Chapter 7: Context, Scope, and Plan

In order to gain a better understanding of the grammatico-historical sense of Scripture the biblical interpreter must look at the purpose of the biblical author in his writing. It must be assumed that the author has some end or scope in view for the writing. Attention must also be paid the general arrangement, or plan, of the author of the various parts of a work. Once the general scope and plan is ascertained, then attention can be paid to the particular parts of a writings noting the immediate context of the part.

Sometimes the Scripture gives the scope of the work. This is the case with the Paul’s epistle to Titus. In verse five Paul writes, “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I appointed thee.” The letter then proceeds with instructions to Titus upon this very theme to encourage and exhort him as to his work of setting things in order and ordaining elders. Other times the scope of book must be determined in other ways. Milton Terry suggests, for example, that Genesis may be ordered in ten parts with where each part begins with “These are the generations..” as a tenfold history from creation through the earliest developments of human history. Such scope is not stated by Moses, but does appear from the book. The recurrent heading through the book of Genesis hints of the author’s plan in the layout of Genesis.

Once a panoramic view of a books plan and scope is obtained, the biblical interpreter is better equipped to draw meaning from particular parts and sections paying careful attention to the context. We often hear in Christian circles that Scripture must be taken in context, but what is really meant by that? The context of a passage of Scripture or small portion may be near or remote from the passage(s) under consideration. It is best to first consider the immediate context and then move outward toward a broader context if the meaning of a verse or passage requires it for a better understanding. It is also helpful to consider how facts or events happen in the order of time, or how a certain teaching may be connected to some historical fact. Through careful study and the constant exercise of observing the text in its context, scope, and plan the biblical interpreter can grow in discerning the grammatico-historical sense of Scripture.

Chapter 6: The Grammatico-Historical Sense

The previous chapters lay the groundwork of discerning the meaning of words in order to consider grammatico-historical sense of Scripture. The grammatical sense of Scripture is the same as the literal sense. It is the approach to the Scriptures that takes a simple, direct, and plain sense of its phrases and sentences. The historical sense seeks to transport the interpreter back in time as it were and consider the manners, customs, and times in which the Scriptures were written. The true work of an exegete can do nothing more than take the biblical author at his word and derive his grammatical principles from the author’s own use of language. The biblical interpreter should also trace the historical data to gain a better understanding of the usus loquendi of a biblical writer.

The essential principles for determining the meaning of words can be justly applied to discovering the grammatico-historical sense of Scripture. Attention to internal definitions given by the author and form used assuming the author never means to contradict himself. Examining the whole text of a book or letter to gain its subject, scope, and purpose should also be sought to gain a proper grammatical construction of sentences. This should be done as much as possible from the author’s historical viewpoint. The grammatico-historical sense is singular in nature. It must never be presumed that the biblical author seeks to speak in a riddles and double meanings unless the text itself indicates such. It is upon this principle that the miracles of the Bible are taken literally. There is no indication from the text of the account of the events that the authors meant anything other than to relay an actual event.

If such reasoning is to be rejected, then what could be said of the resurrection of Jesus? The biblical accounts of the resurrection give the reader no ground to interpret the event as anything other than an actual historical occurrence. Jesus’ resurrection is indeed a literal and historical event. The plain, simple, and direct accounts and teaching regarding the resurrection of Jesus throughout the entire New Testament leave no other conclusion than the event happened as the author’s described it did, or that they willfully and knowingly lied about it for which they were willing to suffer horrendous trials and deaths to maintain the falsehood. No one in their right mind would do such a thing.

Employing the grammatico-historical interpretation of Scripture necessitates that the interpreter be familiar with the original languages of the Bible. The positions of words or phrases in the Greek language sometimes indicate particular emphasis. Verb tenses also serve to illume the text with regard to present, past, or continual action not always discernable in translations. The Scripture itself exhorts the man of God to be diligent to show himself approved of God as workman, or laborer, that doesn’t need to be ashamed (2 Timothy 2:15). Therefore, such principles that teach us to pay close attention to the meaning of words, their tenses and moods, their relationship to one another, the use of language, and the scope, context, and plan of the biblical author are the labors of the one who loves the Scriptures.

Chapter 5: Synonyms

In the process of time words take on different meanings and are used in different ways. Different words are often used to convey a general idea or concept but carry slightly different shades of meaning. For example, the words wonder, surprise, admiration, astonishment, and amazement all carry the same general idea yet slightly different meanings. When interpreting the Scriptures it is helpful to possess the skill to be able to discover Hebrew and Greek synonyms. This area of scholarship is rarely touched upon by scholars. Both spiritual and intellectual discipline is needed to discern synonymous terms of Scripture. Yet, the patient exercise in this field is worth the effort.

For example, there are several words in Hebrew that convey the idea of killing or putting to death. One Hebrew word means a cutting off as found in Psalm 139:19, “Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God…” Another Hebrew word that conveys the general idea of killing is found in Joshua 10:26, “And afterward Joshua smote them, and slew them…” where in this case the shade of meaning is the causing of the death, in this case, Joshua. In the former Hebrew word the idea of a death occurring is present, but the cause of it is not found in the meaning of the term. This usage of the word is found over two hundred times in Scripture and is never used for murder. It is the soldier, governor, or the Lord that causes one to die. The Hebrew word ratsach is yet another word used for killing, but in this case the meaning is the act of murder or manslaughter. It is this word that we find in Exodus 20:13, “Thou shalt not kill.” Too often those uninformed in the synonymous Hebrew words for killing have misinterpreted or misunderstanding Exodus 20:13.

The same can be found in the Greek language of the New Testament. There are two Greek terms translated life in our English Bibles. The first is bios and commonly refers to the means of living for the present life. The widow in Mark 12:44 cast into the treasury her whole living, or all that was necessary for her present life. In Luke 8:14 we see that this women spent her whole living on physicians. The second term is zoe is mainly used in the New Testament to mean essential life possessed by man, whether in this life or the next. Jesus give eternal zoe, life, not eternal bios. It should be clear that by gaining some understanding of the synonyms of words may yield much profit to the biblical interpreter.

Chapter 4: The Usus Loquendi

Given that a word may carry manifold meanings it is important to become familiar with the use of language, the usus loquendi, to arrive at the meaning of a word in Scripture. Several hundred years ago the word let meant to go before whereas today it means to hinder, or prevent. The use of language over time can significantly alter the meaning of a word to mean very opposite things. Sometimes a word is used in a peculiar sense completely separate from its definitional meaning in modern or ancient times. When this occurs the context of the passage needs to be consulted when the author applies his own definition to the word. For example, the word perfect or complete found in 2 Timothy 3:17 is defined by the author as meaning “thoroughly furnished unto every good work.” In Hebrews 5:14 the definition of perfect is defined as being able to discern between good and evil.

Special care and attention then must be paid to the immediate context to discover the particular meaning a word. Most words in any language typically posses a wide semantic range where the precise meaning can only be discovered by context. The Greek term pneuma, translated as wind or spirit possesses a variety of meanings from the physical wind to the Spirit of God. There is no difficulty in determining the meaning of the word in a given passage when taken in context. For example, in John 3:8 this term is used twice with two different meanings. The use of a word in its context must not be dislodged from the subject. The nature of the subject being discussed in 2 Corinthians 5:1-4 limits the terms house, tabernacle, building, to the body and not to heaven itself. The main subject in the context of the passage is the current state of the human body and what it will become in glory. This illustration also serves to show how biblical authors use language to contrast ideas. Often their use of thesis and antithesis define the meaning of words that are used.

Hebrew parallelisms also help to discover the usus loqendi of several words. In Psalm 18:6 we see an example: “In my distress I called upon the LORD, and cried unto my God: he heard my voice out of his temple, and my cry came before him, even into his ears.” The words call and cry are explained and illustrated by God’s hearing his voice and his cry coming to God’s ears. Attention should also be paid to the subject and predicates in order to limit or define the meaning of words. This kind of careful attention is employing the interpretive method of the grammatical and historical approach. It is allowing the Scripture to speak for itself and for Scripture to interpret Scripture.

One of the most significant and important methods for detecting the usus loquendi is comparing parallel passages of Scripture. In the first place, the biblical interpreter should seek for parallel passages within the writings of the same author and upon the same subjects that may be treated elsewhere. Then, in recognition of the divine authorship of Scripture, other biblical authors can consulted who treat upon the same subject or narratives. A clear example of parallel passages is Romans 8:12, Ephesians 6:13-17, and 1 Thessalonians 5:8 which when compared help to explain what is the armor of light that we are commanded in Romans to put on in Ephesians and Thessalonians.

While etymological considerations are very helpful in determining the meaning of a word, it must not do so against the general usage of a word. Recognizing the general and familiar use of words can keep the interpreter from absurdities. Some, in seeking to give place for women to teach or preach in the Church, have appealed to the word lalein found in 1 Corinthians 14:35 translated “to speak” but carries the meaning of babble. The suggestion is that women are not permitted to babble in Church but are certainly permitted to speak. This same word, however, is used over twenty times in the New Testament and its common usage gives the meaning of discourse or speaking. To move outside this common usage would cast absurd meanings on such passages as verse 29 of the same chapter and have it read, “Let the prophets babble two or three, and let the other judge.”

Finally, as an aid to understanding the usus loquendi of the biblical text ancient versions of the Scriptures and ancient glossaries can help. The Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, carries great weight in illuminating difficult words or phrases. The Latin Vulgate, the Peshito-Syriac Version, the Targums, and other ancient versions of the Scriptures can serve to some degree in determining the meaning of rare words. More weight and authority must be given to the language itself rather than from ancient versions because often the versions differ great one from another. Discernment and caution must be employed in using ancient versions, but they can serve a useful purpose.

Chapter 3: The Primary Meaning of Words

A brief overview of the history and development of language over time reveals the need to understanding the meaning of words. In order to understand the meaning of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic words, it is important to know the original meaning of the word, how a word was used at the time, how the meaning of a word may have changed over time, and recognize the importance of a word’s synonyms. This research and study is referred to as etymology. Another field of science useful in understanding words is comparative philology. Philological research traces a word through families of languages taking note of the variety of forms, different usages, and different shades of meaning. Philological and etymological study is especially helpful with very ancient words that appear only once in the text of Scripture where the meaning of it is difficult of ascertain.

In every language known to man today the original meaning of some word has been lost. The great wealth of Greek literature has served to aid the biblical interpreter for a great many of the New Testament words. However, the Old Testament Scriptures are what essentially remain of the Hebrew language. When Joseph dreamed of a ladder where the angels of God ascended and descended upon it, the Hebrew word of ladder is cullam. This word appears only once in the Hebrew Scriptures. Etymological research suggests that its root is calal, meaning to lift up, or cast up, or exalt. Tracing the Arabic word, sullum, leaves little doubt to the word meaning stairway or ladder.

In the New Testament, the Greek word epiousion, translated as ‘daily’ in the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:11 and Luke 11:3, appears nowhere else in Greek literature. In order to arrive at the meaning of the word, its roots must be traced. Etymologically there are two possible derivations. The first is epeimi, which means to go toward or approach, and would mean the bread for the coming day, or tomorrow’s bread. The second is possible root is epi and oupia meaning existence or subsistence. Given the sentence itself in which this word appears, the meaning becomes clear to be our daily essential subsistence, or bread.

These examples serve to illustrate the need for understanding both the etymology of a word and tracing a word through a family of languages in order to arrive at its proper meaning. Tracing the derivations of words often reveals the meaning of a particular word which may be justly deduced from the context in which it is found, especially when the word is only used in the Bible. This is also helpful when seeking the meaning of compound words, such as the word peacemaker found in Matthew 5:9. The Greek is eirenopoios, made up of two words, eirene, meaning peace, and poieo, meaning to make. Tracing the etymology of this compound word helps bring meaning to the text when a word is used only once and is only found in the Bible.

Chapter 2: Different Methods of Interpretation

It is helpful in understanding sound principles of biblical interpretation to know some of the history of the various schools of thought from before the Christian era and through its early development. By gaining some understanding of the principles used in history in interpreting the Scriptures can help us avoid false and spurious principles and discern the true. The alternative is ignorance which may indeed doom us to repeat the mistakes history plainly reveals.

The earliest method of interpretation practiced by the Jews of Alexandria was the Allegorical method. An earlier origin of this method can be traced to Greek philosophers who employed this method to clear the logical roadblocks certain philosophers were having with the writings of Homer. In order to satisfy the “modern” Greek philosopher the religious writings of the Greeks were interpreted allegorically to remove the perceived absurdities of a literal interpretation. Likewise, the theophanies and anthropomorphisms of the Hebrew Scriptures were repulsive to the philosophers of ancient Greece. The Alexandrian Jews, such as Philo, turned to the Allegorical method in order to make the stories and descriptions of God acceptable to their culture. In similar fashion, some of the early church fathers, such as Clement of Alexandria, employed the same methods. Clement, for example, interpreted the certain food prohibitions in the Mosaic Law as emblematic of bad virtue such as the raven representing greed. While the Allegorical method sought to maintain a high view of Scripture, it did so at the expense of the normal significance of words and led the interpreters to fanciful conjecture. In the Allegorical school of interpretation the true meaning of the text is limited only by the whims and fancy of the interpreter.

Related to the allegorical method, the Mystical interpretation sought to find hidden meaning in every word of Scripture. Origen, for example, taught that since man’s nature consisted of body, soul, and spirit, the Scriptures consist of literal, moral, and spiritual meaning. The 17th century Christian mystic Emanuel Swedenborg also maintained this three-fold meaning to Scripture. He maintained that Scripture held three senses, the literal, the spiritual, and the celestial. Rather than stopping at the plain meaning of Exodus 20:13 which reads, “Thou shalt not kill” he sought a hidden or deeper meaning than the prohibition of murder to the fanciful idea that it forbids the devil from destroying man’s soul.

Not surprisingly, the Quakers employed a mystical interpretation of the Scriptures which was based on “inward light” called the Pietistic interpretation. Ironically, such internal illuminations claimed by the followers of such a method exhibit contradictory interpretations serving as a just refutation of their principles. Like the Allegorical and Mystical schools, Pietism holds a high view of Scripture but the principles employed in its interpretation are devoid of rational judgment and common sense. A Quaker-Pietist interprets the Scriptures as what seems right in his own eyes.

Perhaps as a reaction to the fanciful Mystic and Allegorical schools of interpretation, the Accommodation Theory rose out of German Rationalism. This destructive theory interpreted all accounts of miracles, the resurrection, angels and demons, heaven and hell, as accommodations to the superstitious beliefs of ancient people. Any supernatural element in Scripture was completely set aside and disregarded on the grounds that those to whom they were written lived in ignorance. This school of thought then assails the integrity of the biblical authors and the Son of God who served only to confirm their hearers in the alleged superstitions rather than deliver them from them. On this ground this school of thought utterly collapses upon itself. Rising out of such rigid rationalistic thinking was the system of Moral Interpretation foisted on the world by Immanuel Kant. Kant proposed to judge the Scriptures according to whether a moral lesson could be reasonably discerned. If no such lesson could be rationally arrived to then the interpreter was at liberty to set aside the literal and historical sense. Similar to the mystical and allegorical methods, the Moral Interpretation leaves the sense and meaning of Scripture subject to the whims and conjecture of the interpreter.

Probably the most damaging method of interpretation is the Naturalistic method. This method proposes that the interpreter should examine the Scriptures according to what is fact and opinion. All supernatural influence upon the biblical authors is rejected. Miracles and other supernatural acts recording in Scripture are rejected a priori and a naturalistic explanation is substituted. For example, this method rejects Jesus walking on water and interprets the passage as meaning He was walking on the shore. Peter didn’t actually walk on water when Jesus bid him to, but rather the boat was near enough to the shore that he would not sink. This method utterly fails on the grounds of normal rules of human speech. Thankfully, this method received no widespread influence or interest.

Not long after the Naturalistic method, David Friedrich Strauss set forth a Mythical theory in his book Life of Jesus published in 1835. Strauss’ theory was logical and self-consistent and received much interest in the Christian world at the time. This theory, based on Hegelian pantheism, denied that Christ established a Church or proclaimed the Gospel according the New Testament. Rather, it proposed that such things were the mystical creation of the Church. Strauss proposed rejecting historical biblical narratives if they could not be reconciled with known scientific laws or theory. He also proposed that if a narrative was inconsistent then it could be regarded as mythical. He felt that if the biblical authors wrote poetically or in a manner beyond their learning, then the narrative was concocted. Furthermore, he alleged that a reported event could be regarded as myth simply because it contained an uncanny agreement with Jewish Messianic ideas or was just simply unbelievable. I suppose that even those newly initiated to the faith of Christ could discern the subjective prejudice inherent in Strauss’ theory. The notion that the Apostles knowingly perpetrated a myth is outside of clear thinking and logic. Myths develop over time long after the actual events and occurrences have passed out of memory. The death and resurrection of Jesus, His miracles and teaching, were recording far too soon from the actual events themselves to be construed as myth.

Other rationalistic methods arose from the likes of F.C. Baur, Renan, Schenkel, and others offering some shade or difference from the ones mentioned before, but all sharing a naturalistic presupposition. Rarely do any of these critics agree with one another to such a degree that they destroy one another. History has already shown since Terry wrote this chapter that given enough time, such nonsense merely implodes upon itself and is swept away as dust in the wind.

Apologetic and Dogmatic methods of interpretation arose out of rationalistic and skeptical assaults on the Scriptures. Apologetics and dogma have a significant and legitimate place in sound exegesis. Terry rejects as dangerous the method to maintain a preconceived hypothesis as dogma and not merely as starting point for investigation. Any dogma of the Scriptures attested to must be defensible from Scripture alone and not on the ground of tradition. The books of the Bible must be defended logically and reasonably showing that their just due is to be regarded as the revelation of God. All facts of Scripture, no matter how difficult they may seem at times to the defender of Holy writ, must be affirmed and acknowledged. What must be rejected is irrational conclusions and false deductions.

The Grammatico-Historical method of interpretation is the most commendable of all schools. All of its principles seek to take from the Scriptures the meaning which the writers meant to convey. This school of interpretation begins with the assumption that the writers of Holy Scripture did not write with the intent of beguile or mislead their readers. It is not denied by this method that the Bible differs from other books being Divinely inspired and containing supernatural revelations, symbols, and unique claims. It does affirm that common sense and reason, as well as education, should aid our interpretation by mastering the language of the writers, understanding the manners and customs in which they wrote, and seek the scope and plan of each book of the Bible. From the moment mankind was able to communicate by language, mankind became interpreters. It is as unreasonable to employ fanciful interpretive methods upon our communications with one another as some have attempted to foist upon the sacred Scriptures.

Part II: Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics. Chapter 1: Preliminary

It goes without saying that the world is filled with interpreters of the Bible. And it often asked why there exists such a wide variety of interpretation. Some would answer that it is because people are not being guided by some earthly prophet or infallible governing authority. Others have taken aim at the Scripture itself. Yet, God has communicated His Word to His people. If there is any reasonable explanation for the varied interpretations of Holy Scripture we can be certain the fault lies with the interpreter and not the pure Word of God. The principles of biblical hermeneutics provide tremendous help to the student of Scripture to draw from the Scripture itself the meaning of the author. While the Scriptures certainly contain hard and difficult sayings, the Lord gave His Word so that it may make even a child wise unto salvation.

These governing laws and methods help the interpreter determine the meaning of the Scripture. Hermeneutical principles should become to the exegete what axioms are to a mathematician. They are applied with uniformity and consistency throughout the entire exegetical process. Sound hermeneutical principles are not something to be disregarded as unspiritual. Rather, they are safe guidelines to the student of Scripture and keep us from straying into fanciful and sometimes even fanatical interpretations.

We should also consider how someone can determine which principles to use. In order to discover these principles we must turn to the Scriptures themselves. We must follow the hermeneutic of the Apostles and Prophets. There are sufficient examples from the Scriptures establish sound principles. We can observe the interpretation of dreams given in Scripture, visions, types, parables, and symbols and follow one author to another their own hermeneutic. The Bible is not like the pagan babblings of sorcerers filled with riddles and double meanings. God communicated to the world in times past by His prophets and in these last days has spoken to us in His Son. When the Holy Scriptures are taken as a whole and permitted to speak for itself, then the chief hermeneutic appears plainly. The Bible is its own best interpreter.

Chapter 9: Qualification of an Interpreter

(no time to edit at the moment, sorry for typos, et.)

It may seem odd to the average Christian that there should be qualifications for an interpreter of Scripture. While it is true that any true Christian may turn to Holy Scripture, even as a child, and understand much that they may grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, those who would be teachers and expositors of God’s Word must possess sufficient competency. These core competencies may be classified as intellectual, educational, and spiritual. While it is true that these several areas may be developed through training, some degree of giftedness is also required.

Any able interpreter must be of able-mind and sound judgment. Too often the Scriptures are interpreted by the wildest machinations of a fanciful mind leading to the most absurd doctrines. One qualification for an elder is that he be sober-minded. A teacher and leader of God’s flock must be self-controlled and in one’s right mind in order to adequately “…convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.” If a man is not possessed of such a mind then he must either grow into maturity or be considered unqualified as an interpreter of God’s Word. An interpreter must be able to comprehend the basic ideas and scope of the biblical writer. An epistle, for example, must be perceived first as a whole unit before its several parts may be adequately expounded.

Equally important in understanding what a passage teaches is also comprehending what it does not teach. A keen and perceptive intellect will be able to recognize and analyze the biblical text to discover its true import. To some degree this may be accomplished with a sober mind as the interpreter transports himself to the places and times of the biblical writers. Through reasonable investigation of the language, culture, and history of the Bible the sound exegete may rationally imagine himself living in the times of the apostles and prophets to see and feel as they did. From a disciplined and educated imagination the interpreter may expound the doctrines of Holy Scripture consistently and logically. In such ways an interpreter of God’s Word may be intellectually qualified and apt to teach.

While a keen intellect is important to proper interpretation of Scripture, a sound and thorough education is also necessary. The fields of study in archeology, geography, science, and philosophy may add an incredible of insight on the pages of Scripture. Chronological studies can furnish the exegete with a wealth of information regarding events, dates, and the division of the great eras of history. The study of antiquities may transport the interpreter into the past to perceive the habits and customs of the ancients. The Annals by Tacitus shed considerable light on the political climate of Rome at the time of Jesus. Learning the politics of the ancient world can enable the interpreter to set the doctrine of Christ set forth in the New Testament. Having a thorough acquaintance of the sciences and philosophical thought can serve to elevate the sublime teaching of God and serve to give evidence to its Divine origin. Becoming familiar with classical literature and the languages of the Bible can only serve to enhance the expositor’s message and making him a bulwark against the ever onslaught of false religion and skepticism.

Intellectual and educational qualifications are qualifications that may be honed and developed. Spiritual qualifications, however, are obtained from on high. The Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “…the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Cor 2:14. Jesus said to Nicodemus, “…unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” John 3:3. As important as natural abilities are to the teacher of God’s Word, much more that such a man be truly regenerated by the Spirit of the Living God. If the work of the supernatural grace of Almighty God has not wrought upon a man’s heart then he is wholly and completely incapable of expounding the Holy Scriptures no matter what natural abilities of intellect or education he may possess.

Those who are born from above and do possess sufficient intellect and education to expound Scripture must also be motivated from a sincere and fervent love of the truth. The interpreters passion for truth and God’s glory must be stronger than prejudicial opinions he may possess. Jesus taught that the person that does evil hates the light, but those who do the truth come to the light. The interpreter of God’s Word must remain a humble seeker as he approached the Scripture and pant for the pure and unadulterated truth of God. A zealous and enthusiastic passion for the Word should burn brightly in the heart of every preacher of Holy Writ. Such a disposition arises from the one who has been with Jesus in long hours of private prayer. He has been so touched by the Spirit of God that like Isaiah he has had his lips touched by a live coal from the throne of grace. From such a humble walk with the Lord Jesus in Spirit and truth will pervade a reverence of God and His Word. “For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.” Romans 8:5

Chapter 8: The Divine Inspiration of the Scriptures

This is a summary from Milton Terry's book on the Divine Inspiration of the Scriptures. It will most likely seem inadequate to the modern reader (Terry's writing is 120 years old) as he is not addressing, necessarily, a postmodern mind. Neverthess, some points are useful. It seemed to me his main audience was Christians and therefore the chapter not really polemical.

Those who approach the Bible as a work of Divine origin will certainly take its sacred pages in hand with care and reverence. When we speak of inspiration regarding Holy Scripture we must not think of this as the term is used today of an inspired song or work of poetry. Nor should the inspiration of the Scriptures be thought of as some emotional or ecstatic rapture of the soul. All such thoughts only show the origin to be from man. The Bible does not have it its origin from man, but from God through holy men. God has spoken “…by the mouth of all his prophets…” (Acts 3:8) and the Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ did not teach words which originated from themselves but taught such things “…taught by the Spirit.” (1 Corinthians 2:13).

With such an affirmation there is implied the recognition of the Divine and human components. The human element is evident in passages such as Luke’s Gospel in which is written, “It seemed good to me also…” (Luke 1:3) or in the style and wordage of the writers. Statements of affection for certain persons and greetings to individuals also show the human element in the Word of God. Differences in the wording of a parable or event also bring to light that it was indeed holy men who wrote. The Christian must not shrink from recognizing this fact anymore than we should shrink from the reality that God was manifest in the flesh. The devout Muslim looks with contempt upon the idea that God condescended to humble Himself and take on the nature of Adam. Should then the Christian meet the Holy Scriptures with an atheistic contempt because the Holy Spirit was pleased to speak by the mouth of His Apostles and Prophets?

Yet it is a mere assertion that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are Divine that makes it so? It is certainly true that the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets attest to the Divine origin of the written Word. The Apostle Paul declares that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, or God-breathed, and Peter declared that holy men spoke as they “…were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21). The Old Testament Scriptures frequently announce their words with “Thus saith the Lord” or “The Word of the Lord came unto him saying.” The Bible does stand as its own witness, not in a well-crafted argument defending its Divine origin, but in simple kingly declaration so as to say, “This is My Book.”

A few considerations in additional to the Bible’s own declaration may be helpful in affirming the Divine origin of Scripture. Throughout the Old Testament and the New it is seen that God intended from the beginning to communicate to His people and the world by Scripture. The purpose would be that the man of God would be furnished with all that he needed and quipped for every good work. It is through the comfort of the Scriptures that the Lord intended to give His people hope. (Romans 15:4). God indeed spoke in times past by the prophets to the fathers at many times and different ways, and in these last days has spoken to us in His Son Jesus Christ. It may also help the one who trusts in Christ to take note of the difference between revelation and inspiration. Divine revelation consists of what God reveals to man that is otherwise impossible to know. The inspiration of the biblical authors consisted of Divine superintendence to record what they saw or knew whether by revelation or otherwise. Visions, dreams, prophesy, and the knowledge of the origin of the universe all consisted of divine revelation. The record of the Acts of the Apostles by Luke is most certainly inspired of God yet was not revealed to him apart from his own knowledge of the events. The Lord who commanded both Moses and the Apostle John to write would certainly by an act of singular care and Providence preserve the Holy Scriptures precisely as we have them today. This providence extended to the very words and forms found in Holy Scripture. The God who does not allow the small sparrow to fall to the ground apart from His will certainly does not allow a single word of the sacred Scriptures to be lost to mankind.

Of course, various arguments against the inspiration of Holy Scripture have been put forth. It has been suggested that a divine inspiration of men to write the Bible would negate the free agency or actions of men turning them into automatons. However, it does not follow that the mind that is so influenced by the Spirit of God that the will is overtaken. To suppose this would also presuppose the Word could not become flesh and dwell among us in the Person of Christ. Others have asserted that verbal differences in giving the account of some event disprove the Divine Author of Scripture or else betray a corruption. This reasoning presupposes that the Divine purpose to be to furnish uniformity to prove divinity. Why can it not be supposed that unity seen in Scripture’s diversity the purpose for different details? Without the knowledge of the divine purpose in the plenary differences it cannot be concluded that they are a mark of non-inspiration. Even after one hundred and twenty years since the written of Milton Terry’s book, skeptics and scoffers are still alleging discrepancies, contradictions, and errors in the Bible. And the answer to such remains the same: No real errors can be shown.

"...his spirit was stirred in him..."

When Paul walked into Athens we read that his spirit was stirred, or angered, within him about all the idolatry he saw. Jerry preached on this last Lord's Day. Paul percieved that they were very religious, or as the AV puts it, too superstitious. If the Apostle walked through our 'Athens' what would he perceive? If he stood in our market place, what would provoke his spirit today?

I guess that's not given to the Apostle Paul, but to us.

Well, my spirit is provoked and stirred.

I am not observing that our "Athenians" are very religious. I am hearing they are apathetic and ignorant. Local Muslims in our community who are exhorting their people to Da'Wa (Muslim Evangelism) are informing Muslims that Christians have not read their Bibles and are ignorant of their history.

This provokes me.

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life polled over 3,000 adults concerning religious knowledge. They report, "Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest-scoring groups on a new survey of religious knowledge, outperforming evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics on questions about the core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions." Article

This provokes me.

A pastor in Texas remarked that biblical illiteracy is a problem. He doesn't want church leaders to merely react to this, but to "intentionally, positively act." Article

This provokes me.

An article posted to the Christian Post is entitled "Christianity a 'Faded Memory' for Most Young Britons." A study done on Generation Y, those born after 1982, found "...that young people were more likely to put their faith in friends, their family or themselves than in God." Article

This provokes me.

The Pew Forum had a small sample of the questions they asked people on their website. You could take a "quiz" and see where you ranked. They also gave a hand-out which I attached to this email. What an interesting way to assess where our youth are, for example. Where do you stand? If done correctly, it could show exactly where they might stand in their knowledge as a preface to the launch of an apologetics series or world religions course...

Take the Quiz here

Whatever reaction we have to the news out there or data we could draw from our own people, I agree with that Texas pastor: Let's be intentional and positive in our action. But for the Lord's sake, let's not sit and do nothing. Do we want our people ultimately learning about Church history or about world religions with liberal atheists in universities (like I did), or right here in our homes and churches?

I do know that when I see and hear these things my spirit is stirred. And I am stirred to action.

In Christ,
Geoff

Chapter 7: Textual Criticism

Note: This is a mere summary of the subject. In fact, it is a summary of a summary. Milton Terry does not treat Textual Criticism too thoroughly and does not address at all the work of either Dean Burgon or F.H.A Scrivener. In other words, it is not at all balanced. I do not share Terry's view on this subject and so this summary has taken a more "observational" approach with a hint of disagreement. Please do not take this summary in any wise as sufficient to educate or scarcely introduce yourself to the subject of textual criticism.

Textual Criticism refers to the scientific investigation of an ancient work of literature. The examination of the date, authorship, and interpretation of the Bible is called Higher Criticism. The effort to recontruct the autograph of the biblical text through collating and scrutinizing the extant copies, or manuscripts, of the Bible is referred to as Lower Criticism. It is necessary that any expositor of the Holy Scriptures be familiar with this field of study. A truly devout study of God’s Word will certainly be concerned with the transmission of the text from the days of the Apostles to the present time.

All ancient writings that have survived the passage of time exist in copies of the original. These copies may be collected and examined under certain principles and canons seeking to arrive at the original text. In addition, Scriptural quotations from ancient writers, such as the Apostolic Fathers, may be consulted regarding variant readings. For the Old Testament the primary ancient text is that of the Masoretes referred to as the Masoretic Text. These scribes and rabbis developed a vowel system in the sixth century that enabled a version of the OT to be readable. Milton’s short review of Textual Criticism, being written in 1890, did not have the benefit of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1946-47. The Dead Sea Scrolls gave to the world older copies than the Masoretic and have only served to confirm the authenticity and reliability of the Old Testament. Even more abundant manuscript evidence exists for the New Testament text. Manuscripts exist in a variety of forms. All-capital texts are called uncials. These are older, and fewer in number, than the later miniscule, or cursive, manuscripts which make up the majority of the existing copies. Turning to the examination of the extant copies, both internal and external evidence is considered to construct a complete text.

External evidence investigates the age of a text and seeks to determine which of the manuscripts carry more weight in determining the original reading. It is generally thought among modern critics that the manuscripts which are older are more likely the original reading. Quotations of the New Testament from the early Church Fathers are also given prominence. Generally, modern scholarship affords more authority and value to the texts with regard to age, origin, and character. Some translations of the Bible, for example, include a notation on disputed passages suggesting that more reliable and ancient passages do not contain certain verses. This is based on the principle of giving more weight to the uncials, which are older yet, fewer in number, than to the cursives which carry a later date but are more numerous. It is possible that the later cursives are a more accurate translation of the autograph but this logic is generally rejected by modern criticism.

External evidence also takes into account agreement between two manuscripts should they be found in different locations. It is thought that copies divergent from one another in proximity carry more weight than those found in similar locations because those in close proximity may have been copied from one another. Since one is handling the Word of God, great care must be taken when engaged in this kind of work. No amount of study and expertise should be spared in carrying out the task. When external evidence seems to fall short of settling a variant reading, internal evidence may be of some benefit. Nevertheless, even more caution ought to be employed as the weight of internal evidence depends on the reason and conjecture of the textual critic.

Internal evidence has been employed in settling word order due to variants in the manuscripts. It is often judged by the critic that the word order is chosen based on what is perceived as the biblical writer’s particular style. This is deduced from other writings of the author. For example, critics have disputed the reading of John 13:14 “who might it be” which has ancient textual support rendering it rather “who is it” because the Apostle John never uses the operative mood. Internal evidence also gives more weight to the shorter reading rather than a longer one assuming that scribes were prone to add to the text rather than omit from it in order to give more clarity. Along this same line of thinking, modern textual critics choose the more difficult reading to a simpler one. They suppose that a copyist may have been inclined to make the text more readable and easier to understand or harmonize a portion of Scripture that seemed to the copyist to attract attention. Modern critics will also prefer a certain reading over another when they suppose the others could be more easily derived.

These principles and canons of modern textual criticism must be seen as guidelines and not rules. It is obvious that there is much left to the personal judgment of the critic. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, a 19th century textual critic, remarked, “The point aimed at is a moral certainty, or a moral probability.” This is obviously something subjective and it is hoped that the principles set forth in modern textual criticism will lead the critic to the true reading of the autograph casting aside the more mechanical method of weighing the number of witnesses. It should be noted that a vast majority of the variants in the texts deal with slight changes in spelling which have little bearing on the actual meaning of the text itself.