|
|
|
|
Hermeneutics Part 4 Grammatical Interpretation The Interpretation of The Thought From the interpretation of the separate words we proceed to that of the words in their mutual relation or a thought. Now we are concerned only with the formal expression of the thought, and not with its material contents, which we will wait to discuss until the Historical and Theological sections. The points calling for consideration here are:
The Special Idioms And Figures of Thought Every language has certain characteristic expressions, called idioms. The Hebrew language forms no exception to the rule, and some of its idioms are carried over into the new testament. Thus we read in Acts 23:6: “...of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.” The meaning is, "of the hope of the resurrection ..." Paul, in writing to the Thessalonians, speaks of their “patience and hope,” when he means their patient hope, hope characterized by patience. Also, when in the Old Testament the words lo’ kol are written together they must be rendered, not all; but when they are separated by intervening words, they should be translated, none, nothing. It would be a serious mistake to render Psalm 143:2, “Not every living one shall be justified in thy sight,” though this would be the literal translation. The evident meaning is, “No man living shall be justified in thy sight.” Similar cases are found in the New Testament. Cf. Matthew 24:22; Mark 13:20; Luke 1:37; John 3:15,16; Romans 3:20; Galatians 2:16; Revelation 18:22. There are also several kinds of figures of thought that deserve special attention. Some figures promote a lively representation of thought that deserve special attention.
The allegory has a figurative use and application of some supposable fact or history, whereas, the parable itself such a supposable fact or history. The parable uses words in their literal sense, and its narrative never transgresses the limits of what might have been fact. The allegory is continually using words in metaphorical sense, and its narrative, however supposable in its own context, is totally fictitious. Other figures promote brevity of expression. These figures of thought result from the quickness and energy of the authors thought, fostering a need to omit all superfluous words.
The Special Signification of The Cases And The Prepositions Prepositional phrases may raise important questions. Before we look at these things, it is probably best to review exactly what a prepositional phrase is and does. A prepositional phrase has a preposition( at, from, by, in, of, under, and so on) followed by a noun, plus whatever modifiers it may have. It functions like an adjective or adverb, depending on what element it modifies: He came from a small town [modifies the verb came] in northeastern Minnesota [modifies the noun town]. The special meaning of some prepositions depends on the case with which they are used. Also, there are some preposition that have a similar meaning, and yet reveal characteristic differences. The interpreter cannot afford to neglect these fine distinctions. Since the preposition occupies a far greater place of importance in the Greek than in the Hebrew, we will limit ourselves to the New Testament in looking at examples. What does the preposition apo mean in Hebrews 5:7," and was heard apo fear “? Should it be rendered ” out of “ i.e., ” heard, delivering him out of fear “; or is it better to translate, ”... in respect to what he feared “; or even, ”... on account of godly fear"? In Romans 3:30, the apostle says that God, “ shall justify the circumcision by (ek) faith, and the uncircumcision through (dia) faith.” What is the difference in meaning? The Logical Connection of The Different Clause And Sentences It is absolutely imperative that the interpreter have a clear idea of the logical relation in which the various clauses and sentences stand to each other. To do that , the interpreter must understand the use of participles and conjunctions. A participle is a verb form, typically ending in -ing or -ed, used to modify a noun or pronoun. A conjunction links other words, phrases, or clauses together: and , but, since, because, either...or, etc. The relation indicated by the participle may be:
The relation indicated by the conjunctions is the most important means of connecting clauses and sentences. They furnish the clearest and most definite index to the logical relation in which the thoughts stand to each other . Their value increases with their specificness. The more numerous their meanings, the more difficult it becomes to figure out the precise relation they suggest. The Hebrew vav, which serves as a general conjunction, offers very little aid. Another difficulty arises because one conjunction is apparently used for another. The conjunction hoti serves to introduce either a casual or an objective clause, so that the question arises whether it should be rendered “because” or “that”. As a rule, the context will readily answer that question. It makes very little difference how it is conceived of in John 7:23, but in Romans 8:21, the case is different. The apostle says: “For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, that (or, because) the creature itself shall also be delivered.” It all depends on the meaning of hoti, whether the last words describe the contents of the hope, or give a reason for it. Though it is true the biblical authors occasionally departed from the ordinary use of conjunction, the interpreter should never be hasty in ascribing a meaning to a conjunction that is not warranted linguistically. It is an arbitrary procedure to render ki in Isaiah 5:10 “yea,’ seeing that the conjunction is not known to have an explicative meaning, and the usual sense is perfectly appropriate. In the interpretation of Luke 7:47," Wherefore I say unto thee, her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for hotishe loved much," some expositors were prompted by their dogmatic views to ascribe to the conjunction the meaning of dio, (wherefore), though it never occurs in that sense. It is necessary to guard against the mistake that a conjunction always connects a thought with the one immediately before it. In Matthew 10:31 we read: “Fear ‘ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.” And immediately following this: “Whosever therefore shall confess me before men...” This is an inference, not from the exhortation in the 31st verse, but from all that was said from the 16th verse on. Finally there are passages that are not connected by conjunctions. Some of these are not logically related to one another, as in Luke 16:15-18. Compare verse 16 with Matthew 11:12,13; and verse 17 with Matthew 5:18; and verse 18 with Matthew 5:32. In other instances, however, they are clearly related , as in Matthew 5:2-11; and John 1:8-10. The Course of Thought of an Entire Section It is not enough for an interpreter to fix his attention on the separate clauses and sentences; HE MUST ACQUAINT HIMSELF WITH THE GENERAL THOUGHT OF THE WRITER OR SPEAKER! Sometimes it is difficult to follow the reasoning of the biblical authors. The separate thoughts may appear to be unrelated, while, in fact, they are closely connected. There are cases in which it seems to some people that the course of thought found in scripture is not in harmony with the laws of logic. Sometimes the Biblical discourse as a whole seems to suffer from inherent contradiction. A single example may help to illustrate the difficulty I am speaking about. In John 3, Nicodemus approaches Jesus with words:"Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God; for no man can do those signs which thou doest, except God be with him." How does Jesus’ answer in the 3rd verse relate to those words? In the 4th verse, Nicodemus declares that he does not understand Jesus. Does the Lord answer his question in verses 5-8? The Pharisee repeats his question in the 9th verse, and Jesus expresses surprise at his ignorance in verse 10. Why does he now point to the fact he knows whereof he speaks: to the unbelief of the Jews, including Nicodemus; and to his coming from heaven and his future exaltation on the cross for the salvation of believers? Do verses 16-21 also contain the words of Jesus; cf. also John 8:31-37; Galatians 2:11-21? The parables deserve special attention. The word “parable” is derived from the Greek paraballo ( to throw or place by the side of ), and suggests the idea of placing one thing by the side of another for spiritual truth is illustrated by the analogy of common experience. While the parable is essentially a comparison, a simile; all similes are not parables. The parable limits itself to that which is real, and in its imagery does not go beyond the limits of probability, or of what might be fact. It keeps the two elements of comparison distinct as “inner and outer”, and does not attribute the qualities of the one to the other. In this respect it differs from the allegory, which is really an extended metaphor, and contains its interpretation within itself. The Lord had a twofold purpose in using parables; to reveal the mysteries of the kingdom of God to his disciples, and to conceal them from those who lacked an eye ( or ear ) for the realities of the spiritual world. In the interpretation of the parable, three elements must be considered. 1. The scope of the parable or the thing to be illustrated. It is vital that the purpose of the parable stands out clearly in the mind of the interpreter. In his studies, he should not overlook the important helps found in the Bible.
2. The figurative representation of the parable. After the scope of the parable is determined, the figurative representation calls for close examination. The formal narrative that is meant both to reveal and conceal the truth must be analyzed carefully and all the necessary geographical, archaeological, and historical light, must be brought to bear upon it. 3. The exact point of comparison. Finally, the exact point of comparison must be detected. There is always some special aspect of the kingdom of God, some particular line of duty to be followed, or some danger to be shunned, which the parable seeks to exhibit. Since the interpreter has not discovered this point, he cannot hope to understand the parable, and he should not explain the individual traits because these may be understood only under the light of the central idea. It is impossible to say with any degree of accuracy how far an expositor may go in this respect. The question of just what in the parable belongs to the ethical or doctrinal content, and what to mere delineation, does not come under the rule of a clear cut answer. Unfortunately, a great deal must be left to common sense. In a general way, the rule laid down by Immer may be of some value: “What ministers to the fundamental thought or the intention of the parable, belongs to the doctrinal contents, bur what does not minister thereto, is mere delineation.” Internal Helps For The Interpretation of The Thought Here we will consider any special scope of the author in his message, the connection of his message to the reader, and the use of parallelism. The Special Scope of The Author By this we mean the object he had in mind in writing what he did. The Biblical authors, of course, had a definite purpose in mind in the composition of the different parts of their writings. It is natural to assume they chose words and expressions best suited to convey the intended meaning; therefore, a thorough acquaintance with the special scope of the author will shed light even on minor details. Now the question arises about the best method to discover the special scope. This is not done with the same ease in every case. Sometimes the author states the special scope very plainly. The particular purpose of the song of Moses found in Deuteronomy 32, is clearly indicated in 31:19-21. Paul tells his readers in Romans 11:14 why he is addressing the Gentiles in that particular section, and emphasizes their adoption by God. In most cases the special scope is not pointed out, and the interpreter will fin it necessary to read and perhaps reread a whole section, with the preceding and following context to detect its purpose. Often the conclusion to which an author comes will reveal the purpose he has in mind. This is particularly true of the writings of Paul, in which logical reasoning predominates. Notice, for example, Romans 2:1; 3:20; 28; 5:18; 8:1; 10:17; Galatians 3:9; 4:7,31. It is also to your advantage to notice the occasion that leads to the argumentation in a particular section; occasion and purpose are related. The purpose Paul had in mind in writing the classical passage respecting the humiliation and exaltation of Christ, Philippians 2:6-11, is best understood in the light of what precedes in verses 3 and 4. Paul admonishes the Philippians: “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things for others.” From there Paul continues, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus...,” making it very evident that he desires to present Christ to the Philippians as one who humbled himself to serve others; who did not regard his things exclusively, but also the things of others; who ascended through the deepest humiliation to the highest glory. The Connection The absolute necessity of taking particular notice of the preceding and following, the near and remote connection of a passage, cannot be overemphasized: yet this is often neglected. The division of the contents of Scripture into chapters and verses is always apt to endanger this conception. So, many passages of the Bible were misinterpreted ( not mistranslated ) in the course of time, and these perversions were handed down from generation to generation. The following passages are, I hope, good examples of this: Proverbs 28:14; 31:6; Jeremiah 3:14 b; Zechariah 4:6 b; Matthew 4:4 b; 10:19; 2 Corinthians 3:6 b. No interpreter who neglects the connection should be dignified with the name “exegesis”. The connection is not always the same type. Four types of connection are worth our attention:
In studying the connection, close attention must be paid to the conjunctions. By neglecting this, the interpreter may miss important points. I will refrain from giving examples, but will refer to what has already been said concerning conjunctions. In some cases, the conjunction itself may represent an element of uncertainty, and the expositor must rely on the general context. As a rule the connection should be sought as near as possible. However, if the passage does not yield good sense in connection with the immediately preceding, the more remote context must be consulted. Some commentators would connect Romans 2:16 with the 15th verse, but this construction is very objectionable. It is preferable as a parenthesis. On the other hand, some unnecessarily link Romans 8:22 with the 19th verse, while it yields a perfectly good sense if connected with the 21st verse. When the connection is not once apparent, the interpreter should not hastily conclude that there is a change in the course of thought, but rather pause and reflect. On careful consideration it may become evident there is only a seeming change, while, in fact, the same subject is continued. In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul speaks theologically of the correct use of Christian liberty. Now it seems as though he turns from this subject in 9:1, and begins with a defense of his apostolic office when he says, “Am I not an apostle?” etc. But this is only an apparent turn. He points out that he as an apostle, has many rights and liberties, but makes a considerate use of them so his work may be more fruitful. The interpreter should have an open eye for parentheses, digressions, and anacoluthia (no you do not have to remember this word). These disturb the connection more or less.
The interpreter should gladly accept the explanations in which the authors themselves occasionally give of their own words or of the words of the speakers, whom they introduce, in the immediate context. They are, of course, better qualified to speak with authority in this respect than anyone else. Examples of these types of interpretations are found in John 2:21; 7:29; Romans 7:18; Hebrews 7:21. Parallelism Also May Aid in The Interpretation of The Thought. In using parallelism, the expositor must guard against two mistakes. On the one hand, against the assumption that each parallel clause has a meaning distinct from the other. This is the extreme to which some older interpreters went, because the considered it unbecoming to the wisdom of the Holy Spirit that the same thoughts should be repeated. On the other hand, it is necessary to avoid the supposition that there is ever mere tautology ( the parallel members containing the same idea.) It is a mistake to think that there is complete identity of meaning in the corresponding members of a synonymous parallelism, or an exact contrast in an antithetic parallelism. A few examples will help to clarify the idea. In Psalm 22:27 we read, “All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.” The parallelism makes it perfectly evident that the “ends of the earth” refers to the distant nations, or Gentiles. Psalm 104:6 contains the enigmatic expression: “Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment.” That the writer is speaking of the earth is made clear in the following phrase,"the waters stood above the mountains." In John 6:35, Jesus says: “I am the bread of life; he that cometh to me shall never hunger.” Here the question arises what kind of coming the Lord refers, and the following member of the parallelism answers this: “and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.” 2 Corinthians 5:21 contains an antithetic parallelism: “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” Does the apostle mean that Christ was made sin for us in an ethical or in a legal sense? The antithesis, “that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,” contains the answer, for this may be understood only in a legal sense. External Helps For The Grammatical Interpretation Even though the use of external helps can often prove very beneficial in interpreting passages of Scripture, there use should not supersede the internal helps offered by the scriptures themselves. Valuable External Helps The external helps for the grammatical (including the logical) interpretation of Scripture, which I will recommend, consist of the following: 1. Grammars:
2. Lexicons:
3. Concordances:
4. Commentaries:
The Correct Use of a Commentary In seeking to explain a passage, the interpreter should not immediately resort to the use of commentaries, since this would nip all originality in the bud, involve too much unnecessary labor, and very likely result in hopeless confusion. You should interpret the passage independently, with the aid of whatever internal helps are available, and of such external helps as Grammars, Concordances, and Lexicons. If, after making some original study of the passage, you are in the need of consulting one or more commentaries, you should approach them with a specific question in mind. This will be possible only after a certain amount of preliminary original study, but it will save time in that it will eliminate the necessity of reading all that the commentaries have to say on the passage under consideration. Also, when you approach the commentaries with a certain line of thought in mind, it will be easier to choose between the conflicting opinions you may encounter. If you should succeed in giving an apparently satisfactory explanation without the aid of commentaries, it will be advisable to compare your interpretation with that given by others. If you discover you have gone contrary to the general opinion on some particular point, it will be a work of wisdom on your part to go over the ground carefully again to see if you have considered everything, and to see if your inferences are correct in every particular. You may detect some error that will compel you to revise your opinion. If you discover that every step you took was well warranted, then you should allow your interpretation to stand in spite what the commentators might say. |
|
|
