In this section of our study we are going to concentrate on some of the textual factors which have an influence on our understanding of God’s will in any particular passage. We are going to be discussing things within the text itself which, if we properly recognize them, will better able us in understanding God’s word. Recognizing these factors will aid us greatly in our search of the Scriptures.

1. Principles And Concepts.

We are going to review and/or introduce several principles which are valuable to us in our search for truth, the first of which is the principle I call the principle of charitable interpretation. Today in searching out God’s word, far too often people go about the practice of trying to set one passage against another so that they can have something which supports the position which they have chosen to defend. It is never good to set one scripture against another since all are equally inspired by God and, therefore, are all true. One passage is not any greater or truer than another. It is all inspired by God and it is all divine truth. What we must do if we are to truly understand its meaning is harmonize the Scriptures rather than set them into conflict one with the other.

The second principle I want us to understand is that all of a speech or conversation might not be recorded, only the gist of that speech or conversation. An example is found in the speech of Peter recorded in Acts 2 at the start of the church. It takes only around two or three minutes to read this speech. Surely Peter did not finish up that quickly when delivering the gospel message for the first time. In fact verse forty tells us that he continued to teach. But the point is that we have in the divine record only the high points of this speech, not its entire text.

Another example of this is found in Genesis. In Gen. 2:15-17 we find the command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But we find added in Gen. 3:1-3 that they were also not to touch it. Any approach to this tree was strictly forbidden. Again we find just the gist of the instructions recorded for our learning.

A third thing one must realize is that all statements in the Bible are not made by inspired men. Many are simply historical quotations and the truth is that they were made, not that they were necessarily accurate. In John 9:31, as example, we find a man proclaiming that God hears only the righteous, referring to his divine healing. In this case the man is correct. However, in Acts 19:34 we find an entire crowd proclaiming the greatness of the idol Diana. That they did such was a historical fact. However, what they stated was not correct. Diana was not great. She was a pagan goddess and should be neither recognized nor worshiped. One must exercise care in assigning validity to a historical statement until he finds out all the surrounding (contextual) factors relative to it.

2. Context and Setting.

It is necessary for the committed Bible student to avoid pulling from unrelated texts and try to make comparisons or connections not warranted by the Scriptures. Let us consider the following example. In Matt. 27:5 we find that Judas threw down the blood money and went and hanged himself. In Luke 10:37 is found the statement to go and do likewise. If one should carelessly and without warrant pull these two statements together, the results could be disastrous!

It is also contextually necessary to be careful when one uses a scripture that he makes sure it applies to the time period or law in which he is using it. Often is the time people have gone to the old covenant looking to justify what they feel ought to be in the new. Instrumental music is very often supported by Psalm 150 in discussions concerning that question. But the Psalms relate to the old covenant, not the covenant of Christ and the bringing of the old law into the new law is absolutely forbidden (Gal. 1:6-12). This type of exegesis is careless and must never be undertaken by the serious Bible student.

3. Speaker and to Whom Spoken.

Another contextual consideration is often the speaker and the one addressed. In II Kings 5 we find the story of Naaman the leper. In verse ten he is told to go and wash in the river Jordan seven times to be cleansed of his leprosy. These instructions were only to him and it would have been a waste of time for all the other lepers in the area to copy him. They would have still had leprosy when they had completed this exercise. In fact, Jesus says there were many lepers at this time and that he (Naaman) was the only one healed (Luke 4:27).

Another instance of the importance of the one being addressed is found in Matt. 14:1-4 when John the Baptist spoke to Herod concerning his adulterous marriage. This passage is vital in showing that God’s laws on marriage, divorce, and remarriage extend to those outside the church. Herod was an Idumean (descendants of Esau) and yet his marriage was challenged by John as being sinful or unlawful. Even though he was not under the covenant of Moses, God still held him accountable for his immorality. In this passage it is very important to know who is being addressed because its application today is directly effected by that knowledge.

In Matt. 18:18-20 it is important to understand who is being addressed and if one does not so understand, his use of this passage can be devastating. I have heard it used, for example, to teach that an individual cannot worship God by himself since God is where “. . . two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” If that is proper exegesis then God would also not be where four or more were gathered in His name. What proves too much proves nothing.

Another corruption of this passage came from a tel-evangelist when he said that if any two Christians agreed on something, then it was authorized by God. Such interpretation is preposterous and could have been avoided if someone had simply stopped to find out who was being addressed in the first place. This passage is directed to the twelve disciples and is parallel to Matt. 16:18-19 where they are given the authority to bind. But even that authority had to be in accordance with how the Holy Spirit would guide them (John 16:13) and not as they personally willed. This scripture does not even relate to worship as the first person assumed but to the commission of the disciples who would later become the apostles of Christ (Read Matt. 15:39, 16:1, 4, 5, 13-20, 18:1 to see who is being addressed in this text).

4. Assumption Versus Reasoning.

There is a real difference between reasoning and assumption. In a Bible class once someone argued that the reason we worship on the first day of the week is because God should always come first. They assumed this to be true but it was not a reasoned conclusion. I pointed out that in the law of Moses they worshipped on the seventh day of the week and then I asked if that meant that under the old law God was the last thing a man was to consider. Obviously the man’s reasoning was invalid. The reason we meet on the first day of the week is because it is part of the new testament pattern which God preserved for us in the Book.

There are others who assume conclusions which are not justified rather than reasoning out the conclusions which are, causing themselves to be confused and misled. In the story of Naaman, he was offended because the prophet did not act as Naaman expected him to act (II Kings 5:11-12). This caused an adverse reaction on the part of Naaman and he begin to suggest alternatives to the instructions he had received. Finally a friend persuaded him to consider again and do what he had been instructed to do. When he did, God healed him of his leprosy. Had he not, he would have remained unclean.

Another remarkable assumption made is that if two passages sound similar, then they must be discussing the same subject. This has brought about many misconceptions today such as the misconception that the name of Satan is Lucifer. Actually Lucifer means Day Star and is a term used in reference to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (Is. 14:4, 12-17). But the religious world at large assumes this passage refers to Satan, simply because of some similar concepts and language which apply to both (Rev. 12:7-9).

Similar mistakes are made daily because, in the same way men assume that passages which sound alike must mean the same thing, they also assume that the same word always has the same meaning. But words like elder, deacon, brother, and a myriad of others have different uses and applications. The word elder, for example, often means one who is advanced in age. But in the church it is one of the terms used referring to the leadership of a local congregation. In Christ’s time it was used sometimes of the Sanhedrin. One cannot assume that every time a similar term or word is used that it refers to the same thing. One must reason to determine the true meaning as it relates to the mind of God.

5. What Is Said Versus What Is Not Said.

There are times in their study when Bible students have a tendency to assume “facts not in evidence”. This can cause confusion and even the formation of doctrines totally foreign to the Scriptures. One example is the doctrine of the 1000 year reign of Christ on earth. The major passage used to teach this doctrine is located in Rev. 20:1-6. But a reading of this passage reveals some interesting changes and omissions to this belief. First, it discusses the souls and not the physical bodies of man. Second, it talks only about certain martyrs and is not universal in scope. Third, it actually discusses the length of the reign of the martyrs and not the length of the reign of Christ. Fourth, the earth is not even mentioned in this passage. One truly has to make some major assumptions and some major additions in order to get this passage to contain the modern doctrine of the 1000 year reign of Christ on earth. Even if one were willing to believe that all this is implied, a belief which would be unfounded, he would then have to face the fact that this is apocalyptic literature and has some special properties all its own which must be considered during the exegesis of any of its passages. We will discuss that in greater detail later. Right now the student simply needs to recognize that he must be careful that he does not see in a passage what is not there.

6. Definitions.

One must always exercise care in choosing his words. Many is the time I have heard someone use the wrong word, only to distort the thought or idea they were trying to convey to the listener. But even greater harm comes when the Bible student distorts the meaning of one of God’s words. When this happens, doctrine is compromised and God is offended. One must always exercise great care concerning the meaning of the words found in Scripture if he intends to understand the mind of God. Let us look at a couple of examples so that we might better understand this principle.

Several years ago I had the misfortune of attending a lecture where the speaker taught that women were authorized to do anything and everything men were authorized to do. He “proved” his point by a series of lies and distortions. The major error in his speech was centered around the meaning of the word aner. This is one of the words in the Greek language which is translated man. It actually means the male as opposed to the female while anthropos, another Greek word for man, generally means mankind. He argued, however, that aner meant a husband and, therefore, whenever it says a woman is under the authority of man it actually means a wife is under the authority of her husband and that it has no application to the church whatsoever. Let’s test this definition.

In John 1:29-30 we find this term applied to Christ. My understanding is that Christ was not married. In Acts 22:3 we find this term used in reference to Paul. My understanding is that Paul was not married. But my favorite passage using this term is Acts 8:27 where we discover that the Ethiopian eunuch was actually a husband!!! Now isn’t that something! We must learn to be very careful and even meticulous when it comes to definitions if we are to have a proper understanding of the word of God.

Sometimes when a word has been used wrongly over an extended time and by many people, that misuse changes the meaning of the word in the mind of the Bible student. The real meaning gets lost and then the Scriptures using this term often become misapplied. The conclusion may be true but may not be supported by the passage cited. If one cannot defend his position with properly cited scriptures then he needs to re-study until he can. If he never can, he needs to re-study his position. It just may be that it is not God’s position on the issue under question.

One such example is found in I Cor. 3:16-17. This passage says not to defile the temple of God. Man has used this passage to condemn the use of tobacco arguing that tobacco use can injure the body, therefore, it is a sin.

There are several problems wrong with this line of reasoning. First, this passage does not even apply to the body, it refers to the church. We know this because of the use of the plural rather than the singular in the original language in reference to this temple. Second, the word defile and the word injure are totally different words. To defile means to corrupt by the addition of sin. One might do that and not even injure his body. One might also injure his body by working or by suffering as a Christian, neither of which would defile anything. This passage neither justifies or condemns smoking. We must look elsewhere to find out the will of God in this matter. What needs to be seen here, however, is that we must exercise great care in understanding how God uses a term if we are ever to understand His message for us today.

7. Search Out Everything on a Subject.

One big problem in exegesis is the “proof text” method of studying and justifying one’s position. It seems that if some “Christians” can locate even one passage which supports vaguely their position, then there is no longer a need for further study. Nothing could be farther from the truth. One must study out and accept all that God says on a subject if he is to please Him.

One such subject is the subject of salvation. Some would take John 3:16 and argue for faith only, not even realizing what all else that position would eliminate. While faith is certainly necessary, there are other facets to the gem of salvation that must also be accepted. There is grace (Eph. 2:8-9), Christ (Eph. 5:23), the word (James 1:21), the blood (Col. 1:14), obedience (Matt. 7:21), works (James 2:24), baptism (I Pet. 3:21), and the list goes on. No one has the right to remove any of this list and if they do they will surely offend the omnipotent God and lead others into Hell. Everything presented by God on any subject must be taken under consideration before a final application of God’s word can be made.

8. Connotative versus Denotative.

Webster defines denotative as the actual meaning of a word while connotative is something suggested in addition to its actual meaning. The way a word is used determines if we use the denotative or connotative meaning. Let’s look at a couple of examples.

Lets look at the word mother. The denotative meaning is one who births young. But the connotative meaning can be vastly different. It can be the one who fixes boo-boos, the one who prepares special soup, the one who tucks me in at night. It can also connotatively suggest safety, warmth, love, hugs and kisses, and so on. The way the word is used determines whether the connotative or denotative meanings are under consideration.

Lets use next a biblical application as we try to better understand these two terms. In the Bible the term fox is used in Luke 9:58 in reference to a furry little creature which makes its home in a hole in the woods. This is a denotative use of this word. But in Luke 13:32 it is used in reference to Herod and, knowing that Herod is not a furry little creature, I understand that this time fox is used connotatively. Herod had some traits which are similar to the furry little creature called a fox. It is the traits of cunning or craftiness to which Christ alludes to in this passage referring to Herod. One must always consider the context to determine if the connotative or denotative meaning is under consideration.

I want to conclude this section with another principle. It is simply this. I do not know everything and so I must keep studying. But even if I do not know the meaning of a specific passage, I might still know what it does not mean. While I way typing the previous line, I heard a car go by outside. I know it was not my father because he is ninety-five and can no longer drive. I know it was not my mother because she has passed into eternity. I know it was not my wife because I hear her teaching in the next room. I know it was not my granddaughter because she is only a few months old. I know it was not me because I am here. I do not know who was driving that car. But I know several people who were not.

The same is true of Scripture. I may not know what a particular passage teaches. At the same time, however, I may know what it does not teach. If someone’s application of a scripture sets it against other scriptures or principles of Christ, I know that it has been misused. I can know what something does not teach while not fully understanding what it does teach. It is important to keep this in mind as you search the Scriptures.