The Interpretation of the Scriptures. (3)

by Charles H. Welch

We have considered some of the essential rules to be observed if we are to get a correct interpretation of the Word of God. One of the most important is that we should approach the Scriptures from the literal standpoint, making allowances for figures of speech, symbols, and types, and avoiding the allegorical system of spiritualizing, which is destructive of true understanding, we should note that this does not mean spiritual application cannot be made. This can be done safely only when the primary, basic and literal interpretation of the Bible has been settled. There is only one interpretation of a 

passage of Scripture, but there may be a number of applications of that passage; these are secondary to the interpretation and must be kept so. Roman Catholics find their sacramentalism by allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament and its ritual. Christian Science, Swedenborgianism, Theosophy and other cults can find their basis in the Bible only by excessive spiritualizing and all this leads to hopeless contradiction. Why? Because first account has not been given to the literal exposition of Scripture. To rest one’s theology on a secondary meaning of the Bible is not interpretation, but imagination, and human opinion, and in such a procedure the real meaning of God’s Word is bound to be lost. The only certain way of obtaining a correct understanding is to anchor interpretation to literal exposition in the sense that we have explained the word “literal”. Another reason for the importance of this method is that it acts as a check upon the imagination of men; in other words, it is a principle of control, which enables human opinion and error to be avoided. The failure of the spiritualizing or allegorical method of exposition was made evident in the first centuries, when the early Christians sought to take a stand against antichristian Gnosticism. The Gnostics claimed to have special knowledge and revelation, and when they touched the N.T. Scriptures they excessively spiritualized them. Unfortunately, the early Fathers, men of piety, and sincere as they were, did the same with the Old Testament, and therefore had little effective answer to such heresy, for the Gnostics had as much right to spiritualize the New Testament as the Fathers did the Old. What was right for one part of Scripture was surely valid for another. The fact is that with both, the method of approach was wrong.

Cultural Background.

We mean by this the total ways, manners, tools and institutions by which a people carry on their existence. What a word or expression literally means can only be understood by knowing the background of the people who used it. We are not concerned with what a word means today in the twentieth century, but what it meant in century one, when it was used. Language is always in a state of flux, losing meanings and gaining others, and so we should be prepared to take the trouble to go into past history and explore the background of Bible times. 

Geography.

The seeker after truth should study Bible geography. Most Bibles have maps at the end, but how often are they used? Geography is, as it were, the spatial background of Scripture as history is its temporal one. In order to understand properly the journey of the Israelites from Egypt to Canaan or, let us say, Paul’s missionary journeys, we obviously cannot ignore geography if we are to appreciate fully their importance. We read in the Bible of Tyre, Sidon, Chittim, Hamath, Anathoth and a host of other places. If we know nothing of Bible geography, how can we correctly understand the passages where these are used? And moreover, these places must be taken literally. If the Egypt of Bible times is not the literal land, what is it? Who can be sure of what it represents? Once one has left the normal literal meaning of a word, the door is thrown wide open to any idea, however far-fetched, and uncertainty and error can only result. God’s revelation is set in an historical and geographical context, and involves historic personages and events.

H. H. Rowley writes: 

“A religion which is rooted and grounded in history, cannot ignore history. A historical understanding of the Bible is not a superfluity which can be dispensed with in Biblical interpretation, leaving a body of ideas and principles divorced from the process out of which they were born” (Relevance of Biblical Interpretation). 

Moreover, not only the understanding of the Scriptures, but their truth, is bound up with history. If it could be proved that Pontius Pilate was not a historic personage, the truth of the Bible falls to the ground. Another thing must be stressed in the matter of interpretation and that is, the priority of the original languages of Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek. Inspiration in the Biblical sense applies only to these, and does not extend to the hundreds of translations that have been made, however good they may be. Consequently it is useless to base any argument on a translation without verifying the original. 

The Accommodation of Revelation. 

It must be constantly borne in mind that the Scriptures are the truth of God accommodated to the human mind for its instruction and assimilation. This must be so, because God, infinite and limitless, is seeking to reveal Himself to man, circumscribed and finite. Humanity cannot reach up to Him, but He can, in His goodness and love stoop down to us, and this is what He has done in His Word. To have any meaning to us, God’s revelation had to come in human language and human thought forms, referring to objects of human experience. Revelation for us must of necessity have an anthropomorphic character. Anthropomorphism simply means ascribing human characteristics to God. The understanding of God and the spiritual world is by this means and by analogy. So we have God’s almightiness spoken of in terms of a right arm, because among men, the right arm is the symbol of strength and power. Similarly the glory of heavenly things is described in the Bible in terms of human experience, such as gold, silver and jewels. Such is the description of the heavenly New Jerusalem in the book of the Revelation. Seisenberger, in his Practical Handbook for the study of the Bible, puts it this way: 

“It is with a well-considered design that the Holy Scriptures speak of God as a being resembling man, and ascribe to Him a face, eyes, ears, mouth, hands and feet, and the sense of smell and hearing. This is done out of consideration for man’s limited power of comprehension and the same is the case when the Bible represents God as loving or hating, as being jealous, angry, glad, or filled with regret. This shows that God is not indifferent to man, and his behaviour, but notices them well. Moreover the Bible teaches that man was made in the image and likeness of God, and therefore in the Divine Being there must be something analogous to the qualities of man, though in highest perfection and sin excepted.” 

When we study the Scriptures we must always bear these facts in mind and remember that, in them, God has graciously stooped down to our limited intelligence, using things that we do know, to explain in a measure those that we do not, because they are infinite and beyond us. 

This accommodation is very different from the way that the liberal theologian uses the term. The modernistic critic not only believes in accommodation of form, but of matter and content. Thus he asserts that the atonement of Christ, as a sacrifice, was only the manner in which the first century Christians thought of the death of Christ, but this idea is not binding upon Christianity today. In other words the sacrificial element in Christ’s death was only the opinion of the early Christians. This sort of accommodation we utterly reject. We might as well shut the Bible up for good if this sort of thing is true, for we could never be sure just what is, or what is not divine revelation. 

Interpretation and Application.

Although Scripture basically has one meaning, there are moral applications that can be made. The apostle Paul wrote: 

“. . . . . whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope” (Rom. xv. 4). 

That is, the Old Testament Scriptures, though primarily referring to Israel, can have a message for us. The strict interpretation of them is to the Jew, but there are principles in them that can apply to us today. In another passage (I Cor. x. 6, 11), Paul states that the things which happened to the Israelites during their wilderness journey were for our examples, and in II Tim. iii. 16 we are instructed that all Scripture (and this has primary reference to the Old Testament) is for our profit with regard to doctrine, reproof, correction and education in righteousness. However, we must always bear in mind that such applications are not interpretations, and must not receive that status; nor must we ever misinterpret a passage in order to derive an application from it that appears attractive to us. Furthermore a true application can be made only if it fits in with revealed truth for this present age of grace; if it does not, it becomes error, however appealing it may appear. 

In the Anglican morning service, the congregation quote Psa. li. 11, as a prayer: “Take not Thy Holy Spirit from me.” That is wrong application, John xiv. 16 makes clear: 

“And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever.” 

The Holy Spirit can be grieved by the believer (Eph. iv. 30), but there is no statement in the church epistles that He is ever taken away from the children of God. Such praying, Sunday by Sunday, is needless and quite ineffective. The first thing to do with any passage of Scripture is to settle the interpretation, or its basic meaning, and not until then are we in a position to make any application. 

Todd, in his Principles of Interpretation writes : 

“Only after the meaning or interpretation of a passage has been learned is one in a position to apply it to the life of an individual or of a company. The application is quite a distinct thing from the interpretation. Much has been lost in the study of the Bible by using it almost entirely by way of application, without enquiring into its literal meaning. Specially is this true of devotional study. Sometimes lessons are drawn from Scripture which are, to say the least, very far fetched, and not really warranted by the passage.” 

We can therefore state as a guiding principle that there is one interpretation of God’s Word, but there may be several applications. It is most important to keep these two things distinct and in this order, and in so doing it becomes another check on human ideas and peculiarities. The correct interpretation of the Bible takes note of the people to whom it is addressed, and the background or need that called for its writing. It is like the address on the envelope of a letter. The contents of the letter belong solely to the one to whom it is addressed (this is interpretation), but it may contain statements that are not only true of the owner, but of people in general (this is application). The failure to distinguish between these two things has been the cause of wrong doctrine and confusion, and everyone who wishes to handle the Word of God aright and to receive its riches will take care to avoid doing this. 

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

(From The Berean Expositor, vol. 43, page 101).

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

Time and Place. (5)

The Scriptural association of chronology and topography with doctrine and purpose. - by Charles H. Welch

#5. The Site of the Garden of Eden. 
Gen. ii. 8-14.

Our attention having been wholly occupied with “time”, we have hitherto found no opportunity to give heed to the testimony of the Scriptures concerning “place”. We have the first topographical note in early Genesis: 

“And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden” (Gen. ii. 8). 

The name of this country, in which Paradise was planted, means “delight”, and the word occurs in various forms six times, being translated “pleasure” and “pleasures”, “to delight”, “delights”, and “delicates”. Eden itself, the country, is named exactly 14 times in the O.T., where it is found in Genesis, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Joel. As we should expect, the name is found in other languages. In Arabic it signifies “delight”, “tenderness” and “loveliness” (Firuzabadi Kamus). In the cuneiform texts it signifies the plains of Babylon, and in the Accado-Sumerian (inhabitants of Mesopotamia that preceded the Babylonians) it is Edin, “the fertile plain”. The Greek word hedone, meaning “pleasure”, is used in the LXX of Isa. xxxvii. 12; Ezek. xxvii. 23 and Amos i. 5, although these “Edens” have no reference to Gen. ii. 8. It was because of their beauty or pleasantness that the districts were called by this name. The Eden of Gen. ii. 8, is the most ancient name in all geography. The garden of Gen. ii. was planted “eastward” in Eden. In his translation of Rosenmuller’s Biblical Geography of Central Asia the Rev. N. Morran has reduced the numerous theories as to the exact situation of Eden to nine, but none of them answer all the conditions of the problem. This brings us to an important question. For whose information were the geographical notes of Gen. ii. 8-14 written? Were they given by God to Adam? We can see no reason why the information should have been given to him. We know that it was given in writing by Moses, and, to illustrate and enforce the point we desire to make, we turn to another geographical note. In Gen. xxiii. we have the record of the death of Sarah, in which Moses wrote: 

 “And Sarah died in Kirjath-arba, the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan” (Gen. xxiii. 2). 

It is evident that when Moses took up his pen to write the book of Genesis, he had in his possession the several “books of the generation” of his fathers. In the family documents relating to Abraham and Sarah, the place where Sarah died is called by but one name, Kirjath-arba, but, later, for the benefit of Israel who were then about to enter the promised land under Joshua, Moses gives the more modern name of the ancient city, namely “Hebron”, and, in Numb. xiii., adds a note, 

“Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt” (Numb. xiii. 22).

If, therefore, when he wrote Genesis, Moses found it expedient to bring its ancient geography up to date we must be prepared to find his explaining pen at work in Gen. ii. When we realize that the flood in the days of Noah, must have seriously altered the configuration of the land, diverted the course of rivers, buried some tracts of land beneath the sea, and brought up above sea-level, some part of the sea-bed, we can readily see that references to geographical boundaries, countries and rivers true in the days of Adam, may, in Moses’ day, have proved valueless, except for archæological purposes. Moreover, one of the lands mentioned in Gen. ii. is Ethiopia. Now in the Hebrew this word is “Cush”, and as Cush was not born until over two thousand years after Adam, to speak of Adam knowing the land by the name of one of his descendants who lived two thousand years after his time would be an anachronism. 

Ethiopia, in Africa, is not the only land of Cush. Cush was the father of Seba, Havilah, and Sabtechah (Gen. x. 7, 8); Nimrod moved northward into Assyria, the others went South and settled in Arabia, consequently, there is no reason why we should introduce a region of Africa into Gen. ii. We must, however, return to the record of Gen. ii. Moses tells us that the river which watered the garden, parted, and was divided into four heads. The word “head” being rosh, we must understand this to refer to the sources of these rivers, not their mouths. 

“The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of the land is good; there is bdellium and the onyx stone.” 

Nothing further is said of this river in Scripture but the Companion Bible tells us that it flows West of the Euphrates, and that in the year of Nabonides, the last king of Babylonia, it was called Pullakat. Havilah is associated with “Shur, that is before Egypt  as thou goest toward Assyria”, (Gen. xxv. 18), and Ophir, famous for its gold (Job xxviii. 16), is associated with Havilah in Gen. x. 29; and again Moses gives the added note:-- 

“And their dwelling was from Mesha, as thou goest unto Sephar a mount of the East” 

(Gen. x. 30). 

If four great rivers took their rise from the river that watered Paradise, it is plain that Paradise itself must have been in an elevated tract of country. Lenormantsays, “Eden, in the Accadian and Sumerian texts is used sometimes to designate a plain in opposition to a mountain. But this is never the bottom of the valley . . . . .” The Tigris (Hiddekel, Accadian for Tigris) and the Euphrates both rise in Armenia, thus, once again, we observe a connection between Adam and Noah, for the Ark rested on “one of the mountains of Ararat”, which tradition places in Armenia. Two other rivers take their rise in this region, the Kur and the Araxes, which flow into the Caspian Sea. These rivers cannot be identified with the Pison or the Gihon, but such may be what remains of them since the disruption at the flood. As the Bible is the only book that declares that this district is the cradle of the human race, it has for thirty three centuries been ahead of the “science” of the day. 

Quatrefages, the great French scientist and anthropologists, says, “that the study of the various populations, and of their languages, has led scientists of the greatest deliberation and authority to place the cradle of the human race in Asia, not far from the central mass of that continent, and in the neighbourhood of the region where all the principal rivers which plough their way to the north, to the south, and to the east, take their rise”. It is in Central Asia alone that wheat is indigenous, and must have been carried thence by man as he spread abroad. In Gen. ii. 12 Moses speaks of the gold, the bdellium and the onyx stone as constituting an easy means of identifying this district. The word bdellium occurs but twice in Scripture, once in Gen. ii. 12, and once in Numb. xi. 7, where the manna is likened to it. This shows that Israel, for whom Moses wrote, were well acquainted with this substance, though today there may be uncertainty as to its identity. The LXX considered it to be a precious stone, and translate the word by anthrax and krystallos, while Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion render it bdellium, a transparent aromatic gum which is formed by a tree that grows in Arabia. The Rabbis, however, translate the word by “Pearl”. 

In our earlier studies, we have found that the references to “time” in Gen. i., ii. 3 have a symbolic value far outweighing their primitive meaning. As we look at this first great reference to “place” are we not justified in expecting that its description answers some more important purpose than that of satisfying the Israelites as to the identity of the site of Paradise? 

Three great streams of humanity have their origin in this district; the descendants of Shem, Ham and Japheth, and, mingled with the descendants of the true seed preserved alive in the ark, we learn of the Canaanite, and their frightful progeny. 

“In the following times of history, we have seen how the river of mankind from the mountains of Armenia poured itself into the plains of the Tigris and the Euphrates. The tribes of men went forth unto the regions of the stream of Paradise, acquired power and gathered riches. But of gold they made gods, decked them with jewels and brought incense to the things which have noses and smell not” (Dr. M. Baumgarten Theological Com. on O.T.). 

Whether this be so or not may perhaps remain a moot point, but it seems reasonable to suppose that in a book which covers 2000 years of history in eleven chapters (Gen. i.-xi.) not one verse, certainly not seven (Gen. ii. 8-14), would be devoted to matter transient in its application, and the original meaning of which is now beyond the power of man to ascertain. The geography of the book that brings before us the glorious prophecy of Paradise restored, is centred around the same land that is brought before us in Gen. ii. The references to Asia Minor on the West (Rev. i.-iii.); beyond the Euphrates on the East (Rev. xvi. 12); with Jerusalem and Babylon as rival cities and systems, enable us to see that not only does Revelation corresponds with Genesis as to the entry and removal of the Serpent, sin, death and curse, but that the very geographical site of Eden, may yet form 

the earthly basis of the heavenly city when at last it descends from God out of heaven. Its gold will indeed be good, its stones most precious, and its gates pearls (see the earlier reference to the Rabbinical interpretation of bdellium).

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

(From The Berean Expositor, vol. 34, page 176).

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

Acknowledgment. (2) - by Charles H. Welch

#2. Epignosis and Epiginosko 

refer to acknowledgment 

rather than added knowledge. 

When it is true that “all the heart” is engaged with the things of God the normal outward expression will be an acknowledgment of Him in “all our ways”. This close association of “heart” and “way” is very clearly seen in Psalm cxix.: 

“The undefiled in the WAY . . . . . seek Him with the whole HEART” (1, 2). 

The question: 

“Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his WAY?”

is followed by the statement: 

“With my whole HEART have I sought Thee” (9, 10). 

Again the Psalmist says: 

“I will run the WAY of Thy commandments, when Thou shalt enlarge my HEART” (32).

In the next stanza we read: 

“Teach me, O Lord, the WAY of Thy statutes.” 

and its echo:--

“Give me understanding, and I shall keep Thy law; yea I shall observe it with my whole HEART” (33, 34). 

And yet again:-- 

“Incline my HEART unto Thy testimonies . . . . . quicken Thou me in Thy WAYS” (36, 37). 

So in verse fifty-eight we have the “whole heart” followed in verse fifty-nine by “I thought on my ways”. 

Many other examples could be brought forward to emphasize the close connection between “heart” and “ways”, but the foregoing will suffice. 

To an English ear, the word “acknowledge” conveys the idea of “confession”. Another rendering that would perhaps be truer to the original would be “recognize”. It is a blessed thing to be sensitive to the presence and work of the Lord; to be able to “recognize” Him in the dark as well as in the light; in the difficult path as well as in the hour of triumph. When one is able thus to “recognize” Him the direction of our pathway will follow as a matter of course. 

It is interesting to know that the LXX version uses the word orthotomeo “rightly divide”, where the English version reads “direct”. This is an important factor in the true interpretation of II Tim. ii. 15 for the word would be immediately recognized by Timothy as one with which his early training had made him familiar, and thus would understand the practical necessity to follow the Divinely appointed finger-posts regarding dispensational truth as the wayfarer and pilgrim would follow the directions placed for his guidance at the fork of the road. 

If acknowledgment of our sin is a necessary prelude to the “joy” and “experimental knowledge” of sins forgiven, acknowledgment of the Lord in all our ways is assuredly as necessary, if we would be “directed” in all our paths. 

In the New Testament epiginosko and epignosis are translated both by the words “knowledge” and “acknowledge”. In early days the distinction between them was not so sharply drawn as now. For example, the majestic words: 

“We knowledge Thee to be the Father of an infinite Majesty,”

was the recognized form in the year 1535A.D. To-day “knowledge” stands, in the first instance, for the “stuff” of knowledge, the information gathered, or the intelligence possessed. This however is the secondary meaning of the word, and even to-day a first-class dictionary places the primary meaning of “knowledge” as: “Acknowledgment, confession; recognition of the position of claims of any one” (Oxford English Dictionary). 

Epignosis is the combination of epi, “on”, and gnosis, “knowledge”, but it must not be assumed that the addition of epi indicates merely the piling up of knowledge upon knowledge: few, if any, occurrences of the word would justify this usage. 

When Hosea says: 

“The Lord hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land” (Hosea iv. 1),

mere formal knowledge, historical knowledge, grammatical knowledge, is not intended. There is implicit in the word the idea of acknowledgment or recognition. If we could divest the word “recognition” of its secondary meaning (that of “recognizing” a person by feature or manner), and retain only the primary meaning, that of recognizing or acknowledging a liability or an obligation, the word would suit admirably. 

This matter is something more than a mere technicality; it lies near the very heart of all true teaching, and we therefore “recognize” the claims which the word has upon us to make its meaning clearly understood. Epiginosko occurs forty-two times in the New Testament and epignosis occurs twenty times. While space will permit of the setting out of only a selection from all these references, we trust that all who teach others, and those who desire the fullest proof of all that is here set forth as truth, will personally acquaint themselves with the usage of these words in the whole of the sixty-two occurrences: 

“Ye shall know them by their fruits” (Matt. vii. 16). 

 “Elias is come already, and they knew him not” (Matt. xvii. 12). 

 “When Jesus perceived in His spirit” (Mark ii. 8). 

 “The people saw them . . . . . and many knew Him” (Mark vi. 33). 

 “Their eyes were holden that they should not know Him” (Luke xxiv. 16). 

In these few references taken from the Gospels, “recognize” could, with advantage, be substituted for “know”. We do not “know” a fig-tree by the mere fact of looking at its fruit, for a “knowledge” of the fig-tree involves acquaintance with several sciences, and then is but partial. Yet the most untutored and illiterate observer would “recognize” a fig-tree by its fruit.

It is a most natural transition for the word “recognize” to take on a moral colouring, so that while the recognition of a fig-tree by its fruit may not involve self-denial or expose to persecution, it becomes another matter to “recognize” the rejected Christ or the doctrine which is after godliness. 

In the passage we are about to consider let us therefore, with this explanation in mind, consistently use the word “recognize” or “acknowledge” in place of “knowledge”. Limitations of space compel us to confine ourselves to one passage only, but that a representative one.

“Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness” (Titus i. 1). 

Here the Apostle associates his ministry with two phases of Christian experience (1) According to the faith of God’s elect, this is basic; (2) According to a recognition of the Truth, this is experimental. This second phase is expanded thus: “According to a recognition of the truth, which (in its turn) is according to godliness.”

The Apostle is inspired to hold an even balance. He stresses neither the sovereignty of God nor the responsibility of man, but gives each its place. The faith of God’s elect comes first, and this is according to truth. We love Him because He first loved us. There could be no recognition of truth on our part, had it not been preceded by grace. It is however entirely untrue to represent the Apostle’s doctrine as the faith of God’s elect, and that only. That is but one side of it. It has another: 

“The Lord knoweth them that are His.” 

That is the elective side, the side that lies beyond our control, responsibility or power. The other is: 

“Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity” (II Tim. ii. 19). 

This is the experimental side, the side that lies within the ambit of our control, responsibility and power, as those who have received mercy to be faithful. 

The possession of the “knowledge” of the truth which is according to godliness is no guarantee that a “life” of godliness will ensue. But the “acknowledgment” or “recognition” of such truth does carry with it the idea of taking one’s stand, and abiding by any consequences that may follow. 

“Be not . . . . . ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner” 

(II Tim. i. 8). 

was a call to Timothy, who “knew” the truth, to “acknowledge” it, or, in the sense adopted in this series, to “recognize” its claims. The call comes with equal force to us to-day, when “knowledge” has increased, but when “the godly man ceaseth”, and acknowledgment of the truth, at times, costs dear. 

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

(From The Berean Exxpositor, vol. 36, page 9).

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