Truth Magazine

By Rick Duggin 

After a frustrating and unprofitable study with Watch- tower representatives, a young Christian mourned that if only she had known the Greek, she could have refuted their assertions, and possibly could have converted them. Since she did not know Greek and did not have time to learn it, she did the next best thing — she called in a “hired gun” to lead the next discussion. The ability to read Greek, in her opinion, was a intimidating weapon with which she could silence every objection of her opponents.

There are several misconceptions in this thinking. (1) It implies that if we do not know Greek and Hebrew, we cannot know the Bible as we should. (2) It tends to exalt the person who is acquainted with biblical languages, and to discredit all who lack this knowledge. (3) It gives a wrong message to those whom we are trying to teach. Our next door neighbor may already believe that the Bible is hard to understand. If we strengthen this impression by implying that he must learn the original languages to understand God’s truth, we may discourage him from further study.

Some Dangers To Avoid

1. The average person who knows nothing of the original languages can understand the Bible. Roman Catholics wrongly claim that the “Church” is the official interpreter of Scripture. We must not turn language scholars into our official interpreters. Most Christians do not know Greek or Hebrew, but their study of the English translations can equip them to know God’s will (Eph. 3:3, 4; 5:17). The most celebrated Greek and Hebrew scholars of our day do not understand God’s plan of salvation, the work of the church, or how to worship him in spirit and in truth. 

2. Christians who have no knowledge of Greek or He- brew can teach Bible classes effectively. Denominations often require their preachers to spend a few years studying the original languages in seminaries, but this knowledge does not necessarily improve their ability to teach, and it certainly does not enable them to teach the truth. Some of the best Bible teachers that I have ever heard knew little or nothing about Greek and Hebrew. 

3. Though he does not know the original languages, the studious child of God can refute false doctrines. Curtis Porter knew only enough about the Greek alphabet to use a lexicon, but I know of no one who had more skill in refuting unscriptural arguments than he had. C.R. Nichol, on the other hand, was a good student of Greek, and he had many debates, but he did not parade this knowledge to impress his listeners. In one debate he allowed an opponent to draw him off into a discussion of Greek in every speech except the first and last ones, and he was disappointed with every speech except these two. Since his audience had not studied Greek, they could not know whether brother Nichol or his opponent was right. Whenever we base an argument solely on the original languages, most people in the audience must take our word for it. 

4. There is no substitute for studying the context of a passage. It is not wrong to quote Greek and Hebrew words while teaching a Bible class — the biblical writ- ers themselves quoted foreign languages (see Mark 5:41;

15:34, and many others). The issue is how valuable this information will be to you or to your class. Suppose you are studying to teach a class on 1 Kings 12, and you want to know more about the “young men” who gave advice to Rehoboam. When you locate this word in a lexicon, you may be frustrated to learn that the word yeled means “child, young man, son, boy, fruit.” You have merely exchanged an English word for a Hebrew word that means the same thing. In this instance, a study of the context would have proved more profitable to you and the class than the ability to recall the Hebrew word.

 5. The study of biblical languages must not become an end in itself. An old Scottish proverb says, “Greek, Hebrew, and Latin all have their proper place. But it is not at the head of the cross, where Pilate put them, but at the foot of the cross, in humble service to Christ.” We must guard against any attempt to display our knowledge. Preaching and teaching must not become an ego-trip that focuses attention on the speaker. Whether the language is Greek, Hebrew, Latin, or English, before we pronounce an impressive array of words, we should first decide whether our purpose is to please God or to impress men. 

6. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The average man can learn how to perform an appendectomy in about ten minutes. If something goes wrong, however, he will need at least four more years of complex study to handle the emergency. Most people would not allow even the most talented medical student to operate on them. A little knowledge is too risky. 

In a few moments, the average man can learn the Greek and Hebrew alphabets, and this knowledge gives him access to lexicons. This can be dangerous. We have often heard someone quote Thayer to prove a point, only to find that he was quoting Thayer’s comments instead of his definitions. When a lexicographer assigns a particular definition to a word, that is one thing; when he says that it means a certain thing in a particular passage, be careful. At this point he has stopped giving definitions and has started making comments.

The 1952-1974 editions of the Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich lexicon include this definition of psallo — “. . . our lit., in accordance w. O.T. usage, sing (to the accompaniment of a harp). . .” (899). This is commentary, pure and simple. Bauer’s original German edition translated psallo as sing. Arndt and Gingrich added the phrase, “to the accompaniment of a harp.” This biased addition caused such a protest that Danker, to his credit, omitted the phrase in the 1979 edition of Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker.

Though students of Classical Greek highly value the lexicon by Liddell-Scott-Jones-McKenzie-Barber, they nevertheless view it as a form of commentary. Why? Be- cause the meaning of a word depends on its context, and the only way for classical students to be sure of its definitions is to spend years reading the original texts of Plato, Aristotle, Thycydides, and many others. Few students have the time and determination to reach this level of scholarship, but the fact that they put so much effort into reading multitudes of original texts, and not in merely quoting from lexicons, should tell us something. In one way, the good Bible student has an advantage over classical scholars. We have a relatively small amount of material to understand — the Old and New Testaments — and we can read the material again and again in reliable translations, thus seeing for ourselves how God uses words in their context. This does not imply that lexicons are generally unreliable, but it does admonish us to exercise great care when using them.

Is There No Value In Looking Up Hebrew and Greek Words?

If our preceding remarks have persuaded you that word studies and lexicons can be dangerous, you may be planning to include your word study books in your next yard sale. Before you do, let’s consider the other side of the issue. My purpose in the first part of this article is not to discourage the use of lexicons altogether, but rather to warn against some common abuses of them. While we would not allow a medical student to operate on us, our society does encourage average, non-medical people to learn first-aid. Why do we do this? Because it is better to know a little than to know nothing at all. The same principle is true of lexicons. There are times when the use of biblical lexicons can be very rewarding.

1. A word study can help to explain a passage to a Bible class. When Daniel explained the handwriting on the wall (Dan. 5) to King Belshazzar, why did he use upharsin in verse 25 and peres in verse 28? The “u-” of the first word means “and.” The “-p” becomes “-ph” when following the conjunction “and.” The “-in” is simply the plural form of the word. Thus the consonants are the same in both words — prs. While this is not absolutely essential to understanding the narrative, it may answer a few questions.

2. There are times when lexicons can help to refute false doctrines. Visitors from the Watchtower Society often portray themselves as skilled students of biblical languages, and they often seek refuge from difficult questions by mis- representing both the definitions and the grammatical rules of Greek and Hebrew works. This refuge often backfires. For example, they teach that death is annihilation, and often base their position on the word apollumi, which is translated “destroy” in such passages as Matthew10:28. They claim that apollumi teaches annihilation. They also teach that the earth will endure forever. But in Hebrews 1:11 the word apollumi refers to the heavens and earth. It requires a great deal of talent to stretch the definition of a word so far that it can include something that is annihilated in one verse and something that endures forever in another verse.

3. It can shed light on passages. When I first learned that the “simplicity” that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3) does not refer to the fact that the gospel is written in simple language, but to that which is single or sincere, in contrast to duplicity, I was forced to rethink an expression that I had heard and used for several years. (The gospel is written in simple language, but this is not the word or the place to prove it.)

It is enlightening to study the King James Version’s “Easter” in Acts 12:4. The word pascha occurs about thirty times in the New Testament, and in every case it is translated “passover,” except in Acts 12:4. All other versions that I have checked, including the New King James, consistently translate it “passover” in every passage.

Once I sat in a Bible class once where some were wondering if the “governor” of the feast (John 2:8, 9) was different than the “ruler” of the feast (John.2:9, KJV). A good concordance shows that the original uses the same word each time. The New King James Version uniformly translates it “master” of the feast.

Another passage that may seem confusing is Galatians

1. Paul refers to “another” gospel (v. 6) which is “not an- other” (v. 7). The original uses two different words. Heteros of verse 6 refers to a gospel of a different kind than Paul preached, while allos of verse 7 refers to a gospel of the same kind. False teachers wanted to substitute another (different) gospel for the one that Paul preached.

How Do I Find Words In A Lexicon?

There are several ways to look up words in lexicons, but we will limit our discussion to the two easiest.

1. Use Strong’s Concordance. First, find the word that you want to research. Second, locate the number that Strong’s assigns the word. If the number is in italics, the word will be found in the Greek dictionary in the back of Strong’s; otherwise it is Hebrew and will be found in the Hebrew dictionary. Third, find Strong’s number in one of the lexicons that is keyed to this concordance. For example, the word love in 1 Corinthians 16:22 is numbered 5368. Thayer’s lexicon is now coded to Strong’s numbering system, enabling someone who possesses no knowledge of Greek to find words just by matching the numbers in the two volumes.

This procedure is especially helpful in the study of He- brew words. The word love in Psalm 119:97 in Strong’s Concordance is number 157. Using this number, we can turn to the Index of the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, or to The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, both of which are keyed to Strong’s, and easily obtain definitions that were once restricted almost entirely to those who knew Hebrew.

The King James Version of Deuteronomy 22:19 uses the obscure word “amerce.” While you could check the New King James Version to learn that it translates this word by “fine,” as in a financial punishment, this would not tell you if the Hebrew word behind the translation occurs only here, or if it can be found in other passages as well. Noting that Strong’s assigns number 6064 to this word, you turn to Brown-Driver-Briggs, see that it discusses the Hebrew word anash on pages 778-779, and learn that it occurs in about seven other places in the Old Testament, though it is not translated by the word “amerce.” In this way, the lexicon serves as an abridged concordance.

2. Use Young’s Concordance. Many people find that Young’s Concordance is easier to use than Strong’s. This book classifies the biblical words of the King James Version in groups, each of which is based on the original Hebrew and Greek words. For example, the word “love” in John 21:15-17 can be found under two entries in Young’s — Number 5 which gives the references for the verb agapao, and Number 7 which gives those for the verb phileo.

After looking up “amerce” in Young’s, and seeing that it comes from the Hebrew word anash, you may turn to the index-lexicon to the Old Testament in the back of the book, find ANASH (in upper-case English letters), and learn that the second form of the word is translated in the King James Version in the following ways — amerce, 1; condemn, 2; punish, 1; be punished, 1, etc. This is a very helpful tool that will pay rich dividends to the serious student of God’s holy Word.

By Donnie V. Rader

An Outline as a good preview and overview of a chapter before a detailed study is made. It likewise serves as a review and good way to summarize when the study is finished.

I am convinced that an outline of a text is half of the work of interpretation. That is, of course, if the outline harmonizes with the text. By now, most who hear me preach or read my material should know that I strongly believe that an outline is essential to a good study of any text or topic.

It will be helpful (particularly in the New Testament) if those who teach (and those who want to be effective students as well) learn how to outline a text. I promise you, if you learn to do this, your study of the text will be most enjoyable. Outlining a book or chapter is one of the most effective ways of getting the grasp of a book or text.

Organization is the key to almost anything we do. Thus, to get the great- est benefit from your Bible study it will help to know something about the principle of outlining. Those wanting to make their own outlines of a book or chapter may find this information about how to outline useful.

Let’s take a look at what an outline is, how to make one and how to use it.

What Is An Outline?

An outline is “a summary of a written work or speech, usually analyzed in headings and subheadings” (The American Heritage Dictionary Second College Edition 882). It is “a short summary of the main topics or principal ideas of a written work or speech” (World Book Encyclopedia,

1989, Vol. 14, 887).

Outlining is a way of organizing ideas or thoughts. A writer may make an outline (an organized collection of what he wants to say) from which he will write his article or book. This takes the ideas from an outline to a written document. This can also be done in reverse: taking the thoughts or idea from a written document to an outline. This is what we do when we outline the writings of the New Testament.

An outline shows the breakdown of the author’s thought patterns.

Types Of Outlines

There are informal and formal out- lines. An informal outline is merely a rough “skeletal” outline which may only have three or four points that are not developed in the outline.

A formal outline will contain more information and will organize the points showing the relationship of main topics to supporting ideas. In formal outlining there are topic and sentence outlines. (1) “A topic out- line presents information in parallel phrases or single words” (Harbrace College Handbook, 1984, 448). This method summarizes the chief points and sub-points in brief phrases. (2) A sentence outline uses complete sentences for each point. Most of the outlines that I do are topic outlines.

Now, let us consider various ways to outline a text of the Bible. One method is to make an expository out- line by listing some practical points from a section of Scripture. For ex- ample, one may take 1 Peter 2:8-9 and build a five or six point sermon outline on the duties of a Christian. This is a good sermon outline, but it does not tell us much about the flow of the chapter.

A second method is to make an expository outline by listing some practical lessons from an entire chap- ter. For example, Titus 2 could be used to list a number of qualities of the children of God. Again, this is a good study, but this method does not give the reader an analysis of the flow of the context.

A third method is to outline the points of the chapter and add explanations and passages that deal with the same subject. For example, as one would outline 2 Thessalonians 2 (concerning the apostasy that would occur before the second coming) he might add Acts 20:28-32 and 1

Timothy 4:1-3 in the outline. This type of outline might also have some explanation of the various idea of who the “man of sin” is.

A fourth method simply follows the flow of the context as it was intended for the original readers. This method seeks to fit every verse and thought in the chapter into the outline. This attempts to make an outline as if it were the outline from which Paul (or any other writer) wrote. This is the method that is generally followed in my outlines. Two things are done with this type of outline: (1) It shows how the writer’s thoughts develop. (2) It shows how the different parts of the chapter or book fit together.

The outlines that I use do not attempt to analyze each verse, but they give an overall preview of each chapter.

How To Outline

The following is a step by step procedure for making an outline of any chapter of the Bible. To say the least this is how I have gone about making the outlines that I have used. Let’s take 2 Thessalonians 1 as an example as we discuss each of these simple steps.

1. Read and reread the chapter —three or four times.

2. Watch for thought patterns to develop. Get a piece of paper and begin notation of these patterns. If it appears that verses 1-4 deal with one thought and 5-10 with another, write that down. Keep in mind that your first concept about the thought patterns may not even resemble your final outline.

In the case of 2 Thessalonians 1 it seems that verses 1-4 may be one thought (about thanksgiving to God) and verses 5-10 deal with another (about the judgment) and verses 11-12 deal with a prayer for the Thessalonians.

3. Check commentaries, introductions to the New Testament and Bible handbooks to see how others have out- lined the chapter. With some chapters you will find that nearly all outline it alike. With others, there are no two outlines similar. Not all commentaries give an outline of the chapter. Barnes Notes, the Gospel Advocate series, Benson and others will usually give a brief outline of each chapter. Also the New King James Version has a good system of paragraph divisions and section headings that are helpful.

In our model chapter (2 Thess. 1) Barnes suggest the following divisions: 1-2, 3-4, 5, 6-10, 11-12. Benson divides the chapter this way: 3-4, 5-10, 11-12. The GA commentary (Lips- comb) only has two divisions:  1-2, 3-12. After considering these and other outlines, we will compare them with each other and with our own notes that we made earlier seeing which one(s) best analyzes the chapter. Our final outline may borrow a little from each one of these or it may ignore most of them.

4. Find the major divisions of the chapter. Set them on a piece of paper using Roman numerals. Try to make sure that all major points are of equal importance. The same would be true for sub-points. That is, do not list as a sub-point a statement that does not have any bearing on the major point. When trying to fit every verse into an outline this is not always easy (or even possible in some cases) to do.

In our sample text (2 Thess. 1), I would put these major divisions down on my paper.

I. Greetings (vv. 1-2).

II. Thanks to God for the Thessalonians’ faithfulness and endurance (vv. 3-4).

III. Looking toward the judgment will help you endure (vv. 5-10).

IV. Prayer that the Thessalonians will continue to endure (vv. 11-12).

Obviously, the general theme of the chapter is enduring persecution. All of the major divisions (with exception of the greetings) have an equal bearing on the theme.

5. Reread each major section and watch for thought patterns within the major divisions. These will be your sub-points. Put these on your paper by indenting below your major point and use capital letters to identify your points. Then divide any sub-points by indenting and using Arabic numbers. Any divisions beyond that should used lower case letters and then Arabic numbers in parenthesis.

Back to our model text. As I reread verses 3-4 I see three things for which Paul was thankful. I list these as the sub-points.

A. Faith grows exceedingly (v. 3). B. Love abounds (v. 3).

C. Patient in persecution and tribulation (v. 4).

The same must be done for each major division.

The Value Of Outlining

An outline helps the reader to see the structure of the author’s argument or point. Consequently, it serves as a good preview and overview of a chapter before a detailed study is made. It likewise serves as a review and a good way to summarize when the study is finished.

Outlining serves as an aid to interpretation. The outline helps the reader to see the context in which the verse(s) set. If there is a difficult verse in the chapter, I can know that whatever it means it has something to do with the topic or theme of that particular section. One-half of the job of interpreting a passage is accomplished when you have completed your outline.

These outlines can serve as reminders of what each chap- ter is about. I have put each of these outlines in the margin of my Bible so that anytime I turn to a passage I can see the chapter title, key verse, and the divisions of the chapter at a glance. This is very helpful when I have to deal with a passage that I may not have studied for a while.

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!