05. V. PRINCIPLES FOR EXPOUNDING SCRIPTURE

’He ascended into heaven’; he was taken up locally and visibly from the earth into heaven. Consequently his body is not to be received with the mouth at the communion, but by faith apprehending it in heaven.

He was ’born of the virgin Mary’; Christ had a true and natural body which was long, broad, thick, and seated and circumscribed in one particular place. If this is so, the bread in the Supper cannot be his actual body but must be only a sign or pledge of it.

’He took ... He broke it.’ It is hardly likely that Christ sitting among his disciples took and broke his own body with his hands! Bread must therefore be no more than a sign and seal.

’. . . broken [or given] for you.’ The bread cannot be said to be given for us; the body of Christ was. Therefore the bread is not properly the body, but is so symbolically or as a sign.

’The cup is the new covenant,’ not literally but by metonymy. Since this is the case, there is no reason then why metonymy is not also used in the words, ’This is My body.’

Christ himself ate the bread, but he did not eat himself!

’Do this in remembrance of Me.’ These words assume that Christ is not corporeally present to the mouth, but spiritually present to the faith of the heart.

’Till He comes.’ These words assume that Christ is absent as to his body.

Christ did not speak about being under the form of bread, or in the bread; he said, ’This [that is ’this bread’] is My body.’

On occasion it is appropriate to supply words which are lacking in the text where this is consistent with the analogy of faith and with the circumstances and words of the context.

If an alternative explanation of the text involves changing one noun (or name) for another, this is an indication that a figure of speech is being employed. Some general principles for guidance may be helpful here:

Anthropomorphism is a metaphorical use of language, in which what is appropriate for man is used in describing God. Thus, for example, the ’soul’ of God indicates his life or essence: ’Shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?’ (Jeremiah 5:29, Geneva Bible). ’Head’ denotes his superiority: ’the head of Christ is God’ (1 Corinthians 11:3). God’s ’face’ refers to his favour or his anger: ’You hid Your face, and I was troubled’ (Psalms 30:7); ’The face of the Lord is against those who do evil’ (Psalms 34:16). References to his ’eyes’ usually indicate his grace and providence: ’The eyes of the Lord are on the righteous’ (Psalms 34:15). The ’apple of his eye’ signifies something especially dear to him: ’he who touches you touches the apple of His eye’ (Zechariah 2:8). A reference to his ears normally indicates his hearing of our prayers. In a similar way, his nostrils represent his indignation, his hands stand for his power and protection, his arm for his strength and fortitude, his right hand for his supreme authority, his finger for virtue, his foot for government and might (e.g. in Psalms 110:1), his smelling for his accepting of something: ’and the Lord smelled a soothing aroma’ (Genesis 8:21). Repentance is used for the change in things and actions which God executes.

Sacramental language, or more properly sacramental metonymy, involves the sign being used to denote what it signifies and vice-versa. Thus, for example, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil means the tree which is a sign of these. Similarly, circumcision is called both the covenant and the sign of the covenant (Genesis 17:10-11). Abraham called the place on Mount Moriah where he was about to sacrifice Isaac when God stopped him (and the ram he found caught in a thicket was sacrificed instead) ’Jehovah-jireh’ meaning ’The Lord will see or provide.’The place became a sign that the Lord would do so (Genesis 22:14). The stone which Jacob had used as a pillow the night he dreamed of the ladder which reached up into heaven is called Bethel, ’God’s house’ (Genesis 28:22). The sign is identified with what it signifies. Similarly the paschal lamb is the passing over (Exodus 12:1-51). The altar is called ’The Lord is my standard or banner’ (Exodus 17:15). Jerusalem is named ’The Lord is there’ (Ezekiel 48:35). The priest ’makes atonement’ (Leviticus 16:1-34).

What is called the communication of the properties in Christ (when what is appropriate to his humanity is ascribed to his divine nature) is a synecdoche - the figure of speech in which the whole stands for the part, or vice-versa. Through the union of the divine and the human natures in the one divine person of Christ, what strictly speaking belongs to only one of his two natures is spoken of the whole person. Examples include: ’to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood’ (Acts 20:28). ’No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven’ (John 3:13). ’For had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory’ (1 Corinthians 2:8). ’Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM"’ (John 8:58). ’And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and men’ (Luke 2:52).

When something is said of God, which implies his involvement in evil, it must be understood as referring to his working permission. This is commonplace in the Old Testament ’And it yields much increase to the kings You have set over us, Because of our sins; Also they have dominion over our bodies and our cattle at their pleasure; And we are in great distress’ (Nehemiah 9:37); ’The Lord has mingled a perverse spirit in her midst; And they have caused Egypt to err in all her work’ (Isaiah 19:14). God thus hardened the heart of Pharaoh (Exodus 11:10). Again, ’The Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, that He might deliver him into your hand, as it is this day’ (Deuteronomy 2:30). ’For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that He might utterly destroy them, and that they might receive no mercy, but that He might destroy them’ (Joshua 11:20); ’Nevertheless they did not heed the voice of their father, because the Lord desired to kill them’ (1 Samuel 2:25). ’The destruction of Ahaziah came of God’ (2 Chronicles 22:7, Geneva Bible). ’He turned their heart to hate His people, to deal craftily with His servants’ (Psalms 105:25). ’And if the prophet is induced to speak anything, I the Lord have induced that prophet, and I will stretch out My hand against him and destroy him from among My people Israel’ (Ezekiel 14:9).

Again, some things are described as if they were already finished. If in fact they are not yet finished, such statements indicate that they have already begun and are on the way to an anticipated fulfilment (e.g. Genesis 5:32;Genesis 11:26; 1 Kings 6:2;1 Kings 6:37; Psalms 119:8). In this way we can understand the kinds of statements made, for example, in Luke 1:6 and Php 3:12; Php 3:15.

Moral commandments or laws which mention a specific sin by name imply all sins of the same kind, including their causes and occasions, as well as whatever tempts us to them. They also command the opposite virtues. This is how Christ expounds moral laws in the Sermon on the Mount (see Matthew 5:21-48). John illustrates the same principle when he writes: ’Whoever hates his brother is a murderer’ (1 John 3:15).

Threats and promises should normally be understood as implying certain conditions. Their outworking depends on whether or not faith and repentance are present in response to them. That is true particularly of some verses (although chastisement and the cross are exceptions to this rule, e.g. Ezekiel 33:14-15; Jonah 3:4; Revelation 21:18). From what follows in the events themselves it becomes clear that the threat or promise was to be understood conditionally (e.g. Jeremiah 18:9-10). Similar examples include Isaiah 38:1 and Genesis 20:3. Here, clearly, the outworking of God’s will is involved, hence the distinction that was drawn by the scholastic theologians between the signifying will of God and the will of his good pleasure. By his will of good pleasure is meant that God wills something absolutely and simply without any conditions, such as the creation and governing of the world, or the sending of his Son. By his signifying will is meant that he wills some things with a view to some other thing, and as a condition of it. Because the condition annexed indicates the presence of God’s will we are able to say that he does so will.

Superlative or exclusive speech used of one person of the Godhead does not exclude the other persons. It denies only creatures and false gods to which the true God, whether in one person or in more, is opposed. Thus Jesus calls the Father the only true God, but only to oppose him to all false gods (John 17:3). Further examples can be found in Mark 13:27, Romans 16:27; 1 Timothy 1:17. John 10:29 is an obvious example: ’My Father ... is greater than all’ does not mean greater than the other persons of the Trinity, but greater than all creatures. All the outward works of the Trinity, and all divine attributes are to be understood inclusively; they apply without exception to any of the persons.

When God is considered absolutely, or by himself, all three persons of the Trinity are meant. When the word ’God’ is used along with another person of the Trinity, it denotes the Father (e.g. 2 Corinthians 13:13).

A general word may have a particular meaning and vice-versa. Thus ’all’ may mean ’many’, and ’many’ may mean ’all’ (as Augustine made clear). We see this frequently in Scripture (e.g. Genesis 33:11; Exodus 9:6; Deuteronomy 28:64; 1 Kings 12:18; Jeremiah 8:6;Jeremiah 26:9; Matthew 4:23;Matthew 21:26; John 14:13; 1 Corinthians 6:12; Php 2:21). ’Nothing’ may mean ’little’ or ’small’ (John 18:20; Acts 27:33). ’None’ can be used for ’few’ (Jeremiah 8:6; 1 Corinthians 2:8). ’Always’ may mean ’often’ or ’long’ (Proverbs 13:10; Luke 18:1;Luke 24:53; John 18:29). ’Eternal’ may mean ’a long time’ if that suits the context best (e.g. Genesis 17:8; Leviticus 25:46; Deuteronomy 15:17; 1 Chronicles 15:2; Isaiah 34:6; Daniel 2:4; Jeremiah 25:9). ’Everywhere’ can mean ’here and there’ (Mark 16:20; Acts 17:30). A negative is often limited in its significance to one particular matter (e.g. in Psalms 7:4; John 9:3). ’Not’ may mean ’seldom’, ’scarcely’, or ’hardly’ (1 Kings 15:5; Luke 2:37).

The grammatical and rhetorical properties of words indicate their difference nuances of meaning:

Apparent contradictions in Scripture can often be resolved by realising that the passages deal with different things although the vocabulary may be the same, or they may be dealing with different aspects, or perspectives or even different time-frames.

The writers of Scripture sometimes speak of places and people from the past in terms of the customs of the time and place in which they themselves wrote. An example of this is found in Genesis 12:8 : ’And he moved It from there to the mountain east of Bethel’. The place was called Bethel in the days of Moses; but in Abraham’s time it was called Luz (Genesis 28:19). Genesis 13:1 records that ’Abraham went up from Egypt ... to the south’. Here ’south’ does not mean ’south from Egypt’, but south of where Moses was when he wrote. Again, we are told that Christ in his Spirit preached to those in prison 1 Peter 3:19). They are said to be in prison with respect to the time when Peter wrote his letter, not the time in which Noah lived. Again, in the context of the patriarchs, God says in Psalms 105:15 : ’Do not touch My anointed ones.’ The experience of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is here being described in terms of the ritual of the days in which David lived. The patriarchs did not receive external anointing.

Allegories or passages marked by literary symbolism should be expounded according to the scope or focus of the context. Thus Chrysostom says on Matthew 8 : ’Parables must not be expounded according to the letter, lest many absurdities follow.’ Similarly, Augustine says in connection with Psalms 8 : ’In every allegory this rule is to be retained, that that be considered according to the purpose of the present place, which is there spoken of under a similitude.’

The same places and people in Scripture may have two different names. Gideon was called both Jerubbaal (Judges 6:32) and Jerubbesheth (2 Samuel 11:21). Then the same name may appear in different forms. So, Salmon (Ruth 4:21) is called Salmah [Solomon] (2 Chronicles 2:11). On the other hand, different people and places may share the same name. One example of this is found in the genealogy with which Matthew’s Gospel begins: ’Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brothers about the time they were carried away to Babylon. And after they were brought to Babylon, Jeconiah begot Shealtiel’ (Matthew 1:11-12). The name ’Jeconiah’ concludes the second of the three groups of fourteen into which the genealogy is divided and also begins the third. If this is the same individual, there must be only thirteen people in either the second or the third group. But if there were two men called Jeconiah, a father and son, the problem is resolved.

Sometimes in Scripture, because of the sinful lifestyle of a ruler his name or the number of years during which he reigned wickedly may be omitted. ’Saul reigned two years over Israel’ (1 Samuel 13:1); that is, lawfully, or as Lyra says, de jure (according to law or equity); but otherwise he reigned longer. We have a further example in Matthew 1:8 : ’Joram begot Uzziah.’ Here three kings are simply omitted because of their wickedness, namely Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah.

Time periods may be noted in complete or incomplete form. They may also be reckoned inclusively or exclusively. There is an example of this in 1 Kings 15:25 and 1 Kings 15:28. Nadab, who began to reign in the second year of Asa can be said to reign two years, although Baasha is said to have succeeded him in the third year of Asa. Obviously the final ’year’ of a king’s reign did not last for a complete year, since it was cut short by his death. On occasion (as here) the last ’year’ might scarcely last a month or more. The remainder of the year would then count as a complete ’year’ of the reign of any successor.

A further consideration in interpreting the narratives of Old Testament history is the fact that when a king was hindered from exercising his role within the nation either by foreign war or old age, or because of some disease, he might appoint his son king in his place while he was still alive. In such co-regencies the calculations of the length of the reigns of the father and son sometimes include the years of joint reign, but at other times take account only of the years of the individual’s reign.

In the ancient Near-East, the day was artificially divided both into 12 equal hours (commonly called planetary hours, cf. John 11:9) and into quadrants, each of which was denoted by the number of the hour with which the period began. This enables us to harmonise Mark 15:25 which says that Jesus was crucified at ’the third hour’ with John 19:14 which states that it was already ’about the sixth hour’ when Pilate presented Jesus to the Jews. These two numbers belong to different frames of reference. Different ways of counting the hours of the day are in view. Hence Christ may be said to have been crucified at the third hour, although he had not yet been taken to Golgotha at the sixth hour.

A lesser number is included in a greater and more complete number. ’So the land had rest for forty years. Then Othniel the son of Kenaz died’ (Judges 3:11). This figure includes the years reckoned from the death of Joshua to the death of Othniel, as well as the eight years of bondage under the Syrians. ’The land had rest for eighty years’ (Judges 3:30). Here from the death of Othniel are included the years of both Ehud and Shamgar. For Ehud could not have been judge for eighty years which would be more than a lifespan. Similar instances occur in Judges 5:31; Judges 8:28; Judges 9:22; Judges 10:2-3; Judges 11:26 where the forty years of the wanderings in the desert are included in the figure of three hundred years.

Sonship can be either natural or legal. Natural sonship is by generation, while legal is by adoption, testified by education and upbringing, and by succession in the kingdom, and also, in the case of levitate sonship by the law of redemption (see Deuteronomy 25:5).

When the natural sense of a passage can be determined with the help of these principles, the meaning which is most appropriate to the context should be assumed for any word which is open to a range of meaning.

In our English Bibles, marginal references sometimes mention a Greek or Hebrew word indicating that there is some variation in the extant manuscripts of the passage. The correct reading is the one which

agrees with the grammatical construction, and with other reliable manuscripts. (ii) makes sense of the context and thrust of the passage and agrees with the analogy of faith.