“With all thy getting, get understanding” (Prov. iv. 7).(1)

by Charles H. Welch

#1. What constitutes a valid argument? 


It is a blessed fact that salvation does not depend upon reasoning and disputation, and that one need be neither a philosopher nor a logician to perceive the purpose of the ages. Perhaps no writer of Scripture so emphasizes the utter failure of the natural mind to
understand the truth as Paul, yet, advocate as he was for thesupremacy of faith, and opponent as he was of “doubtful disputations” and of ‘vain deceitful philosophy”, no writer is so argumentative, and no writer appeals so much to the mind quickened to appreciate true reasoning.

“Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God” (Rom. x. 17). 

Yet, to borrow the argument of verse 14:--

“How shall they hear, who do not understand, and how can faith come, if the truth presented be not realized?” 

To the Ethiopian, Philip said:--

“Understandest thou what thou readest?” (Acts viii. 30). 

To the Pharisees, the Lord said:--

“Why do ye not understand My speech? even because ye cannot hear My word? (John viii. 43). 

Solomon said:-- 

“Knowledge is easy unto him that hath understanding” (Prov. xiv. 6). 

While mere reasoning may be a mark of infidelity, faith is never unreasonable, nor does it discredit reason. In one of the most spiritual passages in Romans the apostle speaks of “reasonable” (logikos) service (Rom. xii. 1). We read of Paul “reasoning” (dialegomai), “opening” (dianoigo), and “alleging” (paratithemi) out of the Scriptures concerning Christ, and his epistles abound with such signs of argument as the frequent use of the words “for”, “wherefore”, “for this cause”, and the like. While no soul will ever miss salvation because of inability to appreciate a syllogism, the teacher of truth may nevertheless sometimes err and lead his hearers astray if he has no true understanding of what constitutes valid argument. 

There is indeed room for a book that will do for Logic in the Scriptures, what Dr. Bullinger’s “Figures of Speech used in the Bible” did for figurative language in the Scriptures. To attempt such a work is beyond our present powers, but though these notes be somewhat fragmentary and the range limited, they may be of service in quickening the reader’s interest in this important matter. 

Ability correctly to answer the question, What constitutes a valid argument? will confer a double blessing, viz., it will provide us with the means whereby we shall be able to appreciate more clearly the divine arguments of the Scriptures, and it will enable us to appraise the truth and detect the errors and fallacies in the arguments presented in the teaching of others. 

Upon the ground of the all-sufficiency of faith, some object to the attempt to analyze the processes of correct thinking, while others refuse an analysis of logical processes upon the ground that common sense is sufficient. Archbishop Whately says:-- 

“The generality have a strong predilection in favour of common sense, except in those points in which they, respectively, possess the knowledge of a system of rules: but in these points they deride anyone who trusts unaided common sense. A sailor, e.g., will perhaps despise the ‘pretensions’ of medical men, and prefer treating a disease by ‘common sense’; but he would ridicule the proposal of navigating a ship by common sense, without regard to the maxims of nautical art.” 

Logic is the name given to the science of reasoning. It displays the principles on which argument is conducted, and tabulates certain rules which are derived from these principles, so that we shall be guided into the truth, and guarded from error.

The objection to logic as being unserviceable in the discovery of truth may hold good in the realm of natural science, but it is not valid in the realm of scriptural revelation. In that realm we do not set out to discover truth by processes of reasoning, but, on the contrary, believe that in the Scriptures we already posses a complete revelation, and that we can and should use every legitimate means to arrive at the right understanding of that revelation, and to test all that professes to be an exposition of its teaching. 

Another superficial objection to logic is that in the hands of the unscrupulous the very processes of true reasoning can apparently be made to lead to false conclusions. But this is no fault of logic: in such a case, clearly, error has crept into one or both of the premises, and the process is no more an objection to the true place of logic than the fact that certain calculations based on the assumption that nineteen, and not twenty, shillings made a pound, had produced a false answer, would be an objection to arithmetic. Changing the figure, we must first of all secure a correct translation, then, granted that our terms are unambiguous, and our premises true, the conclusion is as inevitable as is the conclusion of an arithmetical sum. 

Neither in the Scriptures, nor in conversation, are arguments always stated at full length, but it is safe to say that every valid argument may be expressed in that form known since the days of Aristotle as the syllogism. The term “argument” is used popularly in a somewhat wider sense than is intended in logic, but strictly speaking every argument consists of two parts, viz., that which is proved, and the means whereby it isproved. That which is proved is called the “conclusion”, and the means whereby it is so proved the “premises”. Here is a simple example of a syllogism:-- 

All tyrants deserve death . . . . . Caesar was a tyrant . . . . . Therefore he deserved death. 

We are not at the moment concerned with the morals of the matter before us, but with the process of reasoning and its inevitable conclusions. There is no possible way of avoiding the conclusion, “Therefore he deserved death”, except by questioning and disproving some feature of the premises. Either it is not true that all tyrants deserve death, or it is true. Either it is true that Caesar was a tyrant, or it is not true. But if thesepremises be conceded, then the conclusion is valid and unassailable. 

One great value of the syllogism is the way in which it forces revision of the premises or steps that lead to an erroneous conclusion. For example, there is nothing apparently wrong with the following process of reasoning, yet the conclusion is so obviously untrue that it compels a search for error in the premises that might otherwise have escaped us:-- 

White is a colour . . . . . Black is a colour . . . . . Therefore black is white. 

When we realized that much that passes for scriptural doctrine will not stand the test of the syllogism, we may look more kindly upon its application, and allow some place for an explanation of its use. 

Without allowing the subject to occupy undue space, we hope from time to time to give a few notes upon the importance of correct reasoning and valid argument. This we hope will prove to be of service in the elucidation of the truth of the Scriptures, and at the same time provide some means of testing the doctrines propounded by teachers and writers in these days of seducing spirits and doctrines of demons.

------------------------

[NOTE.—As this series of articles is somewhat outside the bounds of actual 

exposition and teaching, and deals with the raw material, and the processes, 

rather than with the finished article, and as we wish our pages to be helpful to all 

our readers, we have prepared six articles only under this heading, and shall be 

guided as to their continuance by the correspondence we receive. If you desire 

their continuance, please say so on a postcard addressed to the Editor.]

(From The Berean Expositor, vol. 22, page 197).

----------------------

The Interpretation of the Scriptures. (1)

by Charles H. Welch

No.1. Governing Principles for Correct Interpretation. 


One of the most important subjects within the orbit of Christianity is the science and art of Biblical interpretation or hermeneutics. The word “hermeneutics” is ultimately derived from Hermes, the Greek god who was supposed to bring the messages of the gods to mortals, and was the god of science, speech, writing and art. It has a connection with the Greek word hermeneia, interpretation, and its verbal forms: diermeneuo to interpret, or explain; methermeneuomai to interpret, to translate; dusermeneutos difficult to interpret; diermeneutes interpreter.

God has spoken to men through the Holy Scriptures, but what has He said? What is the meaning of His Words? If we cannot be sure of His meaning, of what practical use are the Scriptures to us? How can we receive Divine understanding unless the meaning of theWord of God is clear to us? It is the aim of hermeneutics to ascertain what God has said in His Word and to determine its meaning. This is a high and holy task and needs to be approached in deep humility. Upon the correct interpretation of the Bible rests our doctrine of salvation, sanctification, Christian living and future hope, and it is our solemn responsibility to get to know what God has said with reference to each of these, and in fact all His Truth as far as we are able to receive it. Not only this, but if we do not know the correct method of Biblical interpretation, we shall confuse the voice of God with the voice of man. In every placewhere our interpretation is at fault, we have substituted the voice of man for the voice of God, and are getting error instead of truth. Most of the doctrinal variations and disagreements in Christendom are due to differences in interpretation. Thus it is practically impossible to over-estimate the importance of correct hermeneutics, for from this flows correct understanding.

After His resurrection, the Lord Jesus appeared to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus and in Luke xxiv. 27 we read:

“. . . . . beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded (interpreted, diermeneuo) unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.”

And later on, to the eleven He said:

“. . . . . all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning Me. Then opened He their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures” (Luke xxiv. 44, 45).

It is helpful to see the important place that understanding has in the parables of the kingdom of heaven. Israel’s unbelief and failure inevitably led to a non-understanding heart (Matt. xiii. 15), and in such a condition the human mind is especially open to the devil’s activity (verse 19). He that received seed into the good ground is he that heard the word and understood it (verse 23).

At the end of His discourse, the Lord asks: “Have ye understood all these things?” and the favoured disciples were able to answer: “Yea Lord” (verse 51). In the Acts of the Apostles we find Philip asking the Ethiopian eunuch:

 “Understandest thou what thou readest?”

and his reply was: “How can I, except some man should guide me?” (Acts viii. 30, 31). There is no doubt that Divine understanding is the need of us all, but we are not in a position to receive this if our method of Biblical interpretation is at fault. We are prompted to ask the question, “Is there some way of interpreting the Word of God so that human opinion is ruled out and Divine understanding given?” We believe there is, hence the supreme importance of this study.

Someone may object and say that anything can be proved from the Bible. We have to face the fact that the most extraordinary ideas and fantastic notions are backed up by quotations from the Scriptures. Edward White writes:

“There is no folly, no iniquity, no God-dishonouring theology for which chapter and verse may not be cited by an enslaved intelligence. Under these circumstance, it is impossible to express in adequate terms the importance of a correct estimate and exposition of the Bible” (Inspiration, p. 153).

There is no need to list the many vagaries that the Bible has been used to bolster up, but in each case these have been due to a distorted exposition and understanding of the passages concerned. No apology then need be given for a consideration of the science of correct interpretation of the Scriptures. To begin with we shall need to give attention to the following points:

(1) There is a need to bridge the gap between our minds today and the minds of the Biblical writers of over 1900 years ago. People of the same culture, age and location, understand one another easily, but we are separated culturally, historically and geographically from Bible times. Language is different; Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek are far removed from modern language. Habits and manner of living areentirely different. Abraham’ s treatment of Hagar may seem rather shabby unless we know the customs and laws of his time. The background of the Scriptures is therefore important. Every part ofScripture had a reason for its being written. Some human need called it into being through the power of God. It is for us to try to ascertain what this was, and it will greatly assist us in the correct understanding of the portion under consideration.

(2) No one is in a position to interpret the Word of God (no matter how educated or scholarly they may be) until they are saved and regenerate. The Lord Jesus said, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God (John iii. 3). In other words he is spiritually blind and is not in a position to understand or interpret the holy Scriptures whose context is spiritual. One reason why Christ continually gave physical sight to the blind was because this condition is illustrative of man spiritually, and what the Lord cando for men in the natural sphere, He can surely do in the spiritual.

The apostle Paul wrote:

“The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (I Cor. ii. 14).

A regenerate mind then is an absolute essential to understand the Bible.

(3) There must be a passion to know God’s Word. A lukewarm heart will never discover Scriptural truth. The searcher must be in dead earnest; the search for Truth must be priority number one. 

(4) There must be a reverence for God and His Word and an unquestioned faith in both. The Scriptures are called holy, and must be treated as such (II Tim. iii. 15). 

(5) There must also be absolute dependence upon the Holy Spirit to enlighten. He is the Author of the Word and the only One Who can give opened eyes and an understanding mind. We should be careful not to confuse inspiration and illumination or enlightenment. We talk about works of art and beauty being inspired, but this is not the way the Bible uses the term. In the Biblical sense, inspiration finished when the canon ofScripture closed and the New Testament was complete. No other writings since this time are “God-breathed” or inspired in this way. What we need now is not inspiration but illumination, and this is what the Holy Spirit is prepared to give to those of the redeemed who honestly and painstakingly search the Word. This is something that education and cleverness, by themselves, cannot command. The profound scholar has no monopoly of enlightenment. In fact his scholarship and education may be a bar to the discovery of truth if he is not a humble believer in Christ, and willing to give his education second place to the revealing power of the Spirit of God. There is one further thing that must be stressed here and that is that Divine illumination goes as far as Scripture reveals, not beyond it. Angus and Green write: 

“The Spirit of God does not communicate to the human mind any doctrine or meaning of Scripture which is not contained already in Scripture itself. He makes men wise up to what is written, not beyond it.” 

(6) To be a sound interpreter of the Scriptures a knowledge of the original languages God used is invaluable. Basic doctrine cannot be settled from translations, however good they are, if only for the reason that no translation can fully represent all that the original contains. We should be surprised if one who claimed to be a specialist in the interpretation of Greek tragedy could not read Greek. This may stimulate some who readthese words to commence the study of Greek and Hebrew, which would be a good thing. Such however should bear in mind that it takes more than a few months study to be in a position to lay down the law in the translation and interpretation of the Greek or Hebrew Scriptures. No one can be proficient in a language until they can write it as well as read it, and that is why composition plays such an important part in learning a language. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and we have seen bad slips in doctrine made by amateur Greek students. 

(7) If there is one statement that is fundamental to the understanding of the Bible it is this: God means what He says and has a meaning for everything He says in His Word. If this is not so, then all search is useless and we can never be sure of what He wishes to convey to us. To put it another way, we must approach the Bible from the literal stand-point. This word “literal” can be ambiguous. What do we mean by it? We can define it in this way: the customary, socially-acknowledged designation of a word is the literal meaning of that word. If we were to put our own special meaning on words, no one could understand us. This is surely obvious. But it does not mean that figures of speech, symbols, allegory and type are to be ignored or taken literally. These are a study in themselves and will be considered later on. But let it be said here that behind all figures of speech is literality, otherwise they could convey no certain meaning to us at all. The literal meaning of a word is the basic, customary meaning of that word, and therefore to interpret literally is nothing more or less than interpreting words in their normal customary and proper designation, and only in this way can divergences of opinion be eliminated, and the authority of Scripture honoured. 

When we read a book, we presume the sense is literal, for this is the only conceivable method ofcommunication. If we had to weigh over every word of a book to find some other meaning than the literal, we should soon be forced to give it up in despair. If God wishes to communicate with man, He will do it in words whose meaning men can understand and accept, otherwise His message would never reach the human mind. Therefore we must ever keep before us this great guiding principle: that we approach the Scriptures literally, using that Word in the sense already explained. This cannot be overstressed and failure to do this is largely the cause of so much division that we see all around us in Christendom. 

A large part of the Bible makes significant sense when literally interpreted. All the great basic doctrines of God’s Word rest clearly on literal exposition. The historical books make sense only when so interpreted, and geographical terms likewise. The opposite of this is spiritualizing or the allegorical treatment of Scripture. This is not the same as making a spiritual application of a passage of Scripture or recognizing real allegories therein. This is legitimate. Rather is it treating the majority or the whole of the Bible in this way which is quite another matter. We shall have more to say about this later on. Meanwhile, let us thank the Lord that He has been pleased to stoop down to reveal His Truth to us in human words that we can receive and understand under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and in consequence rejoice in the eternal riches contained therein. 

----------------

(From The Berean Expositor, vol. 43, page 93).

----------------

Time and Place. (3)

The Scriptural association of  chronology and topography with doctrine and purpose.

by Charles H. Welch

#3. Before the overthrow, and 
Since the ages times. Gen. i. 2. 

Although there is no statement as to time in Gen. i. 2, upon examining other parts of Scripture we shall learn that a most important time period is associated with it: 

“And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep” (Gen. i. 2). 

“And”, the translation of the Hebrew vav, is also translated by the adversative “but” (Gen. ii. 6). 

“Without form and void”, cannot refer to the original state of creation, first of all 

because, elsewhere, God Himself says that He did not create the world in that condition and, secondly, because the word bara, “create”, denotes “to cut” or “carve”. This meaning is reflected in the Greek word kosmos, “world”, which is once translated “adorning” (I Pet. iii. 3) and, with kosmeo, “adorn”, “garnish” and “trim”. The verb 

“was”, in the phrase “The earth was without form and void”, translates the preterite of 

hayah, “To be, exist, become, come to pass”. The word is translated “became” in 

Gen. ii. 7, “and man became a living soul”, and this translation is true, for it is 

self-evident that until he “breathed” man was not a living soul. Similarly we translated 

Gen. i. 2, “But the earth became without form and void”. The words translated “without 

form and void” are the Hebrew words tohu and bohu. Tohu occurs twenty times in the 

O.T., and is translated “without form”, “waste”, “vain”, “vanity”, “nothing”, “in a 

wilderness”, “the empty place”, “confusion” and “a thing of nought”. Bohu occurs but 

three times, and is translated either “void” or “emptiness”. While certain conclusions 

could be drawn from the words themselves and their roots, we have a safer and more convincing argument to hand in the usage of these words in the inspired Scriptures 

themselves. The only One Who can supply us with first-hand information about the 

process of creation is God Himself, therefore one word spoken by Him must outweigh all else that ever has been or can be said on the subject.

“For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God Himself that formed the earth
and made it; He hath established it, He created it NOT IN VAIN (tohu), He formed it to
be inhabited” (Isa. xlv. 18).

The two words tohu and bohu come together in Isa. xxxiv. Let us acquaint ourselves 

with the context. In verse 2 we have the words, “Indignation”, “fury”, “destroyed”, 

“slaughter”, and verse 4 takes us to the day of which Peter speaks in his second epistle (II Pet. iii. 10, 12): 

“And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled
together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree. For My sword shall be bathed in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment” (Isa. xxxiv. 4-6). 

This is not creation but dissolution. This is the result of curse and judgment, “For it is 

the day of the Lord’s vengeance” (verse 8). This land is to “lie waste” (Isa. xxxiv. 10) 

and be uninhabited or traversed by man until the age ends, and to describe this utter 

desolation the prophet has recourse to the words of Gen. i. 2, tohu and bohu: 

“He shall stretch out upon it the lines of confusion (tohu) and the stones of emptiness 

(bohu)” (Isa. xxxiv. 11). 

We have confirmation of this meaning in the writings of the prophet Jeremiah:

“I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and 

they had no light” (just as darkness was on the face of the deep) . . . “there was no man 

. . . . . the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by His fierce anger” (Jer. iv. 23-26). 

Here, once again, we have anger and its result. If Isa. xxxiv. said the land was to 

“lie waste” Jer. iv. says “The whole land shall be desolate” (Jer. iv. 27). 

However interested he may have been in this study of tohu and bohu, the reader may 

be wondering where the “time” element comes in. To this we now address ourselves. In Eph. i. 4 we read: “According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the 

world.” This word “foundation”, katabole, must not be confused with the “foundation” 

of Eph. ii. 20 which is themelion. Kata means “down” and ballo means “to throw”. 

“Katabolism” is used to this day in Biology to define the breaking up process of 

metabolism or the processes, in living beings, of assimilation and decomposition. The 

verb kataballo is used by Paul in a context that leaves no room for doubt: “Persecuted, 

but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed” (II Cor. iv. 9). This meaning is 

confirmed by John in the Revelation: “The accuser of our brethren is cast down” (Rev. xii. 10). This verb kataballo occurs many times in the LXX version. We find it 

used of the siege of a city: 

“Joab battered the wall, to throw it down” (II Sam. xx. 15). 

It is used of the overthrowing of Israel in the wilderness: 

“He lifted up His hand against them, to overthrow them in the wilderness; 

to overthrow their seed also among the nations, and to scatter them in the lands” 

(Psa. cvi. 26, 27). 

Again it is written concerning the destruction of Tyre:

“And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus: and break down her towers” (Ezek. xxvi. 4). 

A correspondent recently sent us a paper in which he agreed that the verb kataballo 

means “To overthrow”, but by some process which he did not reveal nor support either 

by Scripture or the Lexicon, he maintained that the noun katabole meant “making a new 

start”. It is foreign to the genius of language, whether ancient or modern, thus to separate 

noun and verb. If I sing (verb) that which I sing must be a song (noun). I cannot “sing” a 

“speech” or anything outside the category of “song”. Similarly, if I overthrow (verb), 

that which is overthrown cannot be something freshly started or something constructed.

We therefore bring together the testimony of the Hebrew words tohu and bohu and the 

meaning and usage of kataballo and katabole, with the result that we are forced to 

translate Eph. i. 4, “before the overthrow of the world” and refer it to a period that 

comes between verses 1 and 2 of Gen. i. Further light upon this period is thrown by 

the time reference in II Tim. i., which deals with the same calling and company as those 

of Ephesians: 

“Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, 

but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before 

the world began” (II Tim. i. 9). 

The original reads pro chronon aionion, “before age-times”. 

We therefore now know two things of intense interest from the point of view of 

Biblical chronology. 

(1) The church of the mystery was chosen in Christ before the overthrow of the world. 

(2) And that with the reconstruction and making of the heavens and the earth in the six 

days, the age-times began. 

Seeing that the dissolution of II Pet. iii. stands at the end of the present creation, just 

as the chaos of Gen. i. 2 stands at the beginning, it is a sound inference to draw that just 

as the “ages” commence with the present creation, they come to their end with the new 

heaven and the new earth. Looking at Gen. i. 1 and 2 together, in this matter of time 

and purpose we perceive that as a beginning, looking constantly at the end in view, God 

created the heaven and the earth. This end, however, was not to be attained mechanically 

or by arbitrary force; moral beings were created, whether Satan, spirits or man, and the

possibility of fall and judgment was foreseen and provided for, so that the glorious end
shall be attained in Christ, by grace, with due recognition of the values of righteousness,
holiness and love.

------------------

(From The Berean Expositor, vol. 34, page 171).

----------------