Introduction
It
is of the utmost importance when studying the Word of God that a
distinction is clearly made between interpretation and
application. The interpretation of a passage is
identified with the persons to whom the words were originally
intended. It is the meaning as they would understand it.
When the interpretation has been settled, then it is acceptable to
make an application of those same words to others, so long as we do
not weaken the original sense or come into conflict with other
Scriptures. It may even be that an application has a far deeper
meaning than the interpretation itself, and conveys truths far
beyond it. However, no application (whoever makes it) should be
regarded as sound or trustworthy unless the interpretation has been
first ascertained. Interpretation always takes
precedence over application.
Interpretation
Words convey what is in the mind of the writer. Thus if I receive a
letter from a friend, I look at what words are on the page and
readily appreciate the thoughts that lay behind them. It is not
normal for people to write in code or to deliberately make the
message difficult to understand. Interpreting the Bible is no
different. The words on the pages of Scripture convey the mind of
God, and the message, though profound, is written to be understood.
Of course there are passages that are more involved than others, but
God does not design Scripture to be obscure to His
children! A human writer may not make his points clearly or
well—this can never be the case with inspiration. The reason for a
lack of understanding lies with you and I. This was an issue for the
Hebrews: “For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have
need that [one] should teach you what [are] the elements of the
beginning of the oracles of God” (Heb. 5: 12). That the Ethiopian
eunuch did not understand what he was reading (see Acts 8: 30, 31)
is not surprising because he was not yet converted. However, he made
rapid progress in his understanding once the glad
tidings had got into his soul—compare the connection he makes
between the position of Christ and his own situation (see vs. 33,
36). As Paul says elsewhere, God’s “words” are “taught by the
Spirit, communicating spiritual [things] by spiritual [means]”—the
“natural man” cannot receive such things (1 Cor. 2: 13, 14).
Private
Interpretation
Fundamental to the understanding of how to interpret Scripture is 2
Peter 1: 20, 21: “knowing this first, that [the scope of] no
prophecy of scripture is had from its own particular interpretation,
for prophecy was not ever uttered by [the] will of man, but holy men
of God spake under the power of [the] Holy Spirit”. Now the words
“its own” have been rendered by the AV as “private”, which some have
perverted by making it mean that Scripture is not to be interpreted
by the individual for himself, but that he should trustfully accept
what others have declared its meaning to be. Rome and its dictum of
‘hear the Church’ is most culpable here, but Rome is by no means
unique in its attitude.
The true meaning of the verse is simple. It is a warning against
treating each individual prophetic utterance as though it were a
kind of self–contained saying to be interpreted in isolation from
the rest of prophetic teaching. All prophecy is connected and
inter-related and to be understood only in connection with the
whole. To illustrate: if a piano-maker drew up plans for an
exceptionally fine piano and entrusted the work in four sections to
four different craftsmen, then anybody who endeavoured to
‘interpret’ any one of the resultant individual pieces would surely
reach some strange conclusions. No reliable or satisfactory
interpretation would be found until each piece was seen as related
to the whole design. The same principle applies to every prophecy of
Scripture. Nor does this mean just those passages that predict the
future. All Scripture is prophecy in the sense that it communicates
the mind of God. To return to our illustration: in practice, each
one of the craftsmen, while entrusted with the construction of one
section, would nonetheless work to an overall
master
plan. In the same way, while there are many individual prophecies in
Scripture, all must be interpreted in the light of the whole Bible.
A well–known example
is Matthew 13: 33: “He spoke another parable to them: The kingdom of
the heavens is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three
measures of meal until it had been all leavened”. This is usually
supposed to refer to the Gospel permeating the world with good, but
consideration of the use of the word leaven in the rest of Scripture
would have prevented this conclusion being arrived at. The meaning
of leaven elsewhere is invariably bad (see Exod. 12: 15; 34: 25;
Lev. 2: 11; Matt. 16: 6; 1 Cor. 5: 6, 8), and so the transformation
here must be for the worse. Scripture actually interprets Matt. 13:
33 for us—only if we read the passage in isolation are we forced to
rely on human imagination!
Context
What
has been considered thus far leads on naturally to the subject of
context, namely that the setting in which a particular verse,
passage or chapter is put will give considerable help to its
understanding. If this simple principle is not followed then the
Bible is reduced to a collection of texts—a farcical position to
adopt when one considers that the epistles, for example, were
clearly written as whole letters! If James writes “to the twelve
tribes which [are] in the dispersion” (James 1: 1), that is,
to Jews and not Gentiles, then keeping
that fact
in my mind will help me in my understanding of all that he
subsequently writes. No credible historian studying the letters of
Queen Victoria would ever say that the names or backgrounds of the
recipients were utterly irrelevant—and yet that is the stance many
adopt in relation to Holy Scripture!
Now context can be
immediate or distant. For example, take Matthew 24: 40, 41: “Then
two shall be in the field, one is taken and one is left; two [women]
grinding at the mill, one is taken and one is left”. The explanation
generally given is that the one taken is removed for blessing when
the Church is raptured. Now the immediate context is the parallel
the Lord makes between the event He describes and the days of Noah.
There the ones taken away (see verse 39, “and took all away”) were
taken for judgment not blessing. This does not fit with the popular
explanation.
A
not–so–immediate context is the chapter itself. The subject of
Matthew 24 is the answer to the disciple’s question “when shall
these things be, and what is the sign of thy coming and [the] completion of
the age?” (v 3). Thus in verse 30 we read of “the Son of man coming
on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory”. The verses
about two being in the field are introduced with similar phraseology
(see v 39). The chapter is clearly not about the rapture but
Christ’s appearing in glory.
A more distant context
is the parallel passage in Luke 17: “I say to you, In that night
there shall be two [men] upon one bed; one shall be seized and the
other shall be let go” (v34). Seized for blessing and let go for
judgment? The reverse is surely true.
Finally, there are
references in the Gospels where persons are taken for judgment, and
others left for blessing—as in the parables of the darnel and
the wheat, and of the seine net (see Matt. 13: 41–43; 49). This
and all the rest demonstrate that Matthew 24: 40, 41 is connected
with the appearing of Christ in glory and not the rapture, and that
those taken are removed for judgment and not blessing. Context
matters!
Spiritualizing
Before looking at the application of Scripture we need to examine
its counterfeit. True application is very different from what is
called spiritualizing—a practice which has quite the
opposite effect on the passage that its name would seem to imply.
Spiritualizers ignore what may be learnt from the interpretation of
the passage, and merely use the words of God to convey their own
human messages. It may be done with very pious intentions, but
insofar as it shuts out what God intended to say, then
it must be rejected as unspiritual. Amos 4: 12,
“prepare to meet thy God” is a typical example. This verse is
sometimes used as a Gospel appeal, as if the prophet were talking
about meeting God as a Saviour. God can be met as a Saviour, but
this passage has no connection with such an encounter. The
interpretation is a solemn warning to the nation of Israel that
having persisted in their rejection of Jehovah, they must now meet
Him in His wrath. Any application must take account of
these facts. To apply what speaks of judgment as referring to
salvation is not only absurd, but reduces the Bible to a collection
of words that can be twisted to accommodate any message that the
preacher in his wisdom sees fit. Genuine application would take
account of the interpretation – as in using this verse to speak of
judgment to come in a general way.
Application
When
the child Jesus was taken by his parents into Egypt, Matthew records
that this was “that that might be fulfilled which was spoken by
[the] Lord through the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called
my son” (Matt. 2: 15). However, if we turn back to the prophet we
find that he was not talking about Christ, but God’s earthly people:
“When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and out of Egypt I
called my son” (Hos. 11: 1). So far as the OT is concerned, the
interpretation of the passage belongs to Israel. However, through
inspiration, the NT writer takes up the passage again and applies it
to Christ, in effect giving it a double meaning or interpretation.
There are many other examples of this ‘inspired application’ in the
Scriptures where we can have no doubt about a deeper meaning to a
passage because the Scriptures themselves are explicit about
it.
Much more
caution needs to be exercised when passages are applied in ways that
are not unequivocally sanctioned by the Bible. Few, for example,
would doubt that there are many aspects of the life of Joseph that
are a beautiful foretaste of Christ, but the Bible never
actually says so. When we move into areas of Scripture where
such parallels are even less certain, then we are in perilous
territory. How much mischief, for instance, has been wrought by
wrongly applying to the Church the OT prophecies about Israel’s
blessing? This doesn’t mean that we should shrink from all but the
most obvious applications, but it does mean that we need to be cast
upon God for wisdom and understanding. Novel applications are often
presented in a dogmatic way and as capable of being perceived only
by the most ‘spiritual’. This is a sure sign of one who has gone
astray, and is leading astray.
Some
applications can also be given a depth of meaning as regards detail
far beyond what the Holy Spirit could possibly have intended. We
know, for example, that the events of Israel’s wilderness journey
can be applied to present–day believers because the Bible says so:
“these things happened [as] types of us” (1 Cor. 10: 6). However,
the application has limits—it does not apply to all
the details. For example, that the war with Amalek is a type of the
Christian’s struggle with the flesh (see Gal. 5: 17) seems
reasonable. Dig down into the detail though, and we see that it is
only the “men” (Exod. 17: 9) that fought, whereas
all
believers are to be involved in Christian warfare.
The
application will break down if it is stretched too far.
Conclusion
It ought to be evident by now that the Bible
needs to be handled with spiritual skill. This is the substance of
Paul’s exhortation in 2 Tim. 2: 15: “Strive diligently to present
thyself approved to God, a workman that has not to be ashamed,
cutting in a straight line the word of truth”. If we heed this
exhortation, then there is no limit to the bounty that will be
opened up to us from the treasures of truth—but
if we neglect it through carelessness or self-will,
then we will remain stunted in growth
and be at risk of wandering from the path of the faith itself.
