CHAPTER x.x.xIII.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.

1. The term _Hermeneutics_ (Greek, _hermeneuo_, _to interpret_) is commonly employed to denote the _principles of scriptural interpretation_. The Greek word _exegesis_--that is, _exposition_--denotes the actual _work of interpretation_. Hermeneutics is, therefore, the _science_ of interpretation; Exegesis, the _application_ of this science to the word of G.o.d. The hermeneutical writer lays down general principles of interpretation; the exegetical writer uses these principles in the exposition of Scripture. The terms _epexegesis_ and _epexegetical_ are used by expositors in a special sense to denote something explanatory of the immediate context.

2. The expositor's _office_ is, to ascertain and unfold the true meaning of the inspired writers, without adding to it, subtracting from it, or changing it in any way. Here we may draw an instructive parallel between his work and that of the textual critic. The textual critic aims to give, not what some one might think the inspired penman should have written, but what he actually did write. So the true expositor, taking the very words of Scripture, seeks not to force upon them a meaning in harmony with his preconceived opinions, but to take from them the very ideas which the writer intended to express. It is pertinent, therefore, to consider at the outset the qualifications which belong to the biblical interpreter. These include high moral and intellectual qualities, as well as varied and extensive acquirements.

3. Foremost among the qualities that belong to the interpreter is a _supreme regard for truth_. A general conviction and acknowledgment of the duty of truthfulness will not be sufficient to guard him against all the seductive influences that beset his path. Though he may be a sincere Christian, he will still be in danger of being misled by the power of preconceived opinions and party connections. He will need a constant and vivid apprehension of the sacredness of all truth, more especially of scriptural truth, which G.o.d has revealed for the sanctification and salvation of men. "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."

These words of the Saviour he will do well to ponder night and day, till they become a part of his spiritual life; and to remember always that, if such be the divine origin and high office of scriptural truth, G.o.d will not hold guiltless any who tamper with it in the interest of preconceived human opinions, thus subst.i.tuting the folly of man for the wisdom of G.o.d.

4. The interpreter further needs a _sound judgment_, combined with the power of _vivid conception_. These two qualities are named together, because they mutually supplement each other. A large part of the Bible is occupied with description. Here the interpreter needs the power of conception, that he may bring before his mind a vivid picture of the scenes described, with the relations of their several parts to each other. Another large part of the Bible contains the language of poetry and impa.s.sioned feeling. In the interpretation of this, the faculty of conception is especially necessary, that we may place ourselves as fully as possible in the circ.u.mstances of the writers, and form a true idea of the emotions which filled their minds and gave form and complexion to their utterances. Pure cold logic, with the addition of any amount of human learning, will not enable us to comprehend and expound aright the forty-second Psalm. By the power of imagination, we must go with the poet, in his exile from the sanctuary at Jerusalem, across the Jordan to the land of the Hermonites; must see his distressed and forsaken condition; must hear the bitter taunts of his enemies; must witness the inward tempest of his feelings--a continual conflict between nature and faith--before we can have a true understanding of his words. The same might be said of innumerable other pa.s.sages of Scripture.

But this power of vivid conception, when not held in check by a _sound judgment_, will lead the expositor of Scripture into the wildest vagaries of fancy. Disregarding the plainest rules of interpretation, he will cover up the obvious sense of Scripture with a ma.s.s of allegorical expositions, under color of educing from the words of inspiration a higher and more edifying meaning. That high natural endowments, united with varied and solid learning and indefatigable zeal for the gospel, do not of themselves const.i.tute a safeguard against this error, we learn from the example of Origen and many others. Not content to let the simple narratives of Scripture speak for themselves and convey their proper lessons of instruction, these allegorical expositors force upon them a higher spiritual sense. In so doing, they unsettle the very principles by which the spiritual doctrines of Scripture are established.

Origen, for example, in commenting on the meeting between Abraham's servant and Rebecca at the well in Haran, says: "Rebecca came every day to the wells. Therefore she could be found by Abraham's servant, and joined in marriage with Isaac." Thus he gives the literal meaning of this transaction. But he then goes on to show, among other things, that Rebecca represents the human soul, which Christ wishes to betroth to himself, while Abraham's servant is "the prophetic word, which unless you first receive, you cannot be married to Christ." See in Davidson's Sacred Hermeneutics, pp. 103, 104.

5. Another indispensable qualification of scriptural interpretation is _sympathy with divine truth_; in other words, that harmony of spirit with the truths of revelation which comes from a hearty reception of them, and a subjection of the whole life, inward and outward, to their control. "If any man," said our Saviour, "will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of G.o.d, or whether I speak of myself." John 7:17. In these words our Lord proposed to the unbelieving Jews the true remedy for their ignorance and error respecting his person and office, which had their ground not in the want of evidence, but in their perverse and guilty rejection of evidence. Their moral state was one of habitual rebellion against the truth of G.o.d; and they could not, therefore, have sympathy with the Saviour's doctrine. They hated the light, and would not come to the light, because their deeds were evil.

John 3:20. What they needed was not more light, but that obedient spirit which loves the light, and allows it to shine through the soul. The man who would be a successful interpreter of G.o.d's word must begin where the Saviour directed these Jews to begin. So far as he knows the truth, he must give it a hearty reception not in theory alone, but in daily practice. Then he will be prepared to make further progress in the knowledge of it, and to unfold its heavenly treasures to his fellow-men.

But if he comes to the study of G.o.d's word with a heart habitually at variance with its holy precepts, and an understanding darkened by the power of sinful affections, no amount of scholarship or critical sagacity will avail to make him a true expositor of its contents. Having no sympathy with the great foundation doctrines of the gospel, but regarding them with positive aversion, he will neither be able to apprehend them in their true light, nor to explain them aright to his fellow-men. In the work of interpretation, a good heart--good in the scriptural sense--is not less important than a clear understanding and well-furnished mind.

6. How extensive and varied should be the _acquirements_ of the able interpreter will be manifest to any one who considers the extent and variety of the fields of knowledge covered by the Holy Scriptures.

The _languages_ in which they are written are no longer spoken. The knowledge of them, like that of all dead languages, is locked up in books--grammars, lexicons, ancient versions, and various subsidiary helps--and can be mastered only by severe and protracted study. It is not indeed necessary that the great body of Christians, or even all preachers of the gospel, should be able to read the Bible in the original languages. But it is a principle of Protestantism, the soundness of which has been confirmed by the experience of centuries, that there should always be in the churches a body of men able to go behind the current versions of Scripture to the original tongues from which these versions were executed. The commentator, at least, must not take his expositions at second hand; and a healthy tone of feeling in regard to the sacredness and supreme authority of the inspired word will always demand that there should be a goodly number of scholars scattered through the churches who can judge from the primitive sources of the correctness of his interpretations.

The Scriptures are crowded with references to the cities, mountains, plains, deserts, rivers, and seas of Palestine and the surrounding regions; to their climate, soil, animals, and plants; to their agricultural products and mineral treasures; to the course of travel and commerce between the different nations; in a word, to those numerous particulars which come under the head of _geography_ and _natural history_. The extended investigations of modern times in these departments of knowledge have shed a great light over the pages of inspiration, which no expositor who is worthy of the name will venture to neglect.

And if one collect and ill.u.s.trate the various allusions of Scripture to the manners and customs of the ancient Hebrews, to their civil inst.i.tutions and their religious rites and ceremonies, he will compose a volume on _biblical antiquities_.

The connection, moreover, which the covenant people had with the surrounding nations, especially the great monarchies which successively held sway over the civilized world--Egypt, a.s.syria, Chaldea, Greece, Rome--requires an extended knowledge of _ancient history_, and, as inseparably connected with this, of _ancient chronology_. Biblical chronology const.i.tutes, indeed, a science of itself, embracing some very perplexed and difficult questions, the solution of which has an important bearing upon the pa.s.sages of Scripture to which they have reference.

7. We do not affirm that all the above-named qualifications are necessary to a saving knowledge of G.o.d's word. Its great essential doctrines and precepts are so plain that the unlettered reader, who brings to the work an honest heart, cannot fail to understand them. In this respect G.o.d has made the vision so plain "that he may run that readeth it;" and the road to heaven so direct that "the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein." But the interpreter of Scripture is expected to unfold the meaning of the difficult pa.s.sages also, as far as human investigation will enable him to do so. They are a part of "all Scripture given by inspiration of G.o.d," which the apostle affirms to be "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." He should spare no effort, therefore, to ascertain their exact sense, and to expound this sense to others with all possible fidelity and clearness.

8. There is a _human_ and a _divine_ side to biblical interpretation--a human side, because the Scriptures address men in human language, and according to human modes of thinking and speaking; a divine side, because they contain a true revelation from G.o.d to men, and differ in this respect from all other writings. The neglect of the human side leads to visionary schemes of interpretation, in which the writer's fancy is subst.i.tuted for the sober rules of criticism, and the word of G.o.d accommodated to his preconceived opinions. The rejection, open or covert, of the divine side, manifests itself in a cold, skeptical criticism, which denies or explains away all that is supernatural in the Bible; which, instead of seeking to discover and unfold that unity of plan and harmony of parts which belong to every work of G.o.d, delights rather in exaggerating the supposed inconsistencies and contradictions of the sacred writers, and in arraying one part of Scripture against another; and which, having no faith itself in the Bible as containing a revelation from G.o.d, infuses doubts respecting its divine origin into the mind of the reader. It is only by keeping steadily in view these two sides of revelation, which mutually supplement each other, that we can attain to a true knowledge of the inspired word.

FIRST DIVISION.

INTERPRETATION VIEWED ON THE HUMAN SIDE.

CHAPTER x.x.xIV.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.

1. Since the Bible addresses men in human language, and according to human modes of thinking and speaking, the interpreter's first work is to ascertain the _meaning of the terms_ employed. Here he must proceed as in the case of other writings, seeking by the aid of grammars, lexicons, cognate languages, ancient versions, ancient interpreters, and whatever other outward helps are available, to gain a thorough knowledge of the language employed by the Holy Spirit in his revelations to men. To these external sources of knowledge he will add all the internal light which comes from a careful consideration of the context, of the author's known use of terms, of parallel pa.s.sages, etc.

In the case of the New Testament, a knowledge of cla.s.sical Greek will not be sufficient. The interpreter must superadd a thorough acquaintance with the peculiar dialect of the New Testament (Chap. 24, No. 5), and also the special usages of particular writers. The apostle John, to adduce a single instance, applies the term _Logos_, _Word_, to the Son of G.o.d. But we cannot argue from this for a like usage by other writers; as, for example, in the well-known pa.s.sage: "The word of G.o.d is quick and powerful," etc. Heb. 4:12.

Usage alone is often insufficient to determine the meaning of a word in a particular pa.s.sage; for (1) the term may occur nowhere else, (2) it may have in current usage two or more different significations. In the former case, the interpreter must avail himself of all the external helps above specified, and especially of the light shed upon the meaning of the term in question by the context. In the latter case, the context must be his chief guide. The same Greek word, for example, signifies _stature_ (Luke 19:3) and _age_ (Heb. 11:11). In the interpretation of Matt. 6:27, where our version reads: "Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?" the question may naturally enough arise in which of these two senses the Saviour employed it. Whatever may be the decision, it must have for its basis not simple usage, which is ambiguous, but the connection of the word in the context. Many like examples might be adduced.

It has been already remarked (Chap. 24, No. 5) that in New Testament usage many words have a technical and therefore peculiar meaning. We are not at liberty, however, to determine such technical meanings at random, or in accordance with any preconceived opinions. It can only be done, as in the case of all other writings, in accordance with the acknowledged laws of interpretation. The general result, then, at which we arrive is, that in determining the meaning of scriptural terms we must be guided by the same rules which we follow in the interpretation of other writings.

2. From the signification of particular words we proceed to the consideration of the _sense_ embodied in the language of the sacred writers. A knowledge of the words which enter into the composition of a sentence does not of itself give us a true apprehension of the sense which the writer seeks to convey. We must know the writer's aim, the shape and course of his argument, the ideas which he is combating as well as those which he seeks to establish, the emphatic words of the sentence, whether he wishes to be understood literally or figuratively, and various other particulars; all which are to be ascertained by the same rules which we employ in the interpretation of language generally.

3. The _scope_ or _design_ of the inspired writer may be _general_ or _special_; the former being his design in writing the whole work in question, the latter, his design in particular sections of it. "The scope," it has been well observed, "is the soul or spirit of a book; and, that being once ascertained, every argument and every word appears in its right place, and is perfectly intelligible; but if the scope be not duly considered, every thing becomes obscure, however clear and obvious its meaning may really be." Horne's Introduct., vol. 2, p. 265, edit. of 1860. This language is not too strong. It is by a neglect or perversion of the scope that the meaning of the inspired writers is perverted, and they are made to contradict one another.

The apostle Paul says, for example: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Rom. 3:28. The apostle James: "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." James 2:24. If one insists on leaving out of account the separate and distinct design which each of these two writers had in view respectively, he can easily bring their words into contradiction. Had the scope of Paul's argument been to show that faith in Christ _releases_ men from the obligation of obeying the divine law, and thus makes good works unnecessary; or had James been laboring to prove that good works are the _meritorious ground_ of men's forgiveness, then the doctrines of the two apostles would have been irreconcilably at variance. But we know that neither of these suppositions is true. Paul was combating the error of the Pharisees "who trusted in themselves that they were righteous"--righteous on the ground of "the deeds of the law"--"and despised others." His aim was to show that men receive forgiveness and salvation neither wholly nor in part on the ground of the supposed merit of their good works, but wholly through faith in Christ; as he elsewhere argues that "if it be by grace, then it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace." Rom. 11:6. We know also, from the whole tenor of his writings, that he condemned as spurious that pretended faith which does not manifest itself in good works. In this very epistle, where the question is not concerning the meritorious ground of justification, but concerning that character which G.o.d will accept, the apostle lays down the great principle: "Unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil; of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; but glory, honor, and peace to every man that worketh good; to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: for there is no respect of persons with G.o.d." Rom. 2:8-11. If now we turn to the epistle of James, we find that the faith without works which he condemns as dead is one of mere empty notions--an inoperative belief _about_ Christ instead of that hearty trust _in_ him which brings the heart and life into subjection to his authority. In a word, Paul condemns, as dead, works without faith; James, faith without works. The one rejects dead works (Heb. 9:14); the other, dead faith. Between these two judgments there is no contradiction. We have dwelt somewhat at large upon this example of alleged contradiction for the purpose of full ill.u.s.tration. The same mode of reasoning might be applied to many other pa.s.sages, where a knowledge of the writer's design is essential to the true apprehension of his meaning.

Such being the importance of the scope, the question arises: How shall it be ascertained? Here mechanical rules will be of little avail. The attentive and judicious reader will be able, in general, to gather it from the various indications given by the writer himself, or from the known circ.u.mstances in which he wrote, just as in the case of other writings.

Sometimes an author directly _states_ his general end, or his design in writing a particular section of his work. An example of the former kind is John 20:31: "These things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Son of G.o.d; and that believing ye might have life through his name;" of the latter kind, 1 Cor. 7:1: "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me," etc.; whence we learn that in this particular chapter the apostle's design is to answer certain inquiries of the Corinthian Christians in regard to the relation of marriage. More commonly the writer's scope is indicated indirectly by various _inferential remarks_, as in the pa.s.sage already quoted: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law,"

which is in fact a statement of the apostle's design in the preceding argument. See Horne's Introduct., vol. 2, pp. 266, 267, where the author follows Morus, Hermeneutica, 1.2.2.

Sometimes a clear light is shed upon the design of a writer or speaker by a knowledge of _historical circ.u.mstances_; especially, of his own position and that of his opponents. The twenty-third chapter of Matthew, in which the Saviour exposes the wickedness and doctrinal errors of the scribes and Pharisees, and denounces upon them the judgments of heaven, cannot be thoroughly understood without a knowledge of the system of Pharisaism, and the high position of authority and influence which the Pharisees held; sitting, as they did, in Moses' seat, imposing upon the people their human traditions in place of G.o.d's commandments, subst.i.tuting a religion of outward forms for one of inward faith, love, and obedience, and thus taking away from the people the key of divine knowledge. It was necessary that the Son of G.o.d, to whom the church belonged, who came to shed his blood for her redemption, and to establish her in the principles of truth and holiness, should expose with unsparing severity the wickedness and ignorance of these scribes and Pharisees, for the instruction of his people in all coming ages. A knowledge of the same historical circ.u.mstances throws a strong light on the apostle's aim in writing to the Romans and Galatians. Had we fuller information respecting the false teachers referred to in the epistle to the Colossians and the pastoral epistles, we should understand more clearly the apostle's arguments against them.

But the surest means of ascertaining a writer's scope is the repeated and careful perusal of his words. The biblical student should early form the habit of reading over with earnest attention a whole book at a sitting--the epistle to the Romans, for example, or that to the Hebrews--without pausing to investigate particular questions; his aim being to throw himself as fully as possible into the general current of thought, and to be carried forward by it to the writer's final conclusions. When he has thus made himself familiar with the scope of the work as a whole, he will be better prepared for the examination of the particular difficulties that offer themselves in the course of the author's argument.

4. The word _context_ (Latin, _contextus_) signifies literally _a weaving together_; and is appropriately used, therefore, to denote the web of a writer's discourse. The scope is the _end_ which a writer proposes to accomplish: the context gives the _form and manner of its accomplishment_. With reference to a given pa.s.sage, the context has been loosely defined to be that which immediately precedes and follows. More accurately, it is the series of statements, arguments, and ill.u.s.trations connected with the pa.s.sage whose meaning is sought, including all the various connections of thought. The sober interpreter, then, must have constant reference to the context, as well for the signification of particular terms as for the general sense of the pa.s.sage under consideration. To interpret without regard to the context is to interpret at random; to interpret contrary to the context is to teach falsehood for truth.

The necessity of having constant reference to the context for the determination of the sense, as well as of the particular terms employed, admits of innumerable ill.u.s.trations. From these we select a few examples:

In Rom. 14:23 the apostle lays down the following maxim: "He that doubteth is d.a.m.ned [literally, _condemned_] if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." The context relates not to the Lord's supper, but to scruples in respect to the use of particular kinds of food: "One believeth that he may eat all things; another who is weak"--over-scrupulous in respect to distinctions of food--"eateth herbs" (ver. 2). Consequently there is no reference here to the personal qualifications requisite for partaking of that ordinance, or to the consequence of eating unworthily. The apostle means to say that whoever has scruples about the lawfulness of using a particular article of food is condemned if he eat it, "because he eateth not of faith." He acts contrary to his persuasion of duty. Thus he violates, in this particular case, that general law of faith which requires that in all things we keep a conscience void of offence towards G.o.d and man, subjecting ourselves in loving confidence to Christ's authority, and doing in all things what we believe to be right in his sight.

Again we read in Gal. 5:4 the words: "Ye are fallen from grace." Taken out of their connection, these words are ambiguous in their application.

But the context makes all plain. The apostle is addressing those who are inclined to subst.i.tute a system of justification by works for the grace of the gospel: "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace"--fallen away from grace, as the original word means. Ye have abandoned the system of grace revealed in the gospel for one of works.

The psalmist says: "My soul thirsteth for G.o.d, for the living G.o.d: when shall I come and appear before G.o.d?" Psa. 42:2. Taken out of their connection, these words might be understood of his desire to enjoy the beatific vision of G.o.d in heaven. But the context shows that the writer had in mind G.o.d's earthly sanctuary, from which he was banished: "My tears have been my meat day and night, while they continually say unto me, Where is thy G.o.d? When I remember these things, I pour out my soul in me: for I had gone with the mult.i.tude, I went with them to the house of G.o.d, with the voice of joy and praise, with a mult.i.tude that kept holy-day" (ver. 3, 4).

Again the psalmist says: "The king's daughter is all glorious within"

(Psa. 45:13); words that have more than once been applied directly to the inward spiritual beauty of the church, the bride of Christ. This is, indeed, the idea that we gain from a true interpretation of them. But it comes not directly, but through a beautiful figure. The primary meaning of the words is, that the royal bride appearing _within the palace_ in raiment of wrought gold is all glorious to the beholder's view.

Undoubtedly she represents the church espoused to Christ; dwelling, so to speak, in his kingly mansion, and gloriously adorned with his righteousness. Rev. 19:8.

The question may naturally occur to the reader: Within what limits is the context to be consulted? The answer must be, that no definite limits can be prescribed. The entire web of discourse must be carefully studied, including the more remote as well as the nearer context; for the inspired writers do not, as a general rule, proceed according to formal divisions and subdivisions. The train of argument is often interrupted by parenthetical remarks, particularly in the writings of the apostle Paul, or it is resumed in an informal way after extended digressions. The true connection of thought, then, is to be gathered not so much from our modern notions of what logical accuracy would require, as from the repeated and careful perusal of the writing in question. In this way alone can we place ourselves in the author's position, and look at the subject under discussion from his point of view; that is to say, in this way alone can we enter into his modes of thinking and reasoning, and thus qualify ourselves to be the expounders of them to others.

In some cases no context exists, and none is to be sought. In a large part of the book of Proverbs, for example, each separate aphorism shines by its own light. If it have any connection with what precedes or follows, it is only casual or superficial. In some books, again, like that of Ecclesiastes, the transitions are rapid, and often difficult to explain. Here we should be careful not to force upon the author a logical connection of which he never thought. Systematic arrangement is good in its place; but the Holy Spirit did not think it needful to secure it in the case of all who spake as he moved them.

Some religious teachers are fond of employing scriptural texts simply as _mottoes_, with little or no regard to their true connection. Thus they too often adapt them to their use by imparting to them a fact.i.tious sense foreign to their proper scope and meaning. The seeming gain in all such cases is more than counterbalanced by the loss and danger that attend the practice. It encourages the habit of interpreting Scripture in an arbitrary and fanciful way, and thus furnishes the teachers of error with their most effective weapon. The practice cannot be defended on any plea of necessity. The plain words of Scripture, legitimately interpreted according to their proper scope and context, contain a fulness and comprehensiveness of meaning sufficient for the wants of all men in all circ.u.mstances. That piety alone is robust and healthful which is fed, not by the fancies and speculations of the preacher who practically puts his own genius above the word of G.o.d, but by the pure doctrines and precepts of the Bible, unfolded in their true connection and meaning.

It is important to remark, however, that when the _general principle_ contained in a given pa.s.sage of Scripture has been once fairly explained, it admits of innumerable applications which are in the highest sense legitimate and proper. The principle, for example, that "whatsoever is not of faith is sin," which the apostle Paul announces in connection with the question of using or abstaining from particular kinds of food, may be applied to the settlement of cases of conscience arising in widely different relations and spheres of action. The preacher's power lies very much in the ability of unfolding to the understanding and applying to the conscience the general principles involved in the pa.s.sage of Scripture which he undertakes to expound.

5. We may next consider the help to be derived from _parallel pa.s.sages_.