The term exegesis is often used more broadly to include all kinds of biblical criticism: an analysis of the history and origins of the particular text to establish authorship and date, the literary genre, and the historical-cultural background of both author and original audience. Redaction criticism examines the developmental and editorial process which preceded acceptance into the Canon of Scripture, for example, the way writings (like the sayings of Jesus) were assembled into a literary composition in the Gospel of Luke.

With the use of such critical methods (much of which is guesswork), there is always a danger of eisegesis, or interpreting in such a way that it introduces one's own subjective presuppositions, agendas, or biases into the analysis of the text.

Developing exegetical skills is important for any individual who desires to personally understand the text in depth. However, very few of us (including pastors, priests, and theologians) are educationally equipped to do quality, in depth exegesis. Instead, most of us must find experts we can trust. Fortunately, we have the results of hundreds of years of scholarly exegesis in the different available translations and versions and commentaries. I find it especially helpful that so many of them are in English. As an individual student of the scriptures, when researching any passage, it is always important to compare versions, including amplified study versions.

Hermeneutics is the stuff of sermons and Bible studies; it is always moving toward application. It is taking the results of the exegetical scholars and then explicating the meaning of the passages both in terms of how they might have been understood by the original hearers and more importantly, how they might apply to us today. It seeks to answer such questions as "What does God want to teach us from this passage?" and "How then should we live?" The development of a Christian worldview is an obvious hermeneutical enterprise. It almost goes without saying that there is more room for individual interpretation in this arena - and thus a greater probability of creative innovation and error.

Culture and Context

The statement that all people are affected by their culture is no doubt true. However, we must remember that Hebrew culture had been prepared through God's direct intervention for thousands of years- particularly for the prophesied events centered around the Messiah. We know that the prophets, Apostles, and other writers of the scriptures were specially chosen and anointed for their tasks. To say that the writers of the Scripture were conditioned by their culture and influenced by their own individual psychologies but not to mention the much more powerful influence of the work of the Holy Spirit is to deny the omnipotence of God. "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:20-21, NIV) Either God can make sure the words most associated with Him turn out exactly as He wants- or He is not God at all. Jesus told us to "Be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." (John 16:33) The "world" that He has overcome at the cross and in His gospel teaching includes culture, philosophy, scientific theories, politics, forms of government, etc. All of these together are not powerful enough to thwart God's will as revealed in the Bible.

In the prologue to his gospel account, the Apostle John uses wonderful poetic prose to make his point that Christ is the pre-existent Word of God (or Logos), being one with God the Father prior to the creation and participating in the Creation itself. God created our universe by speaking words. Jesus is "the Word of God made flesh." It can be theorized that Christ was intimately involved whenever God spoke and whenever God inspired His chosen prophets to speak in His name. Thus, all of scripture, in some sense, reveals Christ and the mind of Christ.

Although we are to worship the Person and not the book, please understand that the only place where you and I can authoritatively "hear" the words of Jesus Christ is through the presentation of the Gospels from the Bible. Jesus personally chose His Apostles (including Paul later) to pass on His words. And remember that the Old Testament was the Bible of Jesus, from which He often quoted.

I must assert that any hermeneutic approach that overvalues the cultural context or focuses too much on the supposed priorities of the individual human instruments will ultimately end up questioning the authority of scripture, which is the same as questioning God's wisdom and sovereignty. Yes, we are all influenced by culture, but thank God, He can free us from the negative effects of culture and our own limitations- as He did with His chosen writers. Jesus Christ overcame the world.

But there are people calling themselves Christians and Anglicans who are deceived and overly influenced by their own biases; these people will continue to devalue the Bible, criticize it, and re-interpret it so as to reject parts they do not like. Fallen, unregenerated human nature will 'naturally' follow Adam's lead and refuse to believe and fully submit to God's Word. As Augustine wrote in The City of God: "If you believe what you like in the Gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself." Self-idolatry will necessarily remove integrity from the process of interpretation and lead to revisionism. We should keep in mind John the Revelator's warning at the end of the Book of Revelation (which is traditionally placed at the end of the entire Canon of Scripture): "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll. He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. (Rev 22:18-20)

The Seven Rules of Scripture Interpretation

These guidelines are not aimed at Christian scholars in Greek and Hebrew, who have their own linguistic and exegetical rules in addition to these.

1. Read the Scriptures prayerfully, humbly, and let the Holy Spirit be your guide.

2. When you interpret passages, use the plain literal meaning the words unless the context clearly indicates that the passage is allegorical or metaphorical (such as with parables or other clearly symbolic forms).

3. Compare scripture with scripture. Use the ancient practice of the "analogy of faith," comparing passages of scripture and letting the clear, unambiguous passages provide guidance on how to read those passages which are more ambiguous or complex. With confusing or controversial passages where a number of interpretations are possible, use the interpretation that is the most consistent with the Bible as a whole. We should expect any important teaching to be repeated elsewhere, and maybe even explained through other passages dealing with the same topic. The most important messages from God are repeated many times and in many ways.

4. If a passage is not made clear by other passages, then it should be shelved until further evidence clears it up. We should never force an interpretation on these more cryptic passages. It is appropriate at times to say "we just don't know."

5. Compare different scholarly translations of the Bible, including amplified versions, to gain increased breadth and depth of meaning.

6. It is often helpful to examine the context of the passage in terms of the book and chapter, and also in terms of the situational, historical, and cultural context in which it was written. To whom was it originally written and why?

However, we must understand that the more we use the various types of biblical criticism, the more we are bringing merely human methods to the task of understanding God's purpose and meaning- a potentially dangerous path. These methods can help, but the help is limited. Relying too much upon them leads to a diminishment in the sense of divine authority and holiness that characterizes God's Word.

7. We have 2000 plus years' worth of writings from devout, inspired believers who have shared what the scriptures revealed to them. We should value the early Church Fathers, the traditional Creeds, and later traditional interpretations to aid our own understanding. The more innovative and unusual the interpretation, the less we can trust it; it must be tested over many years. "Do not scoff at what God may be revealing, but test everything that is said. Hold on to what is good." (1 Thes 5:20-21)

We also should try to study and do research in combination with other believers so that each person can share his or her insights. Remember, "there is wisdom in a multitude of counselors" (Prov 11:14, 15:22) and "for where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them" (Matt 18:20) - together we can act as a corrective for less-than-orthodox interpretations.

To the above seven common sense principles, I must add a warning. Theologians, as a matter of course, attempt to order and/or simplify their understandings of scripture by developing ideational schemes (theologies). Anytime a theologian develops a theology which is used as a hermeneutic prism to interpret all of scripture, that theologian is on shaky ground. The scriptures themselves do not promote any such unified scheme, but rather tell their stories and explain their principles in a common sense kind of way. The only exceptions may be the apocalyptic material in parts of Daniel and the Book of Revelation.

Although such schemes may be helpful, they were all developed in post-apostolic times and thus do not have the Apostolic authority that is embedded in the scriptures themselves. Of course, the more a theologian can back up his teachings with traditional interpretations of scripture and acceptable rational logic, the more we can trust those teachings.

Safety First

Christians have never all agreed on which interpretations of scripture are correct or on which parts of the Bible are more important. We all have our "most favorite" and "least favorite" passages. What do we do with the reality of these differences and disagreements?

First, we must approach the Word of God with humility. We must admit the reality that none of us can fully trust our thinking or "lean on our own understanding" (Proverbs 3:5-6). Although "fearfully and wonderfully made," our perceptual equipment and brains are not biologically perfect. Every human being interprets events and what we read (including the scriptures) through our own faulty lens, one with built-in biases, preferences, and blind spots due to our unique genetic make-up and our differing cultural and familial backgrounds. As those in the law enforcement field know well, a group of people can witness the same event and come up with quite different accounts- with none of them deliberately lying. So saying that scripture is "self-interpreting" is not very helpful because each individual will still understand the words according to her/his own one-of-a-kind mind. Some degree of interpretation is inevitable for anyone hearing or reading words. This reality should give us pause and lead us to study what both the early Fathers and later well-established theologians have written. None of them are infallible but we can seek for a consensus among the most trustworthy sources.

The "Canon of St. Vincent" (434 AD)

To help resolve the perennial problem of disagreement within the Church, I like to refer to what has been called the St. Vincent Canon, a principle formulated by an early Latin Father. This principle leads to a hierarchy of trust in religious writings, interpretations, and traditions. Vincent advised that we "take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all [Christians]." In other words, we are to value long-term consensus. Conversely, those writings, interpretations, or traditions that are in dispute (especially if they continue to be disputed over hundreds or thousands of years) must be held as less trustworthy. This procedure helps narrow the focus of what is truly acceptable as "Christian" and protects against the development of heresies. It is why the traditional Creeds and the smaller Protestant Canon were both necessary. It also explains why we should not 'set in stone' or be dogmatic about interpretations of difficult and disputable passages or books. You and I get to have an opinion, but just remember that 'human opinion' is all it is. We are not God; humility is always in order.

John R.W. Stott wrote: "There are two safeguards against error- the apostolic Word and the anointing Spirit (cf. Isaiah 59:21).... The Word is an objective safeguard, while the anointing of the Spirit is a subjective experience; but both the apostolic teaching and the heavenly teacher are necessary for continuance in the truth. And both are to be personally and inwardly grasped. This is the biblical balance which is too seldom preserved. Some honour the Word and neglect the Spirit who alone can interpret it; others honour the Spirit but neglect the Word out of which he teaches. The only safeguard against lies is to have remaining within us both the Word that "we heard from the beginning" and the "anointing" that we "received" from Him. It is by these old possessions, not by new teachings or teachers, that we shall remain in the truth."

Most readers here are familiar with Jude 1:3b-4 (NIV): "... I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God's holy people. For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord." "The faith that was once for all entrusted..." refers to what Jesus and the Apostles had taught up to that moment, which includes all of the scriptures except perhaps Revelation. It means we must beware of novel ideas and interpretations, none of which have Apostolic authority.

How to Read the Bible

Maurice Zundel observed that "you can understand the Bible only on your knees." This pretty well sums it up. All human interpretations can easily go astray. We have to admit our fallibility in comprehension and also take responsibility for our choices. We are the ones who are choosing how much to trust particular translations, versions, and commentaries of theologians. Do not forget that we all do some level of interpretation, including how we understand or misunderstand the scholars- who, by the way, do not all agree.

So to interpret The Book correctly, we need significant help from the Author. Fortunately, we do have that Wonderful Counselor: "When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who goes out from the Father, He will testify about me." (John 15:26) "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all truth." (John 16:12)

The Holy Spirit enables His people to understand what it is God wants us to understand: "He who belongs to God hears what God says." (John 8:47) But not all religious folk belong to God and thus they do not want to hear or submit to His words. However, compared to the scriptures, no other words that we can hear in our lives will ever be as important or as powerful to positively influence our future destiny.

In the western nations, Bibles are everywhere. There are many structured programs for Bible study to be found in Christian bookstores and most churches have Bible study groups. We have no excuse for avoiding God's Word.

Dr. Atkinson is a graduate of Fuller Theological Seminary with a doctorate in clinical psychology and an M.A. in theology. He is a licensed psychologist in clinical practice in Atlanta and also works as a clinical supervisor training Christian counselors for Richmont Graduate University. He is a founding member of Trinity Anglican Church (ACNA) in Douglasville, Georgia