When Bible authors condemn and oppose something, what exactly are the writers opposing?  Quite often, the real point of opposition does not lie easily and fully exposed upon the surface of the text.  What are they against when, for example, they oppose "adultery" or "fornication”?  Are the authors always against this thing?  On the other hand, is their opposition related to specific cultural, social or religious circumstances?

Moreover, what exactly is a Bible author requiring when we read a "command”?  Is this command required of all people for all times?  Is it specific to Israelites only?  Does it relate to a purely cultural phenomenon?

These are the first questions that should be asked and answered.  One cannot be honest with self or others regarding such issues, unless one is positive he understands what the Biblical author means by the words he uses.  Simply because an English translation uses a word, does not automatically mean that our English word exactly represents the original intent of an author who used either a Greek or a Hebrew word.  If one wants to know the meaning of a prohibition, one must first determine exactly what it is the author of the prohibition is against.  If one wants to obey a command, he must first understand exactly what is commanded.

Commonly used words frequently suffer from our assumptions that "everyone knows what that means.”  It is too easy to take for granted that the commonly accepted meaning of a word is the correct meaning.  It is amazing to find that the authors of the Bible used a large number of words that meant to them something different from what they mean to us.  The Bible can never be understood if we do not understand the words used by the authors.  In addition, we will never understand those words unless we proceed on the assumption that every word must be examined and defined according to the best modern scholarship.  An absolute rule of thumb is this: Never assume you know what a Bible word means until you have examined it for yourself.

What we mean by an English word today is not necessarily, what the Bible writers meant when they wrote the Greek or Hebrew word, which is the source for our English word.  It is the most serious violation of any scholarly standard to assume, without inspection, thus without evidence, that a situation addressed by an ancient author, is the same phenomenon existing in our time.  All honest Bible believers are obligated to use the Bible in such a way that we do not violate its integrity.  Vast numbers of scholarly tools exist for such study; guides also for correctly using those tools.  Entire college courses exist to teach and train students to use the available resources for scholarly Bible study.  One simply has no excuse for shoddy Bible study.

What Is The True Meaning Of The Original Words?

This is the first question to answer.  The "plain meaning of the words" does not often come from a cursory reading.  The Bible reader must be certain he understands the true definition of the words encountered, as well as the import of those words.  A good Biblical example of this is found in John 21:21-23.  Peter asks Jesus about John’s future, and Jesus replies, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?  You follow me.”  Those who heard this statement interpreted it to mean that John would not die, and they circulated that report among believers.  "Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die; but only, ‘If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?’”  Without a doubt, the disciples heard the exact words of Jesus, but they interpreted them wrongly, missing the "plain sense" of what He said, and so circulated a false report.  The church is full of exactly this kind of misinterpretation.  When we read the Bible, it must filter through everything we are, and all we have been taught, all our lives.  It must filter through our cultural baggage and psychological dispositions.  Thus, we often have difficulties understanding the "plain sense" of Scripture.  For example:

"Flesh" in Romans 13:14, e.g., does not refer to the physical body, but to man’s sinful nature.  So it is not a sign of holiness that we despise our physical bodies, as many have done, based on such negative Biblical references to "flesh”.

On the basis of "the literal reading" of 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35, many churches deny ministry for women, yet at the same time reject modern usage of "tongues" and "prophecy," which the "literal reading" of the same context, makes both acceptable, and actually vital to the church!  Therefore, what did Paul mean when he wrote, "women keep silence" to the Corinthians?  What did the Corinthians understand him to say?

Others take "literally" the requirement of Paul that women in church meetings wear a head covering, (1 Corinthians 11:1ff).  The verses surrounding that requirement make it specifically applicable to women who "pray and prophesy.”  Yet the "literalists”, who require the head covering, refuse to allow women to pray and prophesy in the church!  Should we not all, based on the "literal reading" of Mark 16:18, handle snakes and drink poison? 

The "plain sense" of John 13:14, 15 is the basis of some churches having "foot washing" services.  All "mainline" Christian churches reject this interpretation.  Who is right?  Why are they right?  What did Jesus mean when he said, "you should do as I did to you?"

Can we follow Jesus if we do not "sell all we have and give to the poor”, Mark 10:21?  Since this is a command directly from the mouth of Jesus, why is it not mandatory for all of us?  Even though He spoke to an individual, was He not establishing the principle for a communist society?  Does the "approved apostolic example" of the disciples selling their property and bringing it to the Apostles for distribution to the poor, Acts 4:32-37, reinforce the mandate for the church being communistic?  What do Jesus’ words mean to us? How do we interpret the action of those selfless saints?

Jesus’ "literal words" were "it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye…”, Mark 10:24, 25.  Many interpret Jesus as referring to "a gate in Jerusalem called "the needle’s eye through which a camel could crawl if it had been unburdened…”  This "interpretation" makes it possible for a camel to go through a needle’s eye.  Yet Jesus’ intended meaning in these words was that it is impossible for one who trusts riches to go to Heaven, (vs. 27)!  So why would Jesus begin to make such an emphatic point, only to destroy its force with His illustration!  The thorough researcher will discover that there never was such a gate in Jerusalem.  The first mention of such is in a commentary by Theophylact, in the 11th century.  It was his invention, to try to "explain" this difficult Scripture.  Jesus meant this: It takes a miracle for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, and it takes a miracle for a rich man to be saved.  Understanding this requires more than a cursory reading.  It requires the ability to avoid "gimmicky" explanations of difficult Scriptures.

The answer to such difficulties and differences of interpretation is not "just read without interpreting," or "just take it literally”.  The answer is to interpret fairly and correctly, considering all available evidence.  Exegesis is careful, systematic, objective study of Scripture, in order to find its original, intended meaning.  Exegetical study requires us to read with the thought:

What did this mean back then and back there?

Thus, the first general principle of finding Bible truth is this: Interpret according to the original meaning of the words.  If we do not understand what the words originally meant, we cannot understand the message of the Bible.

Consider also that an isolated word is not always clear.  What do you think of if we say "trunk?”  Are we referring to an elephant’s "trunk”, a large container, the baggage compartment of an automobile, or the base of a tree?  If we say, "light”, are we thinking of an electrical bulb, or of an object that is not heavy?  If the word is "desert”, does it mean "to abandon," or "a barren land”?  In Revelation 5:5, "lion" refers to Christ, but in 1 Peter 5:8 it refers to Satan.  Does it mean the same in both places?

Correct understanding of words depends on two factors:

Words used in translation change meaning over time.  Consider "prevent" (KJV) in 1Thessalonians 4:15, versus "go before" (NASB, others).  Which is the correct meaning?  There are two ways to know:

•  Find the true definition of the original Greek word -The word Paul wrote actually meant; "go before”, to both Paul and his original readers.
•  Examine the context surrounding the word - In our example, vs. 16 confirms the meaning "go before.”  Both the original meaning of the word and its context agree.

Sometimes translators use only one English word as the translation for several different Greek words.  In the NT there are several different Greek words, all of which are translated by the one English word "praise", (cf. John 9:24 KJV; Ephesians 1:6; Hebrews 2:12; 1 Peter 4:11).  Each word has a different meaning.  If the student is not aware of this and does not study to see what each word actually means, the student will not understand what the NT is communicating to us about the practice of "praise”.

To "get to the bottom of things”, in Bible study, one must understand the exact meaning of the original words used by the authors.