The Bible was not written in such a way that only seminary-trained Christians are able to interpret it. Many young Christians believe that Bible interpretation is complicated so they lean heavily on study Bibles and the views of popular Bible teachers. To be sure, some passages are difficult to interpret. Even Peter admitted as much: “as also in all [Paul’s] letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction” (2 Pet. 3:16). “Some things” are hard to understand but not everything. Much of our inability to interpret the Bible is the result of not being shown how. A new Christian is often told to begin his or her day with a devotional reading of the Bible and the memorization of a series of out-of-context Bible verses rather than being introduced to the Bible as a whole.
When’s the last time your minister actually taught you the proper way to interpret Scripture other than saying that it must be interpreted “literally”? “The term literal comes from the Latin litera meaning letter. To interpret the Bible literally is to interpret it as literature.”[1] This means being familiar with the literature of the Bible in all its forms.
For the most part, the Bible is filled with straightforward statements that are easily understood if we let the Bible speak for itself. Using the ever-popular topic of prophecy, six things need to be kept in mind. (1) Learn the content of the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments so you can identify parallel accounts (what themes from the OT are being used by the authors of the NT?), (2) pay attention to time parameters (when is an event said to take place?), (3) the immediate context (what are the circumstances surrounding the events under discussion?), (4) the primary audience reference (to whom is the passage addressed?), (5) the actual words used in the text (what do the original languages say?), and (6) let the Bible interpret itself (comparing Scripture with Scripture). There are other points, but these will suffice for now.
When I first became a Christian in 1973, I didn’t have access to any of what I’ve just described. But I did know that after reading Hal Lindsey’s Late Great Planet Earth and comparing it with what I was reading in the Bible, something was wrong in prophecy land. Beginning with Matthew’s gospel, and with Lindsey’s prophetic paradigm swimming in my head, I found myself thoroughly confused. The first passage that did not seem to fit with what Lindsey was claiming for the Bible was Matthew 10:23: “But whenever they persecute you in this city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes.” Even commentaries I checked were of little help. William Hendriksen’s comments on the passage from his commentary on Matthew were a big disappointment. Keep in mind that I had not formulated a prophetic position at this time. I was not looking for a way to defend any prophetic position. I only wanted to know what a particular passage meant. Many of you reading this understand what I’m describing.
Thomas Ice spends nearly three pages in End Times Controversy trying to show how this passage does not mean what it seems to mean to someone reading it for the first time with no preconceptions. “I believe,” Ice writes, “because of the nature of the vocabulary, Matthew 10:21-23 refers to events that will take place during the Tribulation and climax in the glorious second coming of Christ” (84). Here’s the problem with Ice’s claim: He is reading the passage through a system, and he never deals with the vocabulary or the context. He quotes a bunch of commentators who know what the passage says but are unwilling to come to grips with its unpleasant implications for their prophetic system. Ice does the same thing when he tackles Matthew 16:27-28.
Who is Jesus addressing in Matthew 10:23? The immediate context tells us: “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; therefore be shrewd as serpents, and innocent as doves” (Matt. 10:16). Throughout His discourse, Jesus has His present audience in mind. Like in Matthew 24, Jesus uses the second person plural (“you”) throughout the passage to make this point more than clear. There is nothing in Matthew 10 and 24 that gives any indication that Jesus has any other audience in view other than His immediate audience. Ice never addresses the audience vocabulary. There is no discussion of how Jesus is using the second person plural and why it does not refer to those in His presence. How does “you” somehow come to have the generic meaning of “‘you of the Jewish nation’”? Jesus could have avoided any confusion by using “them” and changing the verb tense from a simple present to a future tense. Avoiding these issues, Ice instead jumps to a distant future “Great Tribulation” scenario that would require a discussion of a different audience that is nowhere found in the context of the passage.
How do we know that Jesus is not using “you” generically, for the “Jewish nation” of some future time? Notice how the discourse begins: “And having summoned His twelve disciples” (10:1). Jesus is not describing a future tribulation scenario with a post-rapture, newly regathered Israel. He is characterizing the conditions that existed in Israel in His own day: “These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them, saying, ‘Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel’” (10:1, 5–6). The “twelve” are the “you” of the rest of the passage. They are the ones Jesus sent out. “Israel” is the Israel of Jesus’ day. Notice the context: “go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (10:6) and “you shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes” (10:23). Nothing is said about a future tribulation period. Once again, Ice muddies what is very clear in the passage.
As I continued reading through Matthew’s gospel as a new Christian, the next prophetic passage I came across hit me hard. You know it well: “For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and will then recompense every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” (Matt. 16:27–28). Ice spends four pages trying to make this passage fit his system. There is no need for me to rehearse his arguments here since they are common attempts to get around the obvious. But Ice brings up one argument that I had never encountered:
A further problem with the preterist view is that our Lord said “some of those standing here. . . .” It is clear that the term “some” would have to include at least two or more individuals, since “some” is plural and coupled with a plural verb, “to be.” The word “some” nicely fits the three disciples Peter, James, and John (Matthew 17:1) who were participants at our Lord’s transfiguration. On the other hand, Peter notes that “John only survived” among the 12 disciples till the destruction of Jerusalem (88).
Ice is arguing that since only John lived after the destruction of Jerusalem, “some” does not fit the time period. If Jesus had said, following Ice’s argument, “one of you will not taste death,” then preterists would have a point, but the passage says “some,” more than one. The only immediate event that fits, according to Ice, is the transfiguration. Once again, Ice fails to consider the context and audience. Matthew 16:24 reads: “Then Jesus said to His disciples. . . .” The audience of 16:27–28 is made up of the “disciples” who, as I will show, include Peter, James, John, and others. Simply put, when Jesus described the time of His “coming” in Matthew 16:28, Peter, James, and John weren’t the only disciples present. The other nine apostles were there and maybe other disciples as well. While the apostles are often described as “disciples” (Matt. 11:1), the word “disciples” can and often does mean more than the twelve (Matt. 5:1; 8:21; Luke 10:1).
It’s a week later when Peter, James, and John go up the mount with Jesus. After the experience of the transfiguration, we read in Mark’s account of the event: “And when they [Jesus, Peter, James, and John] came back to the disciples, they saw a large crowd around them, and some scribes arguing with them” (Mark 9:14). Earlier we read, “But turning around and seeing His disciples, He rebuked Peter, and said, ‘Get behind Me, Satan; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.’ And He summoned the multitude with His disciples, and said to them. . . .” (Mark 8: 33–34).
It’s obvious that the disciples of Matthew 15–17 are a larger group than the three disciples Jesus chose to take with Him up on the mount where He was transfigured. This means that the plural “some” fits the context very well. “There are some of those who are standing here [Peter, James, John, and other unnamed disciples] who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” (Matt. 16:28). D. A. Carson’s exposition on this passage in his commentary on Matthew in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary dismisses the interpretation advocated by Ice:
The problem [with this view] is twofold. First, “some who are standing here will not taste death before they see” is an extraordinary way to refer to Peter, James, and John, who witness the Transfiguration a mere six days later (17:1). Second, as magnificent as the Transfiguration was, it is not entirely clear how the Son of Man comes in his kingdom (Matt) or the kingdom comes in power (Mark) through this event (380).
Once again, Ice presents his arguments in terms that his dispensational readers will accept without debate not by sticking with the time texts, audience context, and letter Scripture interpret Scripture. By never raising the issue of how the second person plural (“you”) is used throughout Matthew 10, he is counting on his loyal readers not to notice. And who would think to go to Mark’s account of the Transfiguration to see that the “disciples” is a larger group than Peter, James, and John?
A little knowledge of Greek will help the serious Bible student. One young man asked me if it was necessary to know Greek in order to understand the Bible. He seemed to glory in the fact that he only had an eighth-grade education. I told him that while it wasn’t absolutely necessary to read and understand the rudiments of New Testament Greek, knowing basic elements of the language can help any interpreter avoid interpretive traps and the biases that impact every translation. The New Testament is written in Greek, so understanding a bit of it should prove helpful. One has to be careful, however, since a little knowledge of Greek can be a dangerous thing.
The Greek alphabet can be learned in a few hours. While there are some odd letters that do not correspond to our English alphabet (e.g., r = r, n = n), most do. If you can say “alpha-bet,” you know the first two letters of the Greek alphabet: alpha (a) and beta (b). Jesus is said to be “the alpha and the omega” (Rev. 1:8; 21:6; 22:13). Omega is the last letter of the Greek alphabet; it looks like a “w” (w), but it has a long ō sound. Math introduced most of us to the Greek letter pi (p). It’s the letter “p.” The Greek alphabet can be learned in a few days with a little repetitive study and frequent use. There is no reason why elementary-school children can’t learn to read Greek. It would be my first choice over Latin. Go here to watch a video on learning the alphabet.
Why is learning Greek important? Translators are notorious for importing their own beliefs in their translation work. With a Greek-English interlinear (the Greek text parallel with the English translation), you won’t be easily fooled. The best Greek-English interlinear that also includes James Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible is the Word Study Greek-English New Testament edited by Paul R. Reynolds (Tyndale). It’s a magnificent work. No matter what side you come down on in a debate, you want to know what you’re talking about. A Greek-English interlinear includes a standard translation (e.g., NIV, ESV, NASV, KJV, etc.). The Greek text is included with the corresponding English word just below.
If you want to learn Greek on your own, I suggest that you get Learn New Testament Greek by John H. Dobson (Baker). It comes with an audio tape so you can hear the proper pronunciation of the Greek letters. There’s also Greek for the Rest of Us by William D. Mounce. There are numerous on-line courses available. Your immediate goal isn’t to be a Greek scholar but only to be able to pick up your interlinear, read the Greek text, and check a concordance to see what a particular word means and how it’s used in other contexts. Strong’s Concordance isn’t the final authority by any means, but it’s a good first step. For example, there is a difference with aion (Matt. 24:3; Heb. 11:3), kosmos (John 3:16), and oikoumene (Matt. 24:14; Luke 2:1; Acts 11:28) even though they are often translated as “world” in many translations (e.g., KJV and ESV). I have found www.studylight.org to be very helpful in supplying different tools to supplement the work of a Greek-English interlinear. The site includes the Greek New Testament, the Hebrew Old Testament, and the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX). You will also find a Bible dictionary on the site as well as other Bible helps.
Endnotes:
- R. C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1977), 48. [↩]
Gary is a graduate of Western Michigan University (1973) and earned his M.Div. at Reformed Theological Seminary in 1979. Author of countless essays, news articles, and more than 27 book titles, he also hosts The Gary DeMar Show, and History Unwrapped—both broadcasted and podcasted. Gary has lived in the Atlanta area since 1979 with his wife, Carol. They have two married sons and are enjoying being grandparents to their grandsons, Calvin and Paul. Gary and Carol are members of Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA).
When you read something in school, you are usually told to look for the theme or thesis of the work. What is the theme of Jesus' preaching? Isn't it the Kingdom of God & how we will overcome sin & death because of & just as Jesus did. We will gain for God & ourselves the victory over the devil & the world that we had lost. Look for the 2 & 3 witnesses in Scripture: the parallels & symmetries of 3 & inverted or reversed parallels & symmetries. Look for the second times & the second voice, the still small voice or the voice from above. Look for all the ways in which our lives must parallel Jesus'. Remember that the words Jesus spoke are spirit & life. Remember that you cannot love God Whom you have not seen if you do not love your brother whom you have seen. Remember that you are judged as you judge. Be careful how you hear: read with the understanding that what is written is meant to be put into practice & not simply into memory or words. Don't jump to conclusions, & don't force the text to say things or avoid & exclude what does not fit your understanding. It is better to say that you do not know than to presume that you know despite obvious anomalies. Don't proof text or pick & choose your texts. Don't read into the text what is not there. Let Jesus life & teaching be the model & aim of your efforts & life. Let Jesus be your standard or pattern for interpretation & application not just ideally in the sense of unattainable but as a real possibility in the sense that we will do the same works He did & greater with His & the Holy Spirits help. Be brutally honest with yourself. Mortify your desire to hear what you want to hear & to see in yourself things that are not evident. Be careful with the text & with yourself. You will be held accountable for what you know.
Providentially, I read this in Greg Bahnsen's No Other Standard a couple days after posting the comment above:
“There is no Biblical warrant for thinking that the civil magistrate has either the competence or the divinely given authority to settle all religious matters of doctrine.
The law of God does not, contrary to popular misconception, allow the civil courts to judge heretics or resolve theological disputes between different schools of Christian thought. Thus theonomists readily and fervently insist upon the “pluralist” [“pluralism” among Christian denominations] view of the state found in our best Reformed heritage and even the U.S. Constitution. Lutherans should not use civil power to persecute Presbyterians (and vice versa, etc.), and the federal government should not establish Presbyterianism (or Anglicanism, etc.) as the state church."
Bahnsen, No Other Standard, pdf version, Institute for Christian Economics, 1991, p. 188
Hello, Mr. DeMar,
Your exortations to be Berean believers, and search out the Scriptures for ourselves, is most appreciated and most desperately needed. Thank you.
I’m writing to you because I’ve read many of your books, ordered many items from American Vision, and attended at least two conferences put on by American Vision. I share a reformed viewpoint and a theonomic ethical viewpoint with American Vision, and Theonomy in Christian Ethics is one of my favorite books apart from the Holy Bible.
I have looked for opportunities to support a variety of theonomic causes and organizations and speakers, and to speak a word about the authority of all of God’s word and His righteous law as the standard for life and godliness first for Christians and then for all the world, as we believers, by God’s grace, work out the Great Commission.
I belong to a reformed baptist church assembly.
Thinking highly of you and your ministry, I want to ask your opinion about something.
My pastor recently spoke against theonomy (and Christian reconstruction) to our congregation, and this talk is on our church’s web site as well. In his teaching, he shared something that he said he knew for a fact actually happened (and I certainly believe him). Apparently, a paedo-baptist theonomist brother told my pastor’s baptist friend, that, although he loved him like a brother, if they (theonomists) ever gained power, he (the baptist brother) would have to be executed for heresy because he would not baptize his infant children. My pastor, thank God, did qualify his anecdote with the statement that it was only the “radical end of the theonomic movement spectrum” who believe this way, not all theonomists. Unfortunately, the damage is done.
Would you be willing to publicly take a stand against this kind of executing-brethren talk? Or have I had my head in the sand, and do paedo-baptist theonomists believe God will bless this agenda of executing brethren outside their denominations? I feel confident in stating that this kind of thinking and talk is most injurious to a theonomic revival ever taking place in American churches. Unfortunately, I do not know if this person was ever disciplined for his evil speech to his baptist brother, or what happened after this conversation took place.
What would you think if you heard that a reformed baptist theonomist told a paedo-baptist brother that if they ever gained power, the paedo-baptist brother would have to executed for heretically baptizing unbelievers because in the administration of the Old Covenant, Israelites were instructed to circumcise their (male) babies at 8 days of age?
Now, I don’t think for a moment that God’s law calls for executing baptist believers–no, not even of a dispensational stripe–or paedo-baptist believers, for that matter, of course. However, there are currently many who will never pick up any pro-theonomy book *ever,* and will shun theonomy as a grave error, and will teach others to do so, because there are people who claim to be theonomist who apparently actually believe that God’s law calls for executing “heretical” baptist brothers (despite their oh-so-heartwarming regret at having to do so).
You may find this to be something worth addressing.
I do not run in paedo-baptist circles, and I have no idea how widespread this horrific misconception of God’s law is among theonomic paedo-baptists. In your experience, do many theonomic paedo-baptists think this way?
Sincerely,
Karla
great points Gary! Like George, we have been attempting to look at scripture through a Hebrew mindset – like those it was given to would have understood it. There actually is a major difference between the Greek mindset and the Hebrew mindset – Greek can lead you in a wrong direction. This gentleman attempted to learn Greek, but scripture didn't make sense until he started understanding Hebrew – http://www.wildbranch.org/teachings/hebrew-greek-…
Be careful. Theologians/apologists act as though they have a better understanding of not only English but also of Greek, but they certainly don't have as good an understanding as those in the Early Church who lived & wrote in NT Greek. We have enough trouble trying to understanding what people mean by what they write in English today let alone English translations of Greek words which had no punctuation. Beware of the "literal" meaning of words which usually means the meaning of their etymological roots which may have nothing to do with the usage of a word at the time it was written. All words are understood by their contextual usage. NT Greek is not the same as the classical Greek used to determine the root meaning of words. Anytime a theologian sees something in the root meaning of words that conflicts with his views, he automatically dismisses it as unhelpful or irrelevant. The Septuagint is a translation of the OT into Greek from Hebrew & Aramaic, but most theologians don't bother to really compare its usage with NT usage. If they did, they would know that the word "agape" (a Greek for love) is used for all sorts of things & is not some special special kind of love or made up word especially for the NT. The one reliable area we can look to see how the the NT Greek words were meant to be used or understood is by comparing them to how the Early Church or pre-Nicene Church understood them, but that is not done because much of what is called orthodoxy or essential doctrine today by Evangelical, Catholics, & Greek & Russian Orthodox theologians is absent or contradicted. The simple fact is people will pick & choose what they want to hear & believe, but they do it either more or less obviously. It is harder to see where they cheat when they use their higher learning to obfuscate the truth. In many cases, they may not even realize that is what they are doing because they have even confused themselves with all their learning into believing a lie much in the same way as Eve rationalized her actions & was deceived herself.
So, make sure you have a broad knowledge of Scripture. Try & read things in their context. Don't use proof texts like Isaiah 64: 6, 7 & build an entire theology around it. If no one is calling on God's Name, then who is writing the prayer, & isn't the prayer a righteous act of penance? Does God view all His children that way, or is this just a way of giving God all the glory? Remember, Paul said that with respect to the righteousness in the Law he was blameless, & that he counted all things to be loss. (Phil.3: 6 – 14) It is one thing to cast your crowns at Jesus' feet; it is quite another not to have an crown to cast, & Paul was never so presumptuous as to think that he had already arrived, but he buffeted his body & mortified his flesh lest after preaching to others he himself would be cast away. In other words, think a little more, reflect a little more before you make up your mind as to what a word means, & don't be afraid of admitting that you may have it wrong.
Good points. I join in saying that often the final determining factor translators use to interpret passages or words comes from their own opinion or theological beliefs about what they think a passage SHOULD say to be consistent with their other beliefs. They may be right, but that is not a certainty. No doubt we're all guilty of that to some degree.
Also, it concerns me how little emphasis is placed on context. I have been blessed by being a member of a Messianic/Jewish congregation. Until then I did not appreciate the slanted view my gentile existence placed on my interpretation of Scripture. We read about the Hebrew God of the Hebrew people who gave instructions in Hebrew (yes, even much of the NT) in context of a Hebrew culture. Yet we invariably can't help but interpret these writings from a 21st century American gentile point of view. This is not the place to expound on that, so may I suggest believers spend some effort learning about the ancient Jewish culture. You'll find it rewarding. Also, read some of the testimonies of Middle East Muslims who come to Christ. Their perspective is enlightening.
Gary,
Although it is implied by suggestion in the article, I would suggest that you specifically add, by insertion into your article, "audience relevance" as a key factor in understanding the NT. I.e. what did the first century author actually expect his first century readers to learn from the written text? If new readers (and all others) of the NT would ask themselves this simple question it would make a great deal of difference in their understanding of the text.
Lloyd