We already learned about the "3 Cs": content, context, cross-reference. We want to expand that now by delving briefly into biblical hermeneutics, whose goal is to discover the meaning intended by the original author (and Author!). While many applications of a passage are valid, only one interpretation is valid. The scripture itself says this by saying that no scripture is of any private interpretation (2 Pe.1:20 KJV Knowing this first, that no prophesy of scripture is of any private interpretation.). Certain rules are helps toward discovering the correct meaning; by ignoring these rules people have brought much trouble on themselves and their followers. 2 Pe.3:16 ...in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. How do we go about discovering the intended meaning of a passage? Let's say your attention has been drawn to a particular verse whose meaning is not clear to you. How do you study it out? Keep these rules in mind:

The more precise we can be with the exact, original meaning of the words the better our interpretation will be. Try to find the exact meaning of the key words by following these steps: Look up the definition in a Greek or Hebrew dictionary. For verbs, the verb tense is also crucial. Compare scripture with scripture. Seeing how the same Greek or Hebrew word (not the English word) is used in scripture may clarify or throw new light on the definition. How does the same author use this word elsewhere? Other authors? Your reference tools may give you uses of the word in non-biblical documents, as well. Why do we have to go to the original languages; why isn't the English word good enough? Because more than one greek word may be translated into the same english word, and the greek words may have different shades of meaning.

Jn.20:17 "Touch me not" (KJV) sounds harsh, doesn't it? Sounds like Jesus doesn't want to be touched now that He is risen, that He is too holy or something. But that doesn't seem right, so let's look it up in Spiros Zodhiates' The Complete Word Study New Testament (AMG Publishers, 1991). Definition: Turning to John 20:17, above the word "Touch" we see "pim680." The letters give us a code for the part of speech, and the number refers to Strong's dictionary reference. Let's look up the definition (p. 879). "680. Haptomai; from hapto (681), touch. Refers to such handling of an object as to exert a modifying influence upon it... Distinguished from pselaphao (5584), which actually only means to touch the surface of something. " Now look up "pim." The grammar codes in Zodhiates come right after Revelation; on p. 849 we see that pim stands for "present imperative active (80)". On p.857, "Present Imperative. In the active voice, it may indicate a command to do something in the future which involves continuous or repeated action or, when it is negated, a command to stop doing something. " This is a negative command, so it is to stop doing something that is already occuring. So, what have we found? Mary is already clinging to Jesus, and he is saying to stop holding him!

In James 5:14, Elders are told to pray and anoint someone who is sick. What is this anointing? Definition of aleipho (218) - "to oil" (Strong's); but we also have another Greek word translated "anoint", chrio (5548) - "to smear or rub with oil, i.e. to consecrate to an office or religious service" (Strong's). Since it's a verb, consider the tense also, "apta" aorist participle active. "The aorist participle expresses simple action, as opposed to continuous action...When its relaitonship to the main verb is temporal, it usually signifies action prior to that of the main verb." (Zodhiates p.851) Cross-references for aleipho: Mt.6:17 But you, when you fast, anoint your head Mk.16:1 [the women] brought spices that they might come and anoint Him. Mk.6:13 And they were...anointing with oil many sick people and healing them. Lk.7:38 [...] kissing His feet and anointing them with the perfume Jn.12:3 Mary [...] anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped them with her hair Cross-references of chrio: Lk.4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me to preach [...] Acts 4:27 Jesus, whom Thou hast anointed Acts 10:38 God anointed Jesus with the Holy Ghost and power 2 Cor.1:21 Now He who...anointed us is God So what's the difference between aleipho and chrio? Look back over the cross-references and the definitions, and sum up the difference: "aleipho" is a practical use of oil and "chrio" is a spiritual As an illustration (although the word is not used) of the practical use of oil at that time, when the good Samaritan cared for the man beat up by robbers he poured oil and wine in the wound. So oil had a medicinal use in Jesus' day. Ora applichiamo ciò che abbiamo appreso dallo studio di questa parola a Giacomo 5:14 "Qualcuno di voi è infermo? Chiami gli anziani, della chiesa, ed essi preghino su di lui, ungendolo di olio nel nome del Signore." Qui "ungere" è spirituale o pratico? Pratico! And the tense in Greek, the aorist participle, would be better translated "having anointed," so the order is the anointing first, then the prayer ("in the name of the Lord"refers to the prayer, not the anointing). James 5 is saying that the elders should give the sick person medicine and pray for him in the name of the Lord. Doesn't that express a beautiful balance of practical and spiritual in our God!

Interpret scripture in harmony with other scripture. What do the verses on each side say? What is the theme of the chapter? the book? Does your interpretation fit with these? If not, it is flawed. Usually, the context supplies what we need to correctly interpret the passage. Context is key. If confusion remains as to the meaning after we have interpreted the text within its context, we have to look further.

In una lezione precedente, abbiamo parlato di Gv.3:5 "nato d'acqua e di Spirito." Nel contesto, qual è l'acqua si cui si discute? Water baptism is not under discussion here, which would be a big switch from the subject being discussed by Jesus and Nicodemus. Watch out for a sudden change of topic, it may be a clue that your interpretation has been derailed! The water is the amniotic fluid, "born of water" = natural birth.

1 Cor.14:34 Let the women keep silent in the churches has to be taken within the biblical context of 1 Cor.11:5 every woman [...] while praying or prophesying [...]

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins [...]". Is this teaching baptismal regeneration? If this was the only verse of scripture we had, we would have to conclude that. But in the light of the clear teaching elsewhere that regeneration happens by faith in Christ, we have to interpret it otherwise. Peter is urging baptism as a way for his hearers to respond to the gospel. If baptism were the pathway to being born again, how could Paul write 1 Cor.1:17 "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel"?

At first we are not asking What does it mean to me? but What did it mean to the original readers?; later we can ask, What does it mean to me?. We have to take into account the historical and cultural background of the author and the recipients.

3 days & 3 nights (Mt.12:40) have led some to come up with a "Wednesday crucifixion theory," esp. the cult of Armstrongism. How could Jesus die on Friday afternoon and rise Sunday morning yet "be raised on the third day" (Mt.16:21)? Exact meanings of "three" or "days" won't help explain the apparent contradiction. We need an historical tidbit: Jews counted any part of a day as a full day, as we would count buckets of water (if there were six and one-half buckets of water, we would say there were 7 buckets of water even if one was only partly full). So to the Jewish mind, any part of a day counted as a full day, and days started at 6 p.m. and ended at 6 p.m. Friday from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. = day 1. Friday 6 p.m. to Saturday 6 p.m. = day 2. Saturday 6 p.m. to Sunday 5 or so a.m. = day 3. Interpreting within the cultural context keeps us out of trouble.

Gen.15:7-21. The historical context is that cutting animals in two and then walking between the pieces was the normal way of entering a contract in Abraham's day. Both parties walked between, taking the pledge that dismemberment would happen to them if they didn't live up to their part of the contract. But in this case only God goes thru, making it a unilateral covenant.

Let literal language be literal and figurative language be figurative. And watch out for idioms, which have special meanings.

evil eye in Mt.6:23. Rule 1, definition of "evil" and "eye" - no help here. Rule 2, context: seems to confuse us even more. It doesn't seem to fit with what goes before and after! This should tip us off that we aren't understanding it rightly!! What we have here is a Hebrew idiom, evil eye. Let's look up other uses of this idiom: Mt.20:15 "Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious [lit."evil"] because I am generous [lit. "good"]?" We find that having an "evil eye" is a Hebrew idiom for being stingy or envious. Now go back to Mt.6 and notice how this understanding ties in so perfectly to the context.

Is.59:1 The Lord's hand is not short; Deut.33:27 Underneath are the everlasting arms. References to body parts of God are used by Latter-Day Saints to prove that God was once a man just as we are. Once they convince people of that, they go on to teach that we can become God just like He is! At a lecture he was giving, a group of Mormon elders challenged Walter Martin (author of Kingdom of the Cults) with an enumeration of verses like these. Dr. Martin then asked the Mormons to read one more scripture: Ps.91:4 He will cover you with His feathers; And under His wings shalt thou trust. W.M. said, By the same rules of interpretation that you just proved God to be a man, you just proved that He is a bird. The Mormons had to laugh as they realised the ridiculousness of their position.

An allegory is: A story where each element has a meaning. Ogni parabola è un'allegoria, giusto o sbagliato? Some parables are allegories, for instance, the parable of the sower is an allegory: the seed is the word of God, the thorns are worries and greed, etc. But most parables are not allegories but simply stories to illustrate one point. It's dangerous to get our doctrine from parables; they can be twisted to say all sorts of things. We need to get our doctrine from clear scriptures that lay it out; then if a parable illustrates that, fine.

The parable of the widow with the unrighteous judge in Lk.18:1-8. This story illustrates one lesson: boldness in prayer. If we draw it into an allegory, what do we have? Tutti i tipi di violenza raggiungono lo scopo: Dio esita a proteggere i diriti della vedova, la preghiera lo scoccia, ecc.

The parable of the unrighteous steward in Lk.16:1-9. What is the point of the parable? Is it an allegory? The steward is commended for only one thing, his shrewdness in using what he had to prepare for a time when he wouldn't have it. But he is not commended for his unethical behavior in cheating his master.