is so much to learn! Never has there been, in the history of Bible investigation, such riches of knowledge at the behest of the eager Bible scholar! Let us enjoy the fullest appreciation of Holy Scripture and the fullest possible understanding of its message, by the thoughtful study of the historical and cultural aspects of biblical backgrounds. But, let us ever keep in mind that the purpose of this rev- elation is not the mere collecting and admiring of what is ancient, even if it has a direct bearing upon the Bible. It is rather to learn of “Him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth . . .” (John 1:45). Let us never fail of this purpose!

By Leon Mauldin

Before the creation of the heavens and the earth, before time began, God had a plan. He planned to create this universe and the earth to be inhabited by man (Isa. 45:18). He designed a plan by which man could be saved; that plan was the redemption that would be in his Son Christ Jesus. Though all have sinned, and the wages of sin is death (separation from God), the sin- less Son of God would die on the cross as a sacrifice for all of us. Although God’s plan was complete, much time would pass after the creation before Jesus would come to this earth. His coming, and the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, is the theme of the Bible. 

“But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son . . .” (Gal. 4:4). Time was required for God to prepare man for the coming of his Son. Time was needed to teach that sin is not to be treated lightly, that it is ugly, destructive, and costly. This was seen in the continual shedding of blood of the animal sacrifices during the Old Testament period. Since God’s plan called for Jesus, who was Deity, to become flesh, time was required to develop a nation, and a lineage, though which Jesus would be born. 

As you study each book of the Old Testament, keep in mind that God never lost sight of his purpose. If you are studying the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph), these are not merely interesting stories. Throughout this period God was looking ahead to the coming of his Son. These men are in the Bible because they had an important role in God’s plan.

The following outline demonstrates the flow and continuity of Scripture:

• Creation (and Pre-flood)

• Flood (and Post-flood)

• Patriarchal

• Egyptian Bondage/the Exodus

• Wilderness Wanderings

• Conquest

• Judges

• United Kingdom

• Divided Kingdom

• Judah Alone

• Captivity

• Return (and Rebuilding)

• Silent Years

• Life of Christ

• Establishment and Growth of the Church

• Letters

Genesis lays a foundation for what is to follow in the rest of the Bible, Old and New Testaments. In six literal days God created the earth and all things in it. Man was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26). God gave Adam and Eve a law, which prohibited their eating of a certain tree. When they yielded to temptation and violated that law, sin entered the world, and consequently they were banished from the presence of God (Gen. 3:23-24).

The ray of light that shines in that dark picture is God’s statement to Satan: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel” (Gen.

3:15). This is so important because it is the first promise of Christ! He is the seed of woman (born of the virgin Mary), who would “bruise the head” of Satan (see Heb. 2:14). Again, a long time would pass, and many events would occur, before that promised Seed would come.

Genesis 5 lists the generations from Adam through Seth down to Noah, because that is the lineage through which Jesus would come. The flood occurred because the point was reached that every intent of the thoughts of man’s heart was only evil continually (Gen. 6:5). Genesis 11 records the descendants of Noah through Shem down to Abraham.

This brings us to the patriarchal period of Bible history. Abraham was given three important promises: that God would make of him a great nation (the Israelites), that he would give to that nation the land of Canaan, and that through his seed (Jesus) would all the families of the earth be blessed.

The remainder of Genesis is concerned with how God developed that promised nation, through Abraham, his son Isaac, Isaac’s son Jacob, and his twelve sons. After Joseph was elevated to being ruler of Egypt, Jacob, his sons, and their families moved to Egypt, and from that family, God developed that promised great nation. But first Israel underwent a period of slavery in Egypt. At God’s appointed time he chose Moses to lead his people out of Egypt. To accomplish this it was necessary first for God to send the ten plagues. This was done to let Pharaoh and the Egyptians know that the Lord was the true and living God, and that he was all-powerful (Exod. 7:5). Also, these plagues were judgments against the gods that the Egyptians worshiped (Exod. 12:12).

Israel left Egypt, and made their way to Mount Sinai. It was here that they actually entered into covenant relationship with God, to be his people, and to obey his law (Exod. 19-24). The tabernacle, which was central to their worship, was built. The Aaronic priesthood was established (Leviticus). Then the march began toward Canaan. At Kadesh-Barnea, just south of Canaan, the people became fearful and rebelled (Num. 13-14). This began the next period of forty years of wilderness wandering, during which all of the soldiers, except Joshua and Caleb, died.

Joshua then led Israel across the Jordan to receive the promised land. A key verse is Joshua 21:43: “So the Lord gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and dwelt in it.” As time passed the Israelites were influenced by and attracted to their immoral neighbors. They soon forsook God, and worshiped the Baalim and Asherah. God would punish them by allowing an enemy to oppress them. When Israel would cry out to God, he would raise up a judge, who would deliver them. There would be peace during his lifetime, but after the judge died, this cycle would start again. This is the message of the book of Judges.

The events narrated in the book of Ruth occurred dur- ing the judges (Ruth 1:1). The book reinforces what we have seen about the theme of the Bible as the conclusion reaches back to Judah’s son Perez, and traces the lineage through which Jesus would come through Boaz, and his son Obed, who was the father of Jesse, the father of David (Ruth 4:18-22).

Samuel’s judgeship marked the transition to the United Kingdom, with three kings, Saul, David (of the tribe of Judah), and Solomon (David’s son), each of whom reigned forty years. A key passage is 2 Samuel 7:11-13, where God promised to raise up David’s descendant and establish his kingdom. This was a promise of the Christ who was to come, and of his kingdom. Peter refers to this promise in Acts 2:30-31, and emphatically affirms the fulfillment in Christ.

Solomon’s apostasy is described in 1 Kings 11:1-8. Consequently, the kingdom divided at his death into Israel to the north, with Jeroboam as the first king, and Judah to the south, with Solomon’s son Rehoboam reigning. Jeroboam made many unauthorized changes in worship: the time, the object, the place, and the persons who officiated as priests. That false system of worship would continue in Israel until its destruction in 722 B.C. by the Assyrians. This portion of Biblical history is not only the record of the kings, but this is also the history of the prophets. 1 Kings 18-25 continues with the record of Judah alone. Then Judah was destroyed in three successive invasions by the Babylonians, and was taken captive (seventy years).

The prophets had also foretold of the return to the land of Israel. The first was under Zerubbabel — 536 B.C. (Ezra 1-6). It was during this time that the temple was rebuilt. The second return was under Ezra in 458 B.C. (Ezra 7-10). Nehemiah led in the third and final return from the Babylonian captivity, in 444 B.C. The Old Testament closes in anticipation of the coming and work of John the Immerser, who would herald the coming of the Lord (Mal. 3:1; 4:5).

This brings us to the silent years, the intertestamental period. Though no additional Scripture was being revealed, remember that God rules in the kingdoms of the world (Dan. 4). Daniel gave very specific prophecies of the Medo Persian, Grecian and Roman powers. He, more than any book in the Bible, deals with that period of history between the Old and New Testaments. These nations would all make contributions to a state of readiness for Christ’s coming.

The New Testament record takes up right where the Old Testament leaves off. Luke tells of the announcement, which broke the silence, that aged Zacharias would have a son, John, who would “make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Luke 1:17). Months later, the same angel told Mary that she would miraculously conceive a son, Jesus, the Son of God.

The ministry of Christ divides into seven periods. These are: (1) Preparation, (2) Early Ministry, (3) Great Galilean Ministry, (4) Retirement, (5) Perean, (6) Final Week, (7) Post-Resurrection Appearances. This is the record of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. 

The book of Acts takes up where the Gospel records leave off, with the carrying out of the Great Commission. The hope of all the ages was to be realized. Salvation had been brought down! Acts 1:8 concisely foretells the path the Gospel would take: the apostles would be witnesses first in Jerusalem (Acts 1-7), Judea and Samaria (Acts 8-12), and to the uttermost part of the earth (Acts 13-28). Wherever the Gospel went, the message was the same. Men were declared to be sinners, and Jesus Christ was held up as their only hope. Those who obeyed from the heart were saved from sin, and added by the Lord to his church (Acts 2:26-47; Rom. 6:17, 18). 

Romans through Revelation were letters, written to individual Christians and churches, with instructions regarding all things that pertain to life and godliness. Those who had been saved from past sins were told how to maintain their salvation, and ultimately to receive that salvation which is ready to be revealed at the last time (1 Pet. 1:5). That is the theme of the Bible. Hallelujah! What a Savior!