Three steps to understanding the Bible
It is one thing for us to claim that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and quite another to assert that we are interpreting it correctly.
‘Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who doesn’t need to be ashamed, correctly teaching the word of truth’. 2 Timothy 2:15-16 (HCSB)
I have written on this subject before but it is so important that it warrants repeating.
I am currently helping a colleague develop a two-day workshop on Bible interpretation for church leaders who have English as a second or third language. Most of them have a low level of formal education, and a further challenge is that many of them have only been exposed to topical or allegorical preaching.
Perhaps I should give an example of these two types of ‘interpretation’: The story that Jesus told of the good Samaritan has often been interpreted allegorically. Some teachers have claimed that the two coins given to the innkeeper to provide for the injured man’s board and lodging stand for baptism and holy communion. The idea being that these are the two ordained church provisions for the ‘sinner’. But there is no end to what the two coins could be taken to represent; Old and New Testaments, Apostles and Prophets, and so on. The problem is, of course, that the original context of the passage plays little role in this form of interpretation, and nor does the first intended meaning.
A couple of years ago I came across a rather extreme yet nevertheless real-life example of literalistic interpretation. One of our preaching team members was ministering at a church in a nearby informal settlement. During the service, a young woman started to manifest signs of demonic interference, so… the church leaders immediately tied her up with ropes! The visiting preacher demanded that they release her and asked why they had tied her up. They answered that the Bible said they should because “Jesus said in Matthew 12:29 that they should ‘bind the strongman’.” Once again, the context and first intended meaning of the scripture in question had been ignored.
So, what are the most fundamental processes for interpreting the Bible? For me, there are just three – Context, Christocentricity, and Exhaustive Reference.
In the majority of cases, the context of a text yields its fundamental meaning, in other words;
- Look at the verse’s position within the larger portion of scripture in which the text is set.
- Observe the literary type or style of the passage. Is it poetic, or prophetic, a parable, or a historical account? For instance, we get into all sorts of trouble when we read the book of Revelation as a chronological history.
- Finally,
note the cultural, geographic, and historic setting.
Determining the context of a passage helps us answer the key question, ‘what is the first intended meaning of this portion of scripture?’ A helpful way of getting to an answer to this question is to consider what the first listeners or readers would have understood as the meaning.
Where the meaning of a passage is still not clear, even when considered within its various contexts, then we need to ask a further question; ‘what light does the life and teaching of the Lord Jesus shed on my understanding of this passage?’ Did Jesus teach this? Did Jesus do what the text appears to teach? Is what Jesus presented as the nature, character, and values of the Triune God consistent with what this text appears to be saying? Jesus Christ is the full manifestation of the Godhead (Colossians 2:9) and we can be sure that His life and teachings constitute the primary key to understanding the Bible. One of the most dramatic examples of the need for this Christocentric principle is the sad story of Ananias and Sapphira who appear to have been struck down by God for not fully disclosing their donation to the church (Acts 5:1-11). The question that must be asked of this difficult passage is, ‘would Jesus have killed two of His disciples for this or any reason?’ The answer is a resounding “No!” There must be another way of understanding this historical account, and if we cannot settle on it then we should simply say “I don’t know what happened here, but I am not convinced that God killed them”.
My recommendation is to stay away from allegorical interpretations… but if you do venture into this tricky area, please always ensure that what you arrive at is consistent with the text’s first intended meaning. In other words, ensure that what you claim the text teaches lines up with what the first readers would have understood the meaning to be.
There are parts of the Bible which are hard to understand, and that is why God has given the church it’s teachers. However, if you follow the three simple processes which I have briefly outlined, then most of the scriptures will be open to you. At very least, you will be able to identify the real problems texts and know to call on an experienced and trained teacher who can help you.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Three steps to understanding the Bible Read More »



On the one side, the arguments often devolve into “God’s Word says so, so that’s the way it is” statements, and on the other side the many references to quasars, the speed of light, quantum mechanics, and so on can be a little overwhelming. Debaters tend to argue at length (Pun intended once more) whether the meaning of the word translated as ‘day’ in Genesis Chapter One can indicate a long period instead of a 24-hours. Ken Ham accuses Old Earth Creationists of arguing from the basis of science and then trying to make the biblical account conform to the so-called evidence. Dr. Ross, however, claims that he is equally committed to the inspiration and authority of the Bible, but that he sees no conflict between a reasoned interpretation of the scriptures and the scientific evidence. But is the real driving issue the matter of WHEN God created? Is it really? I don’t think so.
The how and when of it only becomes important to me if it impacts on core Christian doctrines such as sin, spiritual death, salvation, and so on. Young Earthers do debate these issues as well, but not well, and nothing I have read or heard has even come close to convincing me that the biblical record is not entirely trustworthy when it sets out these truths… and everything else for that matter. And I don’t need to hold a Young Earth position to believe these doctrines.
The main ‘camps’ in the Christian debate over evolution and creation are the Young Earth Creationism camp, The Progressive Creationism camp, the Intelligent Design camp, and the Theistic Evolution camp. Bruce Waltke has written a paper on ‘Barriers to accepting the possibility of creation by means of an evolutionary process’ which you can read 
as the New Living Translation puts it “I will personally go with you”. To which Moses comes back with one of the most presumptuous requests in the Bible; “Now show me your glory”. The Hebrew word he uses here is transliterated as ‘kaw-bode’ which, in this context, is best translated as ‘substance’. Is Moses really saying, “Okay, so you say that you will go with me, but what is your essence? What defines you?” In other words, “can I trust your motive and character?’ It seems like this is what Moses is implying because God responds in an unexpected way; He says “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you. ”And then He amplifies the idea of goodness with the words mercy and compassion. Then God explains to Moses that no human being can look upon the radiance of His countenance and survive and so He demonstrates His goodness, mercy, and compassion by shielding Moses in order to protect him.



