2. Meaning and Significance

Basic Concepts

As we delve into our study, we need to lay out some key terms and definitions.

Hermeneutics means interpretation.¹

Exegesis means to draw out. It is the process of explaining Scripture by drawing out the meaning from the text. This is what is regularly practiced in our church.

Eisegesis means to put in. It is the process of reading into Scripture something that is not actually there. This is easily misused (e.g., “God wants me to be rich” when reading the prayer of Jabez in 1 Chronicles 4:9-10).

Exposition means to explain and apply. It involves exegesis as well as application. Every time our pastor preaches a sermon, he is expositing the text. He is not only explaining what is written, but he is also applying it to us.

Interpretative models

In the history of interpretation, there have been many different interpretative models proposed.

For centuries, the quadriga was the prevailing model of interpretation for the Christian church. This is a fourfold method that has its roots in early church history, dating back to Clement and Origen.²Sproul, R. C. Knowing Scripture: Revised Edition. IVP Books, 2009, p. 54; Kaiser, Walter C., and Moisés Silva. An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning (Revised and Expanded Edition). Zondervan, 2007, pp. 264-268. According to this method, each text has four simultaneous meanings: literal, moral, allegorical, and anagogical.
- The literal sense was defined as the plain and evident meaning.
- The moral sense referred to the instruction on how people are supposed to behave.
- The allegorical sense revealed the content of faith.
- The anagogical sense expressed future hope.

This approach was confusing because people were able to construe four possible meanings from a single passage. For example, using to this method, every passage that mentions the city of Jerusalem carries four different meanings.³ Literally, it refers to the capital of Judea (the central sanctuary of the nation). Morally, it refers to the human soul (the “central sanctuary” of a person”). Allegorically, it is the church (the center of the Christian community). Anagogically, it is heaven (the final hope and future residence of the people of God). Thus, a single verse about Jerusalem could have four different meanings at the same time.

The problem with the quadriga approach is that it can lead to wild speculations and bizarre conclusions about the meaning of each passage of Scripture. Against this method, Martin Luther protested, “Some people, out of ignorance, therefore attribute a fourfold meaning to Scripture: the literal, the allegorical, the anagogical, and the tropological [moral]. But there is not basis for it.”⁴ John Calvin said it was “a contrivance of Satan” to introduce numerous meanings into Scripture.⁵ There is only one correct meaning to any given passage of Scripture.⁶

In our study of the Scriptures, we will rely on two main interpretative models. These two are complementary and draw from the analogy of faith and literal sense of Scripture that we learned about in our previous lesson:

The grammatical-historical method stresses the simple, plain, and natural sense of the passage, while contextualizing it to its original time and setting.⁷ It takes into account the language and grammar of the text (particularly its natural, normal, or literal reading). It emphasizes the context in which a passage was originally written, according to the specific event and time-frame.⁸ It is with all these factors in mind that we can deduce the purpose and meaning of the text.

We need to use normal rules of grammar to interpret the Bible. Furthermore, knowledge of the original languages is helpful to help resolve questions of interpretation that may otherwise be ambiguous in our English translations. For example, in Acts 1:8, Jesus says, “and you shall be witnesses to Me.” Is he making a prediction about the future or issuing a sovereign command? The Greek structure makes it clear that it is a command.⁹

Historical analysis is also necessary. Questions of authorship, date, and destination of books are important to help us understand passages of Scripture. For example, knowing when the Book of Revelation was written (particularly whether it was before or after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70) can potentially affect one’ interpretation of the book.¹⁰

As important as it is, however, the grammatical-historical method is insufficient by itself. Relying on it alone will leave us with a “thin” understanding of the text that is disconnected from what comes before and after. For example, when we read an Old Testament passage on the Levitical priesthood, we shouldn’t just stop there, but we should try to connect it to the person and work of Christ (e.g., seeing how the Levitical priesthood points to Jesus, even though Jesus may not be explicitly present in the grammatical-historical sense of the text). That is why we need to use the redemptive-historical method, as well.

The redemptive-historical method looks at how the central story of the Bible progressively develops. This recognizes the pattern of promise and fulfillment in the Bible. The redemptive-historical method considers how a passage fits into the overall storyline of the Bible. This approach lends itself well to seeing Jesus as the interpretive key of the Bible.¹¹ It considers the broader context of Scripture in the unfolding of redemptive history (e.g., pre- vs. post-fall, pre- vs. post-advent of Christ, etc.).¹² It looks at the big picture and treats the Bible as a cohesive unit.

There is an important caveat though. The redemptive-historical approach should not be used as a substitute for the hard task of exegeting a specific passage on its own terms using the grammatical-historical method.¹³ The two approaches are not in competition, but complementary with each other. After considering how a passage should be understood in its immediate context, further consideration of how a particular passage fits into the broader scope of the canon of Scripture can serve a dual purpose: (1) it can be a way to check on the conclusions reached in the primary exegesis of a passage and (2) inform what direction the same teaching takes in the course of later revelation.

A word of caution is needed; we need to avoid the error of flattening the Old Testament (in effect) by overriding the original message with that of the New Testament. It isn’t that the New Testament replaces the Old Testament, rather what we are saying is that “the same elemental truths seen in earlier texts are further developed and expanded in later texts and that we are never finished with our work as exegetes, interpreters, and as theologians until we have heard all that God has to say on any topic.”¹⁴ Though distinct and different, the grammatical-historical and redemptive-historical methods are complementary, not contradictory.¹⁵

Sometimes, what is obscure in what part of the Bible is made clear in another part. Scripture interprets Scripture. This often means that nailing down the meaning of any specific passage of Scripture goes beyond simply studying the grammar and historical context of what was written, but must consider how it fits into the larger scope of the entire canon of Scripture.

There are some people who speak of two horizons when we read the Bible (the immediate and the reader’s). But, in fact, there are three horizons when we read the Bible: (1) the immediate historical context (2) how it relates to the unfolding drama of redemptive history, and (3) how these events apply to the present-day reader. Applying this, suppose we ask the question as to why Jesus died on the cross, we can say the following: (1) Jesus was hung on the cross by the Romans for political reasons (Luke 23:1-25), which is the immediate historical context. (2) Jesus was hung on the cross to fulfill the promise God made in the Old Testament to conquer the seed of the serpent. Jesus fulfills the curse of the covenant by hanging on the tree (Genesis 3:15; Galatians 3:13). This is the broader redemptive-historical reason that Jesus died. (3) Jesus hung on the cross because I am a sinner and he bore the curse of the covenant for me (Galatians 2:20). As a response, I am to put my faith in him and to repent from my sins. This is the horizon from the perspective of the present-day reader.

Levels of Meaning

There are multiple levels of meaning to any particular text. When we are trying to understand the meaning of the text, we are fundamentally trying to figure out the author’s intention: human and divine. In the case of Scripture, it can be said that divine intention coincides with the human authorial intention. This is called divine-human concursus (literally “running together”). In 1 Corinthians 2:6-16 (especially v. 13), we are told that the writers of the Bible were given words not taught by human wisdom but what “the Holy Spirit teaches.” God intervened in the writing of Scripture, such that what was written by human beings was under divine inspiration. This occurred in such a way that it preserved the human author’s personality and freedom. The human author was neither a wooden puppet (i.e., transcribing under a trance), nor a rogue freelancer (i.e., independent of the Spirit’s influence).¹⁶

Acknowledging that Scripture originates from God who oversees everything, we can speak of the sensus plenior (“fuller meaning”) of a passage.¹⁷ This means that there is “more” to the biblical message than is immediately apparent on the surface. It should be acknowledged that sometimes the human authors were not fully aware of all that was intended in God’s plan, as they were limited to what could be understood from their perspective—though they still understood the sense of what was meant to a sufficient degree.¹⁸

Admittedly, it can be difficult to determine authorial intent. To help us with this task, we need to look at the different levels of meaning in a passage. These do not constitute different meanings. The text only has one meaning. Rather, these are simply different elements of a passage that collectively tell us what is being said and who/what is being talked about.¹⁹ Knowing these is essential to determining what is actually meant by the text.

The linguistic level refers to the language and the grammar of the text.

The historical setting refers to the cultural setting and events.

The literary setting refers the literary structure of the text.

The canonical context refers to where the text fits into the whole of the Bible.

Case Study: To illustrate, we can look at an applied example from Matthew 8:23-27 to see how the different elements contribute to the ultimate meaning of the text: “Now when He got into a boat, His disciples followed Him. And suddenly a great tempest arose on the sea, so that the boat was covered with the waves. But He was asleep. Then His disciples came to Him and awoke Him, saying, ‘Lord, save us! We are perishing!’ But He said to them, ‘Why are you fearful, O you of little faith?’ Then He arose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm. So the men marveled, saying, ‘Who can this be, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?’”

At the linguistic level, there is no particular difficulty. The language is straight forward and there is no real debate about what the words mean. There are no unusual grammatical forms that could potentially cause confusion. We can be sure that the narrative is about Jesus and his disciples in the midst of a storm.²⁰

The historical setting is the first century. The event takes place on the Sea of Galilee, which is located in the north of the Jordan valley. This particular body of water is prone to storms. Violent winds cause high waves that can threaten any vessel in the water.²¹ It makes sense why the disciples were alarmed.

The literary setting is of particular interest.²² The theme of discipleship runs throughout chapter 8 of the Gospel of Matthew: “great multitudes followed Him” (v. 1); “Jesus… said to those who followed” (v. 10); “I will follow You wherever You go” (v. 19); “Jesus said to him, ‘Follow Me’” (v. 22). The current passage begins with the phrase, “His disciples followed Him” (v. 23)—words which are absent in the parallel passages (i.e., Mark 4:35-41; Luke 8:22-25). For this reason, we can reasonably infer that Matthew was intending to teach us something about the nature of true discipleship in the current narrative.  Jesus is spelling out in detail what he demands of his followers. A true disciple must believe what Jesus discloses about himself. The disciples’ question, “Who can this be?” (8:27), is ironically answered by the demons, “What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God?” (8:29). Supporting this, this passage follows two other incidents that explicitly address what discipleship entails (Matthew 8:18-22). The faithlessness of the disciples (8:23-27) is sharply contrasted with the faithfulness of the centurion (8:5-13).

The message, as expected, is consistent with the rest of Scripture. In its canonical context, this passage confirms that Jesus has power over the natural and supernatural, attesting to his deity.²³ His rebuke of the disciples is consistent with the larger scope of biblical teaching about the nature of faith and the call to trust God in times of trouble (cf. Psalm 46:1-3, 10).

The storm at the Sea of Galilee likely symbolizes demonic opposition to Jesus and his followers (cf. Psalm 74:13-14; Ezekiel 32:2; Daniel 7:2), an observation that is supported by the fact that the text is sandwiched between two exorcism accounts (8:16-17; 28-34), showing Jesus’ judgment upon his enemies. Jesus, as described, triumphs over the forces of evil (Psalm 89:8-10). The disciples’ desperate plea, “Lord, save us! We are perishing!” (Matthew 8:25) addresses the primary aim of Jesus’ ministry, to “save His people from their sins” (1:21).

Consistent with Jesus’ identity, he drives out demons with “a word” (8:16). He “rebuked” the storm (8:26). He commands the demons, “Go!” (8:32). He is the very Word of God.

So, putting everything together, we can reasonably conclude that the intended meaning behind the passage is something along the lines of this: Jesus has clearly revealed himself to be the Son of God with undisputed control over natural and supernatural. All those who would follow after him must believe him, as he has proven that he is able and willing to save us from all evil.

Having grasped the basic meaning of the passage, we can now consider points of personal application. One possible application is to realize we, like the disciples, are frequently faithless, and we need the Lord’s help: “Here we also see how faith often mingles with weakness… We all have reason to be humble. We need to pray daily for an increase in faith, that we may trust Him in all our trials.”²⁴

The example above shows us how finding the true meaning of the text can be hard work; it needs to take into account the grammar, syntax, literary genre, and the unfolding story of redemptive-history together.

Significance to the Reader

The task of hermeneutics does not end with just figuring out what the text means, but has a crucial role in explaining how the text applies to the reader. Although there is only one correct meaning of the text, and this remains fixed and unchanging, there can be many applications that come from it.²⁵ Importantly, multiple applications arising from the text does not imply plurality of truth.²⁶

Sometimes, the application can be fairly straight forward. For instance, in the Leviticus 10:1-3, we are given the account of how Nadab and Abihu were judged for offering strange fire to God. Although it is not explicitly said in the text, we can reasonably conclude that the prohibition against using unauthorized methods to worship God continues in force, and we should be careful to only worship God in the manner that He has expressly prescribed.²⁷

On the other hand, some practical applications are less obvious. For example, Deuteronomy 25:4 states, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” The immediate and historical context deals with how we should treat our livestock. But from this very passage, the Apostle Paul (surprisingly) draws the practical application of the Christian duty to pay our pastors well (1 Corinthians 9:4, 7-9, 11; 1 Timothy 5:17-18).²⁸

In any case, in our efforts to draw out practical applications from the text, we should be careful to not inject any new meanings into the text that were never intended.

Footnotes

1
The etymology comes from Hermes, a mythical Greek messenger god of communication (cf. the people at Lystra hailed Paul as Hermes because he was the chief speaker; Acts 14:11-12).
2
Sproul, R. C. Knowing Scripture: Revised Edition. IVP Books, 2009, p. 54; Kaiser, Walter C., and Moisés Silva. An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning (Revised and Expanded Edition). Zondervan, 2007, pp. 264-268.
3
Sproul, R. C. Knowing Scripture: Revised Edition. IVP Books, 2009, pp. 60-61.
4
Original source unknown to me but cited in Sproul, R. C. Knowing Scripture: Revised Edition. IVP Books, 2009, p. 61.
5
Original source unknown to me but cited in Kaiser, Walter C., and Moisés Silva. An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning (Revised and Expanded Edition). Zondervan, 2007, p. 270.
6
Article 7 of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics states: “We affirm that the meaning expressed in each biblical text is single, definite and fixed. We deny that the recognition of this single meaning eliminates the variety of its application.” On this, the commentary explains, “The Affirmation here is directed at those who claim a ‘double’ or ‘deeper’ meaning to Scripture than that expressed by the authors. It stresses the unity and fixity of meaning as opposed to those who find multiple and pliable meanings. What a passage means is fixed by the author and is not subject to change by readers. This does not imply that further revelation on the subject cannot help one come to a fuller understanding, but simply that the meaning given in a text is not changed because additional truth is revealed subsequently. Meaning is also definite in that there are defined limits by virtue of the author’s expressed meaning in the given linguistic form and cultural context. Meaning is determined by an author; it is discovered by the readers. The denial adds the clarification that simply because Scripture has one meaning does not imply that its messages cannot be applied to a variety of individuals or situations. While the interpretation is one, the applications can be many.” Explaining Hermeneutics: A Commentary on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics. Oakland, California: International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1983.
7
This is sometimes called the syntactical theological method.
8
History is important to the interpretive process. There is a strong relation between the Christian faith and history. “Faith cannot stand on anything less than fact, truth, and evidences. No one claimed that faith must have comprehensive truth or facts, but it must have adequate evidence to support the starting assumption and the accompanying claims.” Kaiser, Walter C., and Moisés Silva. An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning (Revised and Expanded Edition). Zondervan, 2007, pp. 22-115.
9
Sproul, R. C. Knowing Scripture: Revised Edition. IVP Books, 2009, pp. 60-61; cf. Bock, Darrell L. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Acts. Baker Academic, 2007, pp. 63-67.
10
“The difference of dating could alter the interpretation of the book, since the occasion prompting John to write might be different in each case. The early date is especially important for those viewing the main intention of the book as prophecy of the imminent destruction of Jerusalem: interpreters who hold to the early date generally understand the book primarily as a polemic against apostate Jewish faith. And the early date places many of the book’s descriptions of persecution against the background of Nero’s oppression of Christians in 65.” Beale, Gregory K. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text. W.B. Eerdmans, 1999, p. 4. For us, as a congregation, Pastor Mourik’s sermons on the Book of Revelation are based on a redemptive-historical approach (as is also consistent with others in our denomination) and not contingent upon any specific dating to the book.
11
“I know that it will not always be a simple matter to show how every text in the Bible speaks of the Christ, but that does not alter the fact that [Jesus] says it does… While it is true to a point that the Old Testament is needed to enable us to interpret the New, the overruling principle is that the gospel expounded in the New Testament is the definitive interpretation of all that the Old Testament was about.” Goldsworthy, Graeme. Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture: The Application of Biblical Theology to Expository Preaching. W.B. Eerdmans, 2000, pp. 23, 50. Emphasis mine.
12
The study of how the storyline of the Bible unfolds itself is called biblical theology. This has been defined as “that branch of exegetical theology which deals with the process of the self-revelation of God deposited in the Bible.” Vos, Geerhardus. Biblical Theology, Old and New Testaments. Eerdmans, 1948, p. 13.
13
However, there are some that would disagree and suggest that the principle of the analogy of faith can be applied sooner in the interpretative process. cf. Kaiser, Walter C., and Moisés Silva. An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning (Revised and Expanded Edition). Zondervan, 2007, pp. 249, 306.
14
Ibid, p. 90.
15
In addition to the two main methods given above, there are three other ways that people use to interpret the Bible—but that we will be staying away from. There is the “proof-text” method; this often draws from a naïve reading of the text and treats the Bible as an anthology of sayings for every occasion. The “proof text” method is popular in today’s church. It plucks verses that are convenient to a person’s particular interpretation, but largely ignores the original context. Another approach is the historical-critical method, which is common among scholars, where the text is dissected and left disjointed. The cardinal weakness of the historical-critical method is that it fails to treat the text as divine revelation. Finally, there is the reader-response method, which allows the reader to determine what the text means. The reader-response method leaves it up to each person to determine what is the preferred meaning of any particular passage, and is thus unstable. We will not be using any of these.
16
“Instead, they experience a living assimilation of the truth, so that what they had experienced in the past by way of culture, vocabulary, hardships, and the like was all taken up and assimilated into the unique product that simultaneously came from the distinctive personality of the writers. Just as truly, however, it came also from the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit stayed with the writers not just in the conceptual or ideational stage, but all the way up through the writing and verbalizing stage of their composition of the text… Therefore, to understand the intention of the human author is to understand the intention of the divine author.” Kaiser, Walter C., and Moisés Silva. An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning (Revised and Expanded Edition). Zondervan, 2007, pp. 41-42; see also pp. 87-93.
17
Ibid, p. 291.
18
“It was only necessary that the [human] writer have an adequate understanding of what was intended both in the near and the distant future, even if he lacked a grasp of all the details that were to be embodied in the progress of revelation and of history.” Ibid, p. 42.
19
The who/what that is being talked about is called the “referent.” What is being said about the referent is called the “sense” of the passage. Both of these are connected. For example, in Acts 8, the Ethiopian eunuch was reading about the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53, and asked Philip, “I ask you, of whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?” (Acts 8:34). In other words, while the Ethiopian eunuch could understand the words of the text, he had no idea who the referent was, and consequently was not able to understand the meaning, or sense, of the passage. It is not until Philip tells him that the referent is Jesus Himself (v. 35) that the Ethiopian arrives at his “Aha!” moment and comes to saving faith (vv. 36-38). Ibid, pp. 35-36.
20
France, R.T. The New International Commentary of the New Testament: The Gospel According to Matthew. Eerdmans, 2007, pp. 331-333.
21
Hendriksen, William. New Testament Commentary: The Gospel of Matthew. Baker Academic, 1973, p. 410.
22
Gladd, Benjamin L. Handbook on the Gospels. Baker Academic, 2021, pp. 32-34.
23
Ibid.
24
Gangar, Kuldip S. Devotional Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Free Reformed Publications, 2014, p. 80.
25
Pastor Kuldip Gangar said this often. Similarly, “Though a scriptural passage has one meaning, it may have a host of applications to the wide variety of nuances to our lives.” Sproul, R. C. Knowing Scripture: Revised Edition. IVP Books, 2009, p. 61.
26
Kaiser, Walter C., and Moisés Silva. An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning (Revised and Expanded Edition). Zondervan, 2007, p. 323.
27
This is called the regulative principle of worship.
28
Here, we were how principles of the civil law in the Old Testament have an enduring significance for New Testament believers. “Not only did Paul say that what was written in Deuteronomy was not written for oxen but entirely for us, but it is also clear that the collection of laws in the section of Deuteronomy from which this one was taken all have as their object the inculcation of a spirit of gentility and generosity about them.” Kaiser, Walter C., and Moisés Silva. An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning (Revised and Expanded Edition). Zondervan, 2007, p. 44.

Footnotes

Related Articles

1. Introduction to Hermeneutics

3. Literary Genres and Features (Historical Narrative)

4. Literary Genres and Features (Wisdom and Poetry)

5. Literary Genres and Features (Prophecy)