Written by 40 men over a period of at least 1,600 years, the Bible utilizes the same idioms and symbolism are throughout-evidence that this is meant to be one unified message. Yet many today believe that one part of it is in radical contradiction with another. This could only happen if faulty assumptions were employed in the interpreting.
So how should we approach Yahweh's word? How can we recognize and avoid the pitfalls that others have fallen into?
Perhaps the most common way Scripture is misinterpreted is taking particular verses out of their immediate context. For example, Yahshua the Messiah says, "What goes into the man from outside cannot defile him." (Mark 7:18) If we had that verse and nothing else, we could surmise that it doesn't matter what we eat. But if we check the context, it's clear that He was only talking about eating with unwashed hands, and teaching that if one's heart is already defiled, washing one's hands before eating won't make one spiritually pure. Some of the Apostle Paul's statements are also taken to mean we may now eat any kind of food. But again, the context is about food offered to idols, not particular kinds of meat. Why does this distinction matter? Because taking it the other way would require abrogating commands Yahweh had said were to be statutes forever.
A major foundational principle is: "To the Torah and to the Testimony! If they do not speak in agreement with this word, they have no light..." (Isaiah 8:20) Romans, Hebrews, and Galatians are especially often taken to say that Yahweh cancelled certain commands He'd given earlier. But if we've read Isaiah, we know that if that were the case, we could not trust them.
Yahshua Himself warned that we must not understand anything He would say to mean that He was abolishing the Torah, and that anyone who did teach that would be considered least in His Kingdom. (Mat. 5:19) The Covenant could be renewed with some adaptations or added features, but not done away with. Rather, the renewed version sets the earlier on a firmer foundation.
So we also mustn't take a verse (or whole book) out of the context of the rest of Scripture.
Just because part of it was written in Greek doesn't mean it is to be read with a Greek system of logic. Greek was simply a trade language that made it easier to get the message of the restoration of the "lost sheep of the House of Israel" to those scattered into many lands. It is much more helpful to consider how the equivalent phrases were used in Hebrew than to study the ways words or phrases in the New Testament were used in other Greek writings. Bivin and Blizzard cite many examples of this in Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus. (The list of study materials on the back panel will also help, but of course the best way to understand is to learn Hebrew!)
How have the Jews interpreted Scripture? They're the ones who have preserved its language! (Not that they were always right; there was much political intrigue surrounding rabbinical authority too. But it does bring us 2,000 years closer to how the original audience heard it.) One helpful method they offer shows by an acrostic on the Hebrew word for "Paradise" that Scripture can be interpreted on several levels:
(1) Peshat: The literal, straightforward meaning is a given. Archaeology has shown ample evidence that the Bible's historical details are factual. When Daniel read that Jeremiah decreed 70 years of captivity, he expected it to mean literally 70 years, and it was-to the very day. He himself specified the exact day the Messiah would be revealed, and Yah-shua held Judah accountable for not recognizing it. So unless a passage is clearly poetic (Song of Solomon's "your neck is a tower"), none of the secondary interpretations preclude also taking it literally.
(2) Remez: Allusions to other Scriptures that use the same words in the original language. Though the contexts may be different on the literal level, the use of the same word often points to a hidden connection. The first usage of a word in Scripture sets the tone for a specialized meaning it may have throughout. The best light on the meaning of a term comes from how it was used earlier in Scripture itself.
So when we see Yahshua ask a non-Jewish woman at a well to draw water for Him, our minds should race back to the story of Isaac and Rebekah, and see Him is seeking His "Bride" among His estranged relatives (of which the Samaritans were one example). When He multiplies fish on land, we have to think back to Genesis 48:16, which says Ephraim and Manasseh will "multiply like fish in the midst of the land". When He tells His disciples to go as "fishers of men", we have to think back to the promise in Jeremiah 16:16. A thorough knowledge of what came before is a crucial prerequisite to study of the New Testament; if you do not know it well, Paul's writings in particular will only confuse you (2 Peter 3:16).
(3) D'rash: Inferences drawn by taking the historical events of Scripture as ethical precedents for our everyday lives: "What kind of 'giants' are you facing today?", etc. This is the type of interpretation the church emphasizes by far the most often-the spiritual application. But Scripture strongly suggests that belonging to Messiah usually means one has a literal connection to Israel too, not just spiritual. (Gal. 3:29)
Hebraic thinking is "both/and", not "either/or" -overlapping more than discrete; the Kingdom is "here now but not yet". Yahshua clarified the relationship between the covenants by saying we should indeed obey the letter, but not forget the much more important spirit behind it. (Mat. 23:23) When Paul says we serve "not in the letter, but the spirit" (2 Cor. 3:6; Rom. 2:29; 7:6), it is a Hebrew idiom for where to place the most emphasis; it doesn't exclude the other. (Acts 21:20; Rev. 12:17)
(4) Sowd: "Mysteries"-not things that can't be understood, but deeper meanings hinted at by certain features of the text, often with a specialized reference only discovered later, like Jeremiah's 30 pieces of silver. When Matthew saw a Messianic prophecy in the verse, "Out of Egypt I called My son" (2:15), though the original context was about Israel as a whole, he was interpreting it in a legitmately Hebraic way. Much of what Paul wrote was interpretation at this level; if it is taken as peshat, much confusion results.
What does it mean to "divide" the Word? It means that when we read, "No weapon that is formed against you shall prosper", we need to ask who it is speaking to. Not every command or promise is for everyone. Some are for men, others only for women or priests. Others are directed only to Judah or to the Northern Kingdom.
There are no scientific inaccuracies in the Bible when the language is understood properly, but it is intended more to inform us about its primary theme, redemption, than, say, astronomical facts.
The overarching context of all of Scripture is the restoration of the Man with whom Yahweh spoke face to face in the Garden, through the nation of Israel. Prophesying of the Messiah, the focal point of Israel, who accomplished our redemption, David said, "In the volume of the book it is written about Me". (Psalm 40:7) Each detail of the Bible somehow points to a characteristic of Messiah or what He came (and will come) to do, which includes the restoration of the lost sheep of Israel to His covenant of holiness. If your interpretation doesn't ultimately relate to these, you may be missing the main point.