Four Excellent Books on Biblical Interpretation

Some Christians struggle to interpret the bible correctly but wish they could do so. Others don't interpret it correctly and don't seem to care. Additionally, some passages are tough for just about anybody to comprehend. Because of all this, it's critical that we, Christ's church, do our best to understand what God is saying in scripture. One reason for the general impotence of the church in this country is that many Christians fail when interpreting what the bible means.

I'd like to recommend four excellent books that focus specifically on biblical interpretation. None are boring textbook types. Rather, they are enjoyable reads that you can work through without undue effort. I benefited from all four. I've previously written about them individually on this blog, but I'm grouping them together here in case you want to study a few at the same time.

In no particular order:

Exegetical Fallacies by D.A. Carson

This book is a classic. Part of that is because Carson is a both prolific and wonderful writer. In this short text (only 140 pages) he covers word-study fallacies, grammatical fallacies, logical fallacies, and presuppositional and historical fallacies. A basic knowledge of New Testament Greek helps quite a bit when reading this book; I wouldn't say it is required, but it is a large benefit. If I could recommend only one book on biblical interpretation this would be the one.

40 Questions About Interpreting the Bible by Robert Plummer

I love the layout of this book. The author asks and answers forty specific questions as the forty chapters. This is superb because it allows the reader to easily pick and choose which chapters to read. I'm also pleased that Plummer deals quite a bit with genre, which is an often ignored but critical issue.

Click here to read my full review of this book.

The Most Misused Verses in the Bible by Eric Bargerhuff

This book is a lot of fun to read. Bargerhuff's text is composed of eighteen chapters that focus on eighteen common, incorrect biblical interpretations. For example, he tackles "Do not judge," "Plans to prosper you and not to harm you," "Where two or three are gathered," "If my people who are called by my name," "Money is the root of all evil," "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me," and several others. This would be a great book for any Christian to read, especially those who are first wading into the issue of biblical interpretation.

Click here to read my full review of this book.

Urban Legends of the New Testament by David Croteau

Croteau's book is similar to Bargerhuff's but a little more advanced. Urban Legends deals with forty poor interpretations specifically of New Testament passages. If you are more than a beginner in interpreting the bible, then I recommend this text over The Most Misused Verses in the Bible. Think of Bargerhuff's book as being more fun, but Croteau's as being more beneficial.

Click here to read my full review of this book.


For other reading on biblical interpretation, take a look at two blog series I've written on this subject:

Church, Bible, And Interpretation - It's Not So Simple
Old Testament Interpretive Problems Always Lead to Church Problems


Finally, enjoy:

Descriptive Differs From Prescriptive

Another challenging aspect of Biblical interpretation is determining what to do with narrative accounts. Do they simply describe what occurred at a certain place in space and time? Or, are the events and outcomes we read about normative for us today? (This post is part eight of my ten-part blog series Church, Bible, and Interpretation - It's Not So Simple).

I've studied this issue quite a bit over the past five years or so. It is not simple, nor are there any satisfyingly quick answers. I believe it is safe to say that some narrative passages are only descriptive while others are prescriptive. How are we to adequately handle this?

We must keep several things in mind:

First, narrative passages from the Old Testament are far less likely to be normative for us today than passages from the New Testament. This is because much of the O.T. describes old covenant Israel. In the pages of the N.T. we read of the new covenant community - the church. This is why the book of Acts is often central to any discussions of the descriptive/prescriptive issue.

Second, let's aways, always, always keep narrative passages in their broader context when interpreting. Single passages fit into an overall structure of a book. We have to keep the entire book in mind when determining meaning from any particular passage.

Third, as always we ought to use clearer verses to interpret those that appear less clear to us. For example, King David had multiple wives. Is this a model we should follow? Certainly not. Plenty of other passages make it clear that one man should be made one flesh with one woman (Genesis 2:24 is key to our understanding).

Finally, we must not make the mistake of picking and choosing from narrative when considering what passages are telling us how to live today. It is extremely tempting to call certain narrative passages prescriptive simply because they support activities that we already enjoy in church life. The flip side of this is saying that other narratives are only descriptive because they give us a model that flies in the face of what we like. I wrote an entire blog post on this specific temptation that you can read here.

As we ponder whether or not we should apply certain narrative passages to our lives, let's recall a couple of other things. First, the apostles were part of the early church. It is safe to say that they would not have given approval to church practices that were aberrant. Instead, they would have led the early believers to live church life correctly. Therefore, when we consider narrative sections of the book of Acts we should, I believe, fault on the side of treating them in a prescriptive manner. Click here to read more on this subject.

Second, it is a sad reality that most traditional church pastors reject N.T. passages as being prescriptive, including much of the book of Acts. This is because these pastors cannot treat Acts as prescriptive and at the same time go about their business as usual. Click here to read a post I wrote entitled Professional Pastors Tell the Church That the Biblical Model for Church Life is Unimportant. We must be skeptical whenever salaried pastors begin calling into question the book of Acts as normative for church life.

To sum up, the descriptive/prescriptive issue as it relates to Biblical narrative is not an easy one. We all tend to like simple, straightforward answers. However, we don't get that luxury here. When it comes to narrative, we need to examine each passage thoroughly prior to making any significant decisions. Finally, I highly encourage you to come to your conclusions about the descriptive/prescriptive issue within the context of the church community. The group is usually wiser than the individual.

Biblical Meaning Stems from the Book, Not the Verse

As a runner I see Philippians 4:13 at almost every race. This is because somebody invariably has "I can do all things through him who strengthens me" printed on the back of their T-shirt. A Christian outreach organization to runners even exists based upon this verse. While the organization seems fine, their use of Philippians 4:13 yanks the verse completely out of context.

This brings me to the topic for today's post. Far too many Christians fail to interpret scripture correctly because they look at individual verses for meaning. When
this happens, even with well-intentioned believers who respect the Bible, they often arrive at erroneous conclusions. For example, Philippians 4:13 has nothing to do with running. Rather, the context of the passage is Paul's God-granted ability to handle both having plenty of physical goods/money and not having enough. God strengthened the apostle to be content regardless of his particular situation.

If Christians who cherish Philippians 4:13 would keep it in the context of book, chapter, and paragraph, they would not even consider using it to refer to running. That application would seem silly to them in the context of Paul's purpose for the letter. One of Paul's primary reasons for writing to his friends in Philippi was to thank them for their financial support. He wasn't planning on running in any 5Ks or marathons (at least I don't think so).

When the Bible was originally penned, no chapter, paragraph, or verse divisions existed. In fact, they were not added until hundreds of years later. They were inserted not to assist with interpretation, but to help readers find specific sections more easily. That is key: the chapter, paragraph, and verse divisions are not inspired.

Where does the primary meaning lie? It lies in the book itself. When determining the meaning of any part of scripture, the reader must take into account everything the author has said prior to that particular sentence he is reading. This can be difficult, especially with long books. This is one reason it is so important to read all the way through Biblical books instead of sifting for favorite passages.

The author(s) of each book had a train of thought and built an argument. The individual books build upon themselves as they progress from beginning to end. For example, it is folly to try to understand Romans 12:1-2 in a vacuum. These familiar verses say:

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

Romans chapters 12-16 focus a great deal on how Christians should live in light of what God has done. But how do the Roman believers know what God has done? They already know by reading chapters 1-11. Romans 12-16 only make sense in the context of 1-11.

Another truth to keep in mind during interpretation is that each book is part of the Bible as a whole. When reading, for example, from the prophets or writings in the Old Testament, the reader must keep them in context of the Pentateuch (Genesis - Deuteronomy). When reading the New Testament, we absolutely have to remember all of the O.T. To ignore what has come before a particular passage is to risk poor interpretation.

Many sincere followers of Jesus Christ have great respect for the Bible. Many also come to faulty conclusions about what the Bible means. We have all done this, myself included. One way we can avoid this error is by keeping verses in context. It is the book that provides the meaning God intends.

Urban Legends of the New Testament

The church in America faces two primary problems when it comes to the bible. First, some believers simply do not care much about what scripture has to say. Second, other believers care what the bible says, but do not know how to interpret it correctly. Urban Legends of the New Testament: 40 Common Misconceptions deals with the second problem.

In this book, author David Croteau tackles numerous different poor interpretations of well-known biblical texts. Croteau's major emphasis throughout is something that is sorely lacking in much of the church today: the utmost importance of context. The author stresses again and again that each verse must be understood in light of the verses and chapters surrounding it. Significant damage is done, and this happens a lot, when verses are yanked out of context and applied willy-nilly to situations that have nothing to do with the biblical writer's original meaning.

This book could be summed up in one word: context.

I like Urban Legends of the N.T. for more than just the important topic. Croteau has a clear, understandable writing style. He also has thought clearly through these issues. His arguments do not degenerate into the use of logical fallacies. Rather, he simply points out the context of the original verse or passage and applies it within that context. An additional bonus is that Croteau begins each chapter by providing the teaching that corresponds to the urban legend; he then goes on to debunk it.

The money quote from the entire book, in my opinion, comes from page 202. The author says that in practicing sound biblical interpretation the reader must remember:

First, seeking the author's intent must always precede attempting to apply a passage. Second, the primary meaning of a passage needs to be the focus of interpretation. While secondary or tertiary meanings can be identified and interesting, they should not be the focus of interpretation. Third, the interpreter must remember that only primary meanings build doctrine. If a text has an implication (a secondary meaning) that appears to support a certain doctrine, a separate text should be located that has that doctrine as its primary meaning.

As for negatives, this book has few. In fact, only one comes quickly to mind: Dr. Croteau embraces the church institution. This does not mean that he agrees with every aspect of it (he couldn't and write a book like this at the same time); however, he still is firmly entrenched. Frankly, as a seminary professor he has little choice.

Despite this issue, Urban Legends of the N.T. is worth the read. It's a solid reminder of just how important context is in accurately understanding the bible.

This book reminds me somewhat of another good one: The Most Misused Verses in the Bible.

Straight Outta Context

(Thanks to Christian Memes.)

"What Do You With the Verse that Says...?"

I don't wear on my sleeve what I believe about the church. I doubt that you do either. However, if you think outside the institutional box about what the church should be, you will eventually get some questions. Some of these questions are legitimate, while others are just designed to cause/win an argument.

I have zero desire to engage in any more theological and/or ecclesiological debates. My years in seminary sort of inoculated me against that. I encourage you to avoid these types of arguments as well.

No matter how hard I try, I still run into Christians who want to argue with me about the church. These folks are not angry, but at the same time they definitely want to win an argument. Not long into the conversation they unfailingly begin with the proof text verses. It will sound like this, "What do you do with the verse that says..........?"

In my experience these verses are yanked out of context about 98% of the time (no exaggeration). Not surprisingly, most of the verses apply to O.T. Israel as opposed to the church. Regardless, the verses are forced out of their original paragraphs and into isolation. Standing alone, the verses almost sound like evidence for the institutional practices that these folks are defending.

I've decided what my answer is going to be from now on when I hear, "What do you do with the verse that says............?"

My answer will be, "I look at the context."

A Scary Example of Poor Biblical Interpretation

This week I ran into a scary example of poor biblical interpretation.

I was talking with another Christian when the topic turned to politics. In discussing Afghanistan, we agreed that we would like to see our troops get out of that country soon. Then he said something that I find downright frightening. His words (paraphrased), "I think we should pull out of Afghanistan and then bomb them. I know this would hurt women and children, but God told the Israelites to kill all the people they faced in the OT. We should do the same."

I was stunned. I managed to spit something out like, "I think we should pull out but not bomb them." At the time I was so flabbergasted that I couldn't think up anything else to say. His reasoning was bad enough that my brain temporarily turned to mush.

This Christian man's thinking is an example of the danger of looking to the Old Testament for specifics about how to live today. In an earlier post I wrote, "The Old Testament, then, should be understood as always pointing ahead to the incarnation of Christ. Its shadows offer clues to us of the Redeemer to come. The OT is not a guidebook for us to follow as much as it is a promise of a better future in the author of the New Covenant."

We must be careful in applying too many OT specifics to our lives as Christ's church. Much of the OT was designed to help the nation of Israel live. The church is not Israel. The USA certainly isn't Israel.

When we want to know how to live today, the New Testament tells us all we need. Jesus emphasized peace with other people. For example, in Matthew 5:38-39 he said, "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." A few verses later (5:43-44) our Lord states, "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."

I'm not addressing here whether or not the USA should ever go to war. Rather, I'm pointing to how followers of Christ ought to think about war. Biblical commands to Israel on warfare have no bearing on the USA today. It is dangerous to think that they do, for it will lead to much death.

We have to interpret all biblical passages in their context. Only then will we be able to accurately understand what the original authors meant. As Christ-followers, we should be people that emphasize the importance of peace. Peace is a hallmark of God's kingdom.

We must be careful. As this somewhat extreme example shows, lives can depend on it.

A Theology of Pen and Ink

"I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink." 3 John 13

We must be careful in how we interpret scripture. Our goal should always be to determine what the original author meant. We do not bring our own meaning to the text; rather, we strive to know what the Holy Spirit inspired through the person who penned it. There is one meaning. We must find it.

It is possible to make mistakes in this process. One classic way of coming to the wrong conclusion about a text is to look at only one verse at a time devoid of context. Meaning in the bible comes from the paragraph and/or entire book. Single verses certainly carry meaning, but if we look at them in isolation we run a great risk of drawing conclusions that the original author never intended.

Let's look at a silly example for the purposes of illustration. In the epistle of 3 John, the apostle writes, "I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink."

Taken alone we could draw the following erroneous conclusions:

1. John generally preferred not to write with pen and ink.
2. Writing with pen and ink is a sin.
3. We must not write with pen and ink.
4. Writing with pen or ink is fine, but avoid the two together.
5. Writing with something else like pencil is better and safer.

Ridiculous and absurd. However, if we are to look solely at 3 John 13, then these are at least semi-legitimate conclusions. It is only in the broader context that we see how silly they are.

Let's remember that context is always, without fail, key to correctly understanding any bible verse. Even if a single verse supports a doctrine that we hold dear, we cannot yank it out of context for our own selfish purposes. The verse must remain firmly entrenched in the wider paragraph. Only then do we have a chance at accurate interpretation.

Spirit vs. Word?

There is a thought among some believers that concerns me. I'm referring to the idea that the Holy Spirit might lead us to do something significantly different than what we see in scripture. It is a pitting of Spirit vs. word.

I've seen this idea written about in blog posts and in comments on this blog. Many times the concept of Spirit vs. word is brought up to say that certain NT passages (usually in the epistles) do not apply to us today. Especially in the area of women's roles in the church, passages such as I Corinthians 12-14 and I Timothy 2 are discounted as not being directed at us because we are in the Spirit.

One passage that is often abused by those who espouse a Spirit vs. word approach is II Corinthians 3:5-6. Paul writes, "Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

These folks point to the final sentence in particular. They say that it is the Holy Spirit who gives life (I agree with this). They then make the leap to saying that parts of the NT are the letter which kills (with this I disagree). Interestingly, they seem to pick and choose which parts of the NT are the letter that kills, for they never reject all of the NT.

The big problem with their use of II Corinthians 3 in this way is that they are ignoring context. In 3:3 Paul writes, "And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts." In 3:7-8 we read, "Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory?" Please note that in both 3:3 and 3:7-8 Paul mentions writing on stone.  This refers to the Ten Commandments specifically and the OT law in general. Therefore, when Paul talks about the letter that kills he is discussing the OT law, not the letters of the NT.

Additionally, it is absurd to think that the God who inspired the writings of the NT would have his Spirit contradict them and encourage us to disobey them. II Timothy 3:16 says, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." If we think that God inspired the NT but that the Spirit contradicts the NT, then we don't have a biblical understanding of the Trinity.

The truth is that no contradiction exists between Spirit and word. They always agree. The Spirit can certainly tell us to do things not addressed in scripture. However, he will never lead us to do anything that flies in the face of scripture.

Spirit vs. word does not exist in the mind of God. It should not exist in the mind of his church either.

On Galatians 3:28

In light of a few posts I wrote last week (this and this), I'd like to briefly discuss Galatians 3:28.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)

Galatians 3:28 is a verse that is frequently yanked out of context for a variety of purposes. Like most other verses, when the context is ignored, this verse can be forced to mean a wide variety of different things. In order to understand what Paul is truly saying, we must remember the broader context in which 3:28 falls.

Paul is writing to Christians in modern-day Turkey. His audience is likely those in the churches Paul founded on his first missionary journey. Paul is aghast that these relatively new believers have, to one degree or another, turned from the gospel of grace to a message of works. Paul writes these strong words at the outset of the epistle in 1:6-9, “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel - not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.”

Most of the letter carries the theme of salvation by God’s grace through faith. It is designed to contradict the false teachings of Judaizers who were proclaiming a works-based gospel of law following. The context of the vast majority of this letter is one of salvation. Specifically, 1:1-5:12 focuses on salvation. It is not until 5:13 that Paul transitions to a focus on sanctification, saying, “For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.”

We see, then, that 3:28 falls in the middle of a fairly long treatise by Paul on the topic of faith-based salvation. In chapter three, Paul writes about Abraham as the man of faith. Abraham was justified by faith, not law. After Christ came, both Jews and Gentiles of faith are counted as sons of Abraham. Paul concludes chapter three by writing this in verses 25-29, “But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.”

Everyone in Christ, regardless of race, societal status, or gender, is an heir to the promise of salvation. In this great salvation, we are all the same in Christ. We all have the same value and receive the same gift.

The entire focus of 3:28 is salvation in Christ.

Please notice that 3:28 says absolutely nothing about the role that any Christ-follower is to play in the family, in broader society, and/or in the church. This is because the context of 3:28 is salvation as opposed to sanctification. There are plenty of other verses in the NT that speak to the roles God expects us to play.

Galatians 3:28 is frequently used by some to say that men and women have the exact same roles to play in the family and in the church. The problem with this is that it requires the text to be torn out of its context in order to make it say this. Simply put, it’s not what Paul meant.

The bible differentiates between worth/value and role. Some verses deal with one while others deal with the other. Galatians 3:28 is a wonderful verse that we should all cherish, but we must also be faithful to scripture’s intent. While Paul intended for 3:28 to be read for understanding of salvation, he had no plans for this to impact the way we think about the roles we play.

Let’s all remember that each verse belongs in a broader context. It is from this context that meaning comes. In order to know what God means in the bible, we must stay in context.

Acts 20:7 and the First Day of the Week

“On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight.” Acts 20:7 

The context of the above familiar verse is Paul’s third missionary journey. Paul and his companions have arrived in Troas, where they stayed for seven days. 

In 20:7-12 we read about a gathering of the church in Troas. We’re told that they came together on the first day of the week (Sunday). The gathering was for the purpose of sharing the Lord’s Supper meal together. During this occasion, Paul talked with them for quite a while.

What we see here is a church coming together to eat together. Paul was in town, and they wanted to spend a lot of time with him. They ate, talked, ate, and talked. Eventually someone fell asleep, fell, died, and was raised. That makes for quite a memorable evening together no doubt. I love the fact that after the miracle, they went back to doing what they were doing before: eating and conversing.

Here’s what struck me as I read through this passage today: there is no indication that the church in Troas made a normal pattern of getting together on Sundays. All Luke tells us is that on this one occasion they assembled on a Sunday. It could just have easily been a Tuesday or Friday. However, as Paul was going to be departing soon, they wanted to get together as a body to eat and talk. Sunday happened to be the day. 

Luke describes for us what occurred on a particular day in Troas. There is not even a hint that this is a pattern that they followed or that we should have to follow. We’ve all heard it said that we should get together as the church on Sundays because that’s what the early church did. I’m not convinced. Additionally, since we’re no longer bound by the O. T. Sabbath (Jesus is our Sabbath), there is no reason to make Sunday into one.

We are free to gather when we want and whenever we want. No one day is any holier than any other. The reality is that due to job schedules, Sundays are normally the easiest day to gather with church families (this is what we normally do). However, we don’t have to.

What we can learn from Acts 20:7 is that it is good to gather together to eat and talk. We see in other passages that this should happen for mutual edification. However, it does not matter at all on what day or days this occurs.

Sunday is just another day. All days are holy in Christ.

Assemble whenever and wherever, but by all means do assemble.