The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth? Deciphering Meaning Through Layers of Context (Part 2 of 5)

On a Galilean slope near Capernaum, the Lord Jesus delivered his celebrated discourse traditionally known as “the Sermon on the Mount,” recorded in chapters 5–7 of Matthew’s Gospel.¹ In his mission of “proclaiming the good news of the kingdom” (4:23), Jesus would have been speaking in the Aramaic language to a large gathering of Aramaic-speaking Jews, inclusive of but not limited to his disciples (4:25; 5:1; 7:28; cf. 10:5-6; 15:24). The message, having been preserved in Greek translation, uses imagery and comparisons with which the Lord’s immediate audience would have been familiar (5:13-15, 21-22, 25-27, 31, 33, 38, 43, 46-47), addressing topics particularly relevant to them (5:20, 23-24, 28, 32, 34-37, 39-42, 44-48), while preparing for the advent of God’s spiritual kingdom (3:2; 4:17, 23; 5:3, 10, 19, 20; 6:10, 33; 7:21). 

As part of the lengthy address, Jesus quotes, alludes to, and echoes multiple passages from the Hebrew scriptures.² In the present study our focus is on the segment recorded in Matthew 5:5, “Blessed are the meek, for ‘they shall inherit the land,’” a quote from Psalm 37:11a.³ While the Greek noun gē can be used in various senses (“land,” “ground,” “earth,” etc.; see BDAG 196), most English translations inconsistently render it “earth” in this passage but “land” in the OT text from which it is quoted.⁴ As observed in our previous post, “the land” of Psalm 37:3, 9, 11, 22, 29, 34 is contextually the promised land of the Israelites. To “inherit the land,” from an ancient Hebrew perspective, is idiomatically synonymous with God’s providential care, provision of needs, security, peace, empowerment, averting shame, and salvation (or deliverance), offering the psalmist’s Hebrew audience assurance and hope. From this initial layer of context, we move on to the next.

Contextual Layer #2: Jesus and His Listening Audience

Speaking to a crowd of Jewish contemporaries still amenable to the old-covenant system of Moses (Matt. 5:17-19), the Lord pronounces blessings (“beatitudes”) on those exhibiting certain virtues (vv. 2-11). Included is the quote from Psalm 37:11a. What would be a reasonable expectation for how this statement would have been received by this particular audience?

Those whom Jesus addressed were already residing in the land of promise, albeit under the occupation and control of a foreign power (Matt. 22:17; Luke 2:1; 3:1). When Judea was annexed as a Roman province in AD 6 (incorporating Samaria, Idumea, and at times Galilee), the local Jews begrudgingly transitioned from an autonomous nation to a subjugated and suppressed people. It was in this environment that the defiant Zealot movement was born,⁵ prompting Jesus to observe on another occasion, “but from the days of John the baptizer until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent forcefully seize it” (Matt. 11:12).

In his epic sermon Christ repeatedly challenges the status quo of his day and promotes an alternative way of thinking (“but I say to you …”).⁶ When he affirms, “blessed are the meek” (Matt. 5:5a), to what kind of persons is he alluding? The standard lexical definition of the Greek adjective praüs is “gentle, humble, considerate, meek” (BDAG 861). It would be the opposite of angry hostility (vv. 21-26), lack of self-control (vv. 27-32), lack of integrity (vv. 33-37), retribution (vv. 38-42), and hatred (vv. 43-48). In the original context of Psalm 37, from which Jesus draws the allusion, the description applies to those oppressed but still showing mercy, generosity, righteousness, and faithfulness, trusting in Yahweh, practicing goodness, and obeying his will. 

The quoted blessing, “they shall inherit the land,” is poetry, not theology.⁷ For a Jewish person in antiquity this was a comforting affirmation of divine favor. Anticipating improved circumstances (cp. Psa. 25:13), the expression was “emblematic of the better prosperity and happiness of life.”⁸ But what kind of prosperity? With the provision of physical needs understood (Matt. 6:11, 25-34), note Christ’s weighty emphasis on the heavenly nature of God’s kingdom (5:3, 10, 19, 20; 7:21), the priority of heavenly treasures (6:19-21), and the heavenly reward (5:12) in the presence of the heavenly Father (5:16, 34, 45, 48; 6:1, 9, 26, 32; 7:11). The greatest benefits are by far spiritual in nature (6:1, 4, 6, 9-10, 12-14, 18). A clear distinction is consistently made between the materialistic cares of the world and the loftier ways of God (6:19-24, 33; 7:6, 13-21, 24-27, 29). 

To isolate and literalize the statement in Matthew 5:5 to advocate a literal, futuristic, earthly habitation is a form of “physicalism” that runs contrary to the rest of the Lord’s teachings. Focusing on the temporal to the virtual disregard of the heavenly was characteristic of the vain externals of hypocrites (6:1, 5, 16), the empty ritualism of the heathen (6:7), the materialism of pagan Gentiles (6:32), and the deceptive appeal of false teachers (7:15). It ignores Christ’s persistent contrast between physical and spiritual realities (5:3, 10, 12-16, 34-35; 6:9-10, 19-21). 

Concluding Thoughts

Known for his emblematic and parabolic teaching style, Jesus routinely used earthly examples to convey spiritual truths, particularly with regard to “the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 7:24-27; 9:12-17; 16:6-12; 18:23-35; 20:1-16; 21:28-45; 22:1-14; 24:45-51; 25:1-30), a.k.a. “the kingdom of God” (19:23-24). It is also helpful to remember the common usage of physical types from the OT to illustrate spiritual antitypes in the NT, e.g., Jonah, Nineveh, Solomon, Elijah (12:39-42; 16:4; 17:10-13), to name a few.⁹ To “inherit the land” (5:5b), as a historical symbol, does not replace or counter the spiritually-explicit affirmation, “for great is your reward in heaven” (v. 12b).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ The traditional site is Mount Eremos, just northwest of the Sea of Galilee and west of the Jordan River on the southern slopes of the Korazim Plateau in northern Israel, also known as the Mount of Beatitudes (cf. Matt. 14:23; 15:29; 28:16; Mark 3:13). Seeing that the material in the first thirteen chapters of Matthew’s Gospel is arranged more topically than chronologically, this sermon was likely delivered at the height of the Lord’s Galilean ministry, as indicated by the large crowds. Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² See Craig L. Blomberg, “Matthew,” in Commentary on the NT Use of the OT, eds. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007): 20-30.

     ³ That this is a direct quote from Psalm 37:11 is seen by comparing Matthew’s Greek translation of Jesus’ words with the LXX version of the Hebrew text, showing parallel usage of the nominative masculine plural hoi praeîs (“the meek [ones]”), the future active indicative klēronomēsousin (“shall inherit”), and the accusative feminine gēn (“land”). Also note the inclusion in Matt. 5:5 of the conjunction hóti, which is functionally equivalent to quotation marks. See BDAG 732; H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek NT (Toronto: Macmillan, 1955): 252. 

     ⁴ The Douay-Rheims Bible, New American Bible (revised), Young’s Literal Translation, Orthodox Jewish Bible, and Easy-to-Read Version render the word “land” in Matt. 5:5, while the King James and New King James Versions employ “earth” in both passages.

     ⁵ See K. L. Moore, Ancient Terrorists, Barabbas, Historical Background: Jewish Subgroups, Historical Background: Roman Authority. It has also been suggested that the idea of a separate, organized group of rebels was invented by Josephus in order to divert the hostile attention of the Romans away from the general Jewish populace (see M. Smith, “Zealots and Sicarii,” HTR 64.1 [1971]: 5). It is true there is little evidence of the Zealots as an organized group prior to the revolt of AD 66 (see Josephus, War 4.129-62). Nevertheless, the earlier presence and activities of these freedom fighters, whether organized or not, are evident in passages like Mark 15:7; Luke 6:15; 23:19, 25; Acts 5:36-37; 21:38.

     ⁶ Matt. 5:20-22, 27-28, 31-34, 38-39, 43-44; cf. also 6:2, 5, 7, 16, 32; 7:15, 29.

     ⁷ See Douglas Stuart, “The Psalms: Israel’s Prayers and Ours,” in How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, by G. D. Fee and D. Stuart (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014): 215-16. 

     ⁸ Al Novak, Hebrew Honey: A Simple and Deep Word Study of the Old Testament (Houston, TX: C & D International, 1987): 140.

     ⁹ Discussed further in Part 5. We could add to the discussion the emblematic appeal to “the shepherd” and “the sheep” (Matt. 26:31), or the emblems of the Lord’s Supper representing far greater spiritual concepts (26:26-29).

Related Posts: The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth? Part 1, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5

Related articles:

Image credit: https://en.light-of-truth.org/sermon-on-the-mount-the-beatitudes.html

The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth? Deciphering Meaning Through Layers of Context (Part 1 of 5)

A single verse in the Bible is like an isolated piece of a jigsaw puzzle: the whole picture is indiscernible unless all the pieces are joined together. To focus on a biblical text without considering its surrounding context almost certainly guarantees distortion of meaning. While the twofold emphasis of contextual studies involves the particular environments within which biblical narratives and discourses took place and within which the biblical writings themselves were produced, there are other contextual matters that must not be overlooked. 

Multiple Layers of Context 

The Bible is fundamentally a compilation of sixty-six separate documents representing a variety of literary genres and subgenres. When any passage of scripture is examined, the type of literature through which it is conveyed dictates its purpose and meaning.

If a historian records someone’s public speech that contains quotations from other sources, there are at least three layers of context to consider: (1) the quoted material, including the original speaker or writer, his targeted audience, and their immediate circumstances; (2) the oral discourse, including the orator, the listening audience, and their immediate circumstances; and (3) the written account, including the author, the projected reading audience, and their immediate circumstances. 

The Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, recorded in Matthew 5–7, comprises all three layers: (1) scripture quotations, (2) Jesus and his listening audience, and (3) Matthew and his reading audience. All these layers of context are helpful in discerning the Spirit-inspired message, enabling interpreters to handle God’s word accurately and make application to a fourth layer: the present-day church and world.

Contextual Layer #1: Psalm 37 

The biblical psalms, as a collection of prayers and hymns, are more likely to contain words spoken to or about God than from God. They are poetic by nature and characteristically composed with figurative language. Their function is not primarily for the teaching of doctrinal absolutes.¹ In the genre of Hebrew poetry, the imagery is familiar to the psalmist’s contemporary Hebrew audience and creates associations that stir the emotions and engage the mind. A psalmist should therefore be afforded appropriate leeway to create a work within the parameters of his own literary conventions. The more we appreciate the poetry and cultural environment of the psalms, the better we understand the intended message.²

Psalm 37 can be subcategorized as a wisdom (sapiential) psalm, contrasting the respective plights of the righteous and the wicked, along with assurances of blessings and judgments. Lost in English translation is the poem’s acrostic structure, with two lines given to each letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Easier to detect is the synonymous parallelism, where the second line repeats or reinforces the preceding line, with meaning drawn from the combination of both. Parallelism is not two separate ideas but one main idea expressed in two different ways. It is important in analyzing any poem to discover its theme and how each part contributes to the whole. The entirety of the psalm, not just a single verse or stanza, supplies the interpretive framework. 

Of particular interest to our present study is the recurring blessing involving the Hebrew verbs shakan (“abide,” “dwell,” “settle down,” vv. 3, 27, 29) and yarash (“inherit,” “possess by inheritance,” vv. 9, 11, 22, 29, 34), along with the noun erets (“land,” vv. 3, 9, 11, 22, 29, 34).³ These familiar concepts would immediately call to the Jewish mind the Abrahamic promises (Gen. 12:1-7; Psa. 105:42-45), the physical aspect of which was realized in Abraham’s biological descendants – the Israelites (Gen. 12:2a, 7; 15:5-7; Ex. 32:13; Deut. 1:8).⁴ This provided a national setting for the fulfillment of the spiritual messianic promise: “in you [your seed, 22:18; 26:4] all the families of the earth [adamah] shall be blessed” (Gen. 12:3b; cf. Acts 3:25-26; Gal. 3:8-29; 4:4-7).

To “dwell in the land” (Psalm 37:3) meant so much more than mere territorial occupancy. Reprobates, void of divine favor, physically inhabited the land of Israel for generations (Lev. 20:2-5; Judg. 1:19-21, 27-35; 2:2-3; Ezek. 33:23-26). In the context of Psalm 37, the land dwellers are those exhibiting trust in God, goodness, and allegiance to the divine will, thereby benefitting from his faithfulness and provision (vv. 3-4). They are further identified as the “meek” [anav] (v. 11), those oppressed (v. 14) yet merciful and generous (vv. 21, 23), righteous and faithful (vv. 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 37, 39, 40).⁵

To “inherit the land” (Psalm 37:9, 11, 22, 29, 34),⁶ therefore, is an expression of comfort and hope (vv. 1, 7, 8). It is idiomatically synonymous with providential care (vv. 3, 5, 6, 17b, 18, 19b, 24, 26b, 28, 31b, 40), including provision (v. 4, 25), protection (v. 33, 40a), peace (vv. 11, 37), fortification (vv. 17, 19, 24, 39b), rising above shame (vv. 19a, 34), and salvation (v. 39a, 40b). In old covenant Judaism, the sacred land (centralized in Jerusalem) represented Yahweh’s presence among his people (Ex. 33:1, 14; Psa. 27:4-6; 65:4; 140:13; Isa. 2:3). But to literalize the poetic imagery is to miss the spiritual significance of the divine purpose, more clearly revealed in the New Testament.

Concluding Thoughts

The psalmist essentially encourages his readers to trust in the Lord for improved circumstances. Traditionally ascribed to David, apparently in his later years (v. 25), Psalm 37 is thus placed in the historical context of the united kingdom of Israel during the first half of the 10th century BC. In another Davidic psalm (25:13), to “inherit the land” parallels towb, “goodness” or “well-being.” Just to hear the expression would have offered a great deal of consolation to any Jewish persons in antiquity, especially the disadvantaged and oppressed, irrespective of when or where they lived.

While some have posited the dating as late as the 4th century BC,⁷ whoever was responsible for the Psalter’s ancient inscriptions would have had access to information unavailable to subsequent generations.⁸ Moreover, the Davidic titles assume readers know who David is and are familiar with his life and poetry. Whether the psalm was originally intended for pre-exilic Jews, who already inhabited the land, or those in exile, who longed to return to the land, or post-exilic Jews of the diaspora, it offers the same assurances and hope. 

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Douglas Stuart, “The Psalms: Israel’s Prayers and Ours,” in How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, by G. D. Fee and D. Stuart (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014): 212-16. At the same time, however, we still acknowledge “the importance of understanding the instructional function of the Psalms as a book. This is because the very process of canonical collection means that the 150 psalms now gathered together are seen as playing a special role within the life of Israel. Their place within the canon also means that they have a further role …. their very status as scripture means that they now have a teaching role” (David G. Firth, “The Teaching of the Psalms,” in Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches, eds. D. Firth and P. S. Johnston [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005]: 162).

     ² Mark D. Futato, Interpreting the Psalms: An Exegetical Handbook (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007): 24-42. Ancient near-eastern literature, even when translated, is very different from the literature to which modern readers are accustomed. A poem’s rhetorical effect on a targeted audience, far removed from our own, should not be ignored. See David Petersen and Kent Harold Richards, Interpreting Hebrew Poetry (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992): 1-16.

     ³ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation. The Hebrew noun erets (vv. 3, 9, 11, 22, 29, 34) is consistently translated “land” in most English versions (e.g. ASV, CSB, ESV, ISV, NIV, NASB, NET, N/RSV, YLT), but varyingly rendered in the N/KJV “land” (vv. 3, 29, 34) and “earth” (vv. 9, 11, 22). It is flexible enough to apply to the entire planet (Gen. 18:18, 25), earth’s inhabitants (Psa. 33:8; 66:4), a regional or territorial section of land (Gen. 10:10, 11; 11:28; Psa. 42:6), particularly the land of Canaan (Gen. 11:31; 12:1, 5; Psa. 105:11; 135:12; 136:21) often designated simply “the land” (Gen. 1:8, 21; 12:6; Deut. 17:14; 18:9; Psa. 35:20). In addition to usage in Davidic psalms (incl. 101:6, 8), see also 44:3; 80:9; 85:1, 9, 12; 106:38; cp. 74:8. 

     ⁴ Historically the Abrahamic land inheritance (Gen. 12:7; 13:14-17; 15:7-18; Deut. 4:1; 16:20) was fulfilled (Acts 7:2-5, 17, 45; Josh. 3:14-17; 21:43-45; 1 Kings 4:21; Neh. 9:7-8), albeit conditionally (Lev. 20:22, 24; Deut. 28:1-2, 15; Josh. 23:13-16; 1 Kings 9:6-7; 2 Chron. 20:7). Nevertheless, Abraham’s descendants did not remain faithful to the covenant (1 Kings 19:10; Jer. 31:32) and eventually lost the land (Josh. 23:13-16). The Hebrew olam (“forever”) occurs three times in Psalm 37, in conjunction with the righteous ones’ inheritance (v. 18), abiding (v. 27), and preservation (v. 29). Even though the Abrahamic land inheritance was promised “forever” (Gen. 13:15, ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV), this must be understood not only as a conditional promise but also in view of the fact that olam signifies simple duration and applies to that which continues as long as it was intended (cp. Gen. 17:13; Ex. 12:14; 21:6; 29:42; 30:8; Lev. 23:14; 1 Kings 9:3-5; et al.). Irrespective of what may or may not result on the other end, olam is merely a durative term expressing something that lasts its allotted time. See K. L. Moore, Will the Earth Last Forever?.

     ⁵ The masculine noun anav is descriptive of the humble and gentle (Psa. 10:12, 17; 25:9; 34:2; 69:32), the afflicted and oppressed (Psa. 22:26; 147:6; 149:4; Isa. 11:4; 29:19; 53:4; 61:1), those who seek the Lord, uphold his justice, seek righteousness, and seek humility (Zeph. 2:3).

     ⁶ Except for the infinitive construct in v. 34, the future form of this verb is repeatedly employed (vv. 9, 11, 22, 29), although verbal tense in Hebrew, unlike modern languages, refers more particularly to action than time. The Hebrew future tense expresses what is unfinished, whether future or present, something anticipated or continued at any point of time. See William Wilson, Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies (McLean, VA: Macdonald, n.d. [rev. ed., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1990]): i-ii.

     ⁷ Elmer A. Leslie, The Psalms: Translated and Interpreted in the Light of Hebrew Life and Worship (Nashville; NY: Abingdon, 1949): 412. Samuel L. Terrien posits a 6th-century date for Psalm 37, from late-exilic or early-postexilic times (The Psalms: Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003]: 322). Whether or not a specific time period can be determined, the psalms reflect “the spiritual insight and religious heritage of a small number of ancient Israelites ...” (David Firth and Philip S. Johnston, eds., Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005]: 17).

     ⁸ When and by whom the collection of canonical psalms was compiled is unknown, though it is not outside the range of plausibility that the titles were appended by the original authors themselves. See Franz Delitzsch, “Biblical Commentary on the Psalms,” Vol. 1, in Biblical Commentary on the OT by C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968): 23. Prefixing authorial titles to songs was an ancient practice among the Hebrews (Deut. 31:30; Isa. 38:9; Hab. 3:1; cp. Ex. 15:1, 21; Num. 24:3; Judg. 5:1), inclusive of David (2 Sam. 1:17-18; 22:1; 23:1; cp. Psa. 72:20). Moreover, Davidic authorship of selected psalms is confirmed in the NT (Matt. 22:45; Mark 12:36-37; Luke 20:42-44; Acts 1:16, 20; 2:25-28, 34-35; 4:25-26; [cf. 13:33, 35]; Rom. 4:6-8; 11:9-10; Heb. 4:7); viz. Psalms 2, 16, 32, 69, 95, 110. 

Related Posts: The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth? Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5

Related articles:

Image credit: Adapted from https://pxhere.com/en/photo/669722

God is Savior of All People, Especially Believers (1 Timothy 4:10)?

Paul writes in 1 Timothy 4:10, “For to this we labor and struggle, since we have hoped upon the living God, who is savior of all people, especially of believers.”¹ In what sense is God “savior of all people”? What is meant by the qualifying phrase, “especially of believers”? Are there two different ways or degrees or senses in which both unbelievers and believers are saved? Does this passage support universalism? 

Contextual Usage of “All”

Contextually the statement in question follows (and must therefore be understood in light of) what Paul has already affirmed in 2:3-6, “This is good and acceptable before our savior God, who desires all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of truth. For [there is] one God and one mediator between God and humankind, a man Christ Jesus, who gave himself [as] a ransom for all, the testimony in their own times.” 

Obviously, according to Paul, God wants “all people” to be saved and has thus made provision via Christ’s atoning sacrifice for “all.”² Therefore God is “savior of all people” prospectively in that he has provided redemption to everyone through “knowledge of truth.” Moreover, this follows Paul’s affirmation in 1:15, “Faithful is the saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am foremost.” In this sense salvation is made available to “all kinds of” people,³ even reprehensible sinners like Paul, but not without a faith response (1:16; 2:7) and enduring faith (1:19; 2:15; 3:9, 13; 4:1, 6, 8, 12-16; 5:4-15; 6:10-21).⁴

In 1 Timothy the adjective “all” is consistently applied, not universally but in a more limited, qualified sense (4:15; 5:20; 6:10, 13, 17). It is repeatedly employed emphatically when a certain point is being emphasized (1:15, 16; 2:2b, 11; 3:4, 11; 4:8; 5:2; 6:1, 10, 17).

Contextual Usage of “Especially”

But what is meant by the phrase, “especially [málista] of believers”? Some have interpreted this to mean salvation is granted to those who are not believers, which contradicts other clear passages of scripture (e.g. Mark 16:16; Heb. 11:6). If we keep reading, however, Paul himself reveals his intended usage of this phraseology. The superlative adverb “especially” can be interpreted to indicate a contrast between two different things, but this is not how Paul employs the Greek word málista in 1 Timothy.

In 5:8 the apostle says, “but if anyone does not provide for [his] own, and especially [málista] [his] household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” Here Paul is not making a distinction between one’s “own” and one’s “household” but is placing special emphasis on a particular obligation. Then in 5:17 he writes, “Let the well-ruling elders be considered worthy of double honor, especially [málista] the ones laboring in word and teaching.” Again Paul is not contrasting “well-ruling elders” with those “laboring in word and teaching” but is emphasizing with greater specificity what it means to be well-ruling elders.

In 1 Timothy the adverb málista (rendered “especially” in our English Bibles) seems to be employed emphatically rather than contrastingly. It narrows the focus and conveys particularity, thus comparable to “namely” or “in particular.”⁵ Whatever else might be inferred, the terminology in no way supports sweeping universalism.

Conclusion

If 1 Timothy 4:10 is isolated from its immediate context and the overall context of scripture, it can be misconstrued to convey any number of things. But when we carefully follow Paul’s train of thought, and interpret the verse in its much broader context of meaning, the statement is clear. The spiritual salvation God provides through Jesus Christ is universal in purpose and scope but conditional and thus limited in appropriation.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² John 3:16-17; Rom. 5:18; 8:32; 2 Cor. 5:14-15; Tit. 2:11; 2 Pet. 3:9; 1 John 2:2; 4:14. See K. L. Moore, “Did Jesus die for many or for all?” Moore Perspective (13 Feb. 2015), <Link>. 

     ³ The Greek adj. pas can idiomatically signify “a totality of kinds or sorts—every kind of, all sorts of” (J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the NT [NY: UBS, 1988]: 589); cf. 1 Tim. 6:10, 13, 17. In Romans the adj. “all” is consistently applied with particular reference to ethnic groups, not the unqualified totality of all individual persons. The overarching theme of Romans is that Jews and Gentiles stand before God on the same footing. Gentiles sin and are thus condemned (1:18-32), but they are not the only ones; Jews are also guilty before God (2:1-5). Whether Jew or Gentile, the obedient receive divine favor and the disobedient face God’s wrath (2:6-16); there is no partiality with God (2:11). All have sinned (3:10-12, 23; 5:12) = both Jews and Gentiles (3:9, 19), not just the one to the exclusion of the other. Moreover, “all” (both Jews and Gentiles) have equal access to God through Christ and are accepted by him on the same terms (3:29-30; 4:16, 24; 5:18; etc.).

     ⁴ For what it means to be a “believer” in the biblical sense, see K. L. Moore, “NT Believers,” Moore Perspective (26 July 2013), <Link>.

     ⁵ Idiomatically rendered “that is” (ISV); “particularly” (Mounce, NLT, Phillips, TLB). 

Related Posts: Religious Dialogue (Part 1), What Must I Do To Be Saved?

Related articles:

Image credit: Adapted from https://www.pinterest.com/pin/174584923034417835/?lp=true

Biblical Exegesis (Part 3 of 3)

A further extension of the Grammatical-Historical Approach to biblical exegesis and often assumed in the CENI schema (discussed in our previous post) is the application of general principles and prohibitive silence.¹

Principles are general exhortations requiring basic common sense and mature reasoning to make specific, practical applications (cf. Heb. 5:14). Without general principles, imagine how enormous the Bible would have to be to specifically address all moral, relational, and religious life situations. Applying biblical principles in modern times should not be as daunting as some may surmise. William Larkin observes: “As human beings we have a commonality that enables us to interpret and apply ideas and patterns and forms from other cultures and time periods” (Culture and Biblical Hermeneutics 200).

·      When Jesus said, “seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness” (Matt. 6:33), no specific details are given about how to actually do it, so it is up to the Lord’s disciples to carefully determine how this principle should be applied in every area of our lives. 

·      The same is true for principles such as abstaining from every form of evil (1 Thess. 5:22), not being conformed to the world (Rom. 12:2), modest dress (1 Tim. 2:9), etc.

Prohibitive silence, also known as the “rule of exclusion,” is based on the conviction that the entirety of what God wants us to know about his will has been fully disclosed in scripture (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3). Whatever is not communicated or authorized in scripture (explicitly or implicitly) is therefore excluded from God’s revealed will. In other words, divine silence = no divine sanction. 

·      In Acts 15 certain Jewish Christians were advocating mandatory circumcision (vv. 1, 5). How were they, and those they taught, supposed to know this wasn’t right, seeing that it was integral to the old covenant system? The Spirit-guided answer was simply, “we gave no such commandment” [prohibitive silence] (v. 24). 

·      Another example is found in Heb. 7:11-16. The Israelites knew the divine will concerning the appointment of priests because God explicitly revealed this information (Lev. 8:5 ff.), specifying the tribe of Levi as the priestly tribe (Num. 18:1-2; Deut. 33:8-11; Heb. 7:5). He did not (and did not need to) supply a list of other Israelite tribes in order to directly forbid the appointment of priests from any of them. By specifying Levi, all other tribes were implicitly excluded, as “Moses spoke nothing” [prohibitive silence] concerning them.

Is biblical silence always prohibitive, or is it sometimes permissive? It depends on whether the issue at hand is specifically or generically addressed in scripture.²

·      If the divine injunction had been, “Appoint priests from among the Israelites,” anyone from any of the tribes would be allowed; but the requirement was not this generic. The law directed the appointment of priests from among the Israelite tribe of Levi, which would permit anyone within the stated category, including tall Levites, short Levites, brown-haired Levites, black-haired Levites, etc., none of which deviates from the specified command. But the injunction would prohibit Egyptians, Assyrians, Reubenites, Simeonites, etc. (even serving alongside the Levites), because these options exceed the parameters of the specified command.

·      If the Bible had said, “Commemorate the Lord’s death with food and drink,” any type of food and drink (brownies, carrots, water, coffee) would be permissible; but the stipulated elements of the Lord’s Supper are not this generic. The directive to use unleavened bread and fruit of the vine (Matt. 26:17, 26-29) would permit plates or trays or baskets or containers for the specified elements, none of which adds to or deviates from the stated instructions. But the directive does prohibit brownies, carrots, water, coffee, etc. (even if consumed along with the specified elements), because they are unauthorized additions to what scripture teaches.

·      If the NT had said, “Offer music to God as Christian worship,” any type of music (singing, electric guitar, saxophone, etc.) would be permissible; but the musical praise specified in the NT is not this generic. The NT affirms, “… singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord” (Eph. 5:19 + nine other verses), which would permit song books or overheads (for words), a tuning fork (for pitch), a song leader (for tempo), none of which deviates from the specified instructions. But there is no NT authorization for playing and making melody on a piano in worship (even to accompany the singing), or beating drums, or juggling Bibles, or dancing with hula hoops, etc. All humanly-devised additions to the specified instructions are implicitly prohibited if the Lord has given no such directive.

A More Thorough Exegetical Approach

While maintaining the tried and tested methodologies that have served us well over the years, as our biblical knowledge increases there should always be room in our exegetical toolkit for additional information. Multiple in-depth academic approaches to biblical exegesis have been proposed over the years,³ but what I find most helpful when examining a passage of scripture is the following:

1. Establish the contextual setting: authorship, audience, date, provenance, destination, circumstances, including geographical, political, historical, sociocultural matters; i.e., who is speaking/writing and who is being addressed? 

2. Establish the literary context beyond a single verse: genre, paragraph or pericope, the entire document, collection of writings, theological linkage, relationship to the overall context of scripture.

3. Identify key words, phrases, and concepts.

4. Word analysis: textual criticism, translation, comparative study. 

5. Sentence structure, syntax, grammar.

6. Consult secondary literature if needed.

7. Contemporary application. 

Not all of these apply equally to every text. As John H. Hayes and Carl R. Holladay remind us, “no mechanical system of steps or stages in the exegetical process can be set up and rigidly followed…. An appropriate way of proceeding in doing an exegesis of a passage is to let the questions and issues arise from the text itself…. allow the text to speak for itself” (Biblical Exegesis [Rev.] 132-33). 

The primary aim of biblical exegesis is deeper understanding and continual growth in grace and knowledge through the living and abiding word of God (1 Pet. 1:23; 2 Pet. 3:18).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     1 See K. L. Moore, Getting to Know the Bible (Winona, MS: Choate, 2002): 45-49.

     ² See K. L. Moore, “Musical Praise and Biblical Silence,” Moore Perspective (10 June 2015), <Link>.

     ³ For example, the 10-step process of Craig L. Blomberg in A Handbook of NT Exegesis xiv-xv; or the 13-step process of Gordon D. Fee in NT Exegesis [3rd ed.] 6-7).

Related Posts: Biblical Exegesis Part 1, Part 2, Speaking Where the Bible Speaks, The Holy Spirit's Role in Biblical Understanding

Image credit: http://scottroberts.org/how-much-should-we-revere-gods-word-and-should-bible-pages-be-marked-up/

Biblical Exegesis (Part 2 of 3)

Although there is a “sufficiently bewildering set of exegetical possibilities,”¹ 

for our purposes we will briefly consider the more prevalent ones.

1. The Impressionistic Approach is when scripture is evaluated in a way that equates the meaning of the text with the interpreter’s immediate thoughts. This is the simplest approach that requires the least amount of effort. But its subjective and emotive nature practically guarantees missing or misconstruing scripture’s original intent.

2. The Dogmatic Approach views scripture as a storehouse of proof-texts to be selected and arranged to bolster a preconceived doctrine or set of beliefs. The danger (and tendency) of this method is to allow little consideration of authorial intent or literary, historical, and sociocultural context. It may give the appearance of biblicality (book, chapter, verse!), but without context, scripture can be made to mean just about anything the interpreter wants it to mean.²

3. The Grammatical-Historical Approach³ is a concerted attempt to understand what the words of scripture meant in their original setting, i.e., what the inspired author intended to communicate to his targeted audience.⁴ For exegetes with a high view of scripture, this methodology is also concerned with modern-day application.

3a. An extension of the Grammatical-Historical Approach, “Command, Example, Necessary Inference” (CENI) is a common description of the exegetical method historically characteristic of the North American Restoration Movement.⁵ 

Perhaps a better way of expressing each tenet is “direct statement,” “approved example or precedent,” and “implication.” Not everything we learn that is explicitly conveyed in scripture is in the form of a command. Not every account of action recorded in scripture is a pattern or example to be followed.⁶ While inferences are deductions of the human mind, a “necessary inference” is necessarily drawn from what the Bible implies,⁷ i.e., it is truth, not because we have inferred it but because God, through inspired writers, has implied it. 

·      Direct statements are facts, instructions, or commands that are communicated explicitly. When Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6, NKJV), no further logic or reasoning is needed to deduce what is being stated.

·      Approved examples are accounts of action that help illustrate or clarify what God expects of his people and therefore serve as a pattern (example or precedent) to be followed. Baptism is described as a burial and resurrection (Col. 2:12), and the account in Acts 8:36-39 depicts the action of baptism. The Lord’s Supper is a recurring memorial of Christ’s atoning death (1 Cor. 11:23-26), and the account in Acts 20:7 shows when it was observed by early Christians.⁸

·      Implication refers to something not directly stated but necessarily drawn from what the text conveys. Mark 1:11 reports, “Then a voice came from heaven …” The question is, whose voice? The text does not say explicitly but we can infer it was the heavenly Father’s voice, implied by the reference to Jesus as “My beloved Son” (cp. 1:1; 13:32), and confirmed by other passages (Matt. 7:21; 10:32; 2 Pet. 1:17). We read in Acts 8:35 that Philip “preached Jesus” to the Ethiopian official, which resulted in his request to be baptized (v. 36). The implication is, preaching Jesus is inclusive of baptism.

If all other forms of communication effectively operate by way of these interpretive parameters, why should the Bible be approached any differently? While the traditional CENI methodology may assume other basic interpretive principles (to be discussed in our next post), it is still subject to abuse (e.g. proof-texting), omission (e.g. not considering contextual matters), resulting in faulty conclusions and unnecessary brotherhood divisions. It is necessary, therefore, for us to dig deeper, broaden our exegetical horizons, and fill in any exegetical gaps. To be continued … 

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     1 I. Howard Marshall, “Introduction,” in NT Interpretation 15. See also Ralph P. Martin, “Approaches to New Testament Exegesis,” in I. Howard Marshall, ed. NT Interpretation 220-51. For descriptions and critiques of additional methods, see D. R. Dungan, Hermeneutics 58 ff.; also Gene Taylor, Hermeneutics: How to Study the Bible 11-12.

     ² The so-called “Roman Road to Salvation” (popular in a number of denominational tracts) cherry-picks selected verses from the epistle to the Romans to create a seemingly biblical case for salvation by faith alone, but in so doing context is ignored and allusions to obedience and baptism (e.g. Rom. 1:5; 2:8; 6:1-18; 10:16; 16:19, 26) are curiously omitted.

     ³ Also called Grammatico-Historical, this methodology stands in contrast to the more philosophical historical-critical method (or “higher criticism”) that is chiefly concerned with the origins of an ancient text and reconstructing the historical situation behind it, often dismissing the divine element, and includes sub-disciplines like source criticism, form criticism, and redaction criticism.

     ⁴ Reader-response theory is less concerned about authorial intent and focuses more on audience perception. The more extreme advocates of the “new hermeneutic” deny any objective truth based on the original intended meaning, arguing for multiple valid meanings according to the subjective reasoning of interpreters.

     ⁵ See N. B. Hardeman, Hardeman’s Tabernacle Sermons (Nashville, TN: GA, 1975): 4:46-59.

     ⁶ See Thomas B. Warren, When is an “Example” Binding? (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press, 1975).

     ⁷ Opponents of this principle typically object to the prospect of fallible human reasoning but fail to consider the “necessary” aspect. If an inference is necessary, no other conclusion can legitimately be drawn.

     ⁸ Not every account of action recorded in scripture is to be imitated today (e.g. Matt. 3:4). As a general rule, there must be an implied or understood requirement behind it to make it relevant as an approved example. 

Related Posts: Biblical Exegesis Part 1, Part 3

Image credit: https://bibleevidences.com/archaeological-evidence/