Dr. Charles Wood: Bible Study

Basic to Bible study. I am deeply interested in accurate Biblical interpretation and work with certain basic assumptions. In the light of some recent events, I think it is time to review some of the basics that form the platform from which I operate when dealing with God’s Word.

1. I believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. That means that I believe that the Bible means what it obviously says. Metaphor, hyperbole, anthropomorphism, figurative language, etc., are almost always evident to even a casual reader and should be taken as such.
   
2. The Bible was written to real people in a real time frame. Certainly it applies to us, but it was initially written to real people in real time. Before doing any further work on translation or interpretation, I think it essential to consider what those who originally received the sacred text would have understood it to mean. Surely, especially in the Old Testament, there are passages that reveal truth for future generations that would not be completely clear to the original readers, but these portions are normally restricted to prophetic themes, they are not incredibly frequent, and they are much rarer in the New Testament outside Revelation.
   
3. No passage of Scripture can be properly interpreted to be in contradiction to any other passage of Scripture or to the general tenor of Scripture as a whole. Accepting the full, verbal inspiration of Scripture by the Holy Spirit, to allow for contradictions between passages, etc., would raise the issue of contradictions within the perfection of the God-head. It was called the “analogy of faith” in Seminary, and I consider it to be incredibly important. Consistent application of this rule of interpretation - in my opinion - would clarify much confusion.
   
4. The “history of doctrine” is very important. It is not impossible for a new interpretation, etc., to be found by careful scholars; it is highly unlikely such would take place given 2,000 years of intensive Bible study with the results of much of it readily available to us. If you have found a new and striking interpretation of a passage but can’t find any support for it in historic theology, you are likely wrong!
   
5. Direct Biblical precepts are binding and not subject to negotiation. There are many matters in Scripture which are clearly stated to be right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable, and permissible or impermissible. We are simply not faced with any options regarding those matters. We can ignore them, dismiss them with the “findings of modern Biblical scholarship,” or otherwise seek to negate or rescind them in practice, but “the Word of God stands sure.” End of argument!
   
6. There is surely a place for deduced principles in our thinking and even in our belief systems. Human logic is a gift from God, and there is no reason for it to be suspended. Many have made very strong cases for or against certain beliefs or practices based on logical deduction, and many of those deductions appear to be a proper and wise use of logic and reason. There is, however, never the same degree of validity for deductive reasoning that there is for specific Biblical statement. The Baptist distinctive of individual soul liberty comes into play at this point also. Biblical precepts are binding and determinative among God’s people, but I believe that no one has the Biblical right to impose the results of his deductive reasoning as binding and determinative on any other believer or group of believers. Without meaning to be unkind, could I suggest that the fact that you are satisfied with the results of your deductive reasoning does not necessarily place those results on the same level as Scripture or make those results binding on me (in other words, the fact that you are convinced you are right does not necessarily make it so). Personally, I find it rather hypocritical that many who would impose their deducted conclusions on others are often very careless in identifying and heeding Biblical precepts themselves.
   
7. This last principle springs out of principles #2 and #6. Believing as I do that Scripture was originally written to common people and designed to be understood by them, I am always a bit suspicious when it takes four or five single-spaced pages to explicate the position one takes on a specific passage. I do not necessarily reject such out-of-hand, but I must admit that my skepticism grows proportionately with the amount of logic it takes to demonstrate its validity. The question that always comes to my mind is: would the people who originally received this message (or any other person simply coming to the Bible and taking it to mean what it says it means) come to this conclusion? If not, then it would appear that there is reason for some skepticism regarding the interpretation.
   

Now, I am not a theologian or even what I would call a Bible scholar, but for the past fifty-one years I have sought to interpret the Scriptures in such a way that I could give the people to whom I was preaching or teaching an accurate picture of what the passage actually taught so that my applications would have genuine relationship to its real meaning. I have found this a safe approach. – Dr. Charles Wood

Comment: through the courtesy of Cogitations which is a free email distribution from Dr. Warren Vanhetloo, a retired seminary professor