Knowable Word

Helping ordinary people learn to study the Bible

Copyright © 2012–2026 DiscipleMakers, except guest articles (copyright author). Used by permission.

You are here: Home / Archives for Interpretation

Not Every Interesting Detail is Important

By

anonymous (2011), public domain

anonymous (2011), public domain

As Christians learn to study the Bible, we pay more attention to the details. We notice repeated words, names, grammar, and genre. We train our eyes to spot anything surprising or out of place.

What we do with these observations is just as important as making them in the first place. Observing the text is like stocking the pantry. We gather raw materials, but we don’t know what we need until it’s time to cook.

The Problem with Interesting Details

Most of our Biblical observations arise because a detail captures our attention. We’re interested in a certain feature, conversation, or nuance in the text.

Yet when we move from observation to interpretation, we must be careful. Though there might be curious or compelling details in the passage, we should try to zero in on the main point. We’re likely to miss what God has for us if we concentrate on what is intriguing instead of what is most important.

Ideally, we should give our attention and thought to themes and details in proportion to their importance. Granted, we don’t usually know the major thrust of a passage until we’ve spent some time with it. But if we want to land on the main point, we should give our energy to the evidence and supporting truths that point in that direction. If we camp out on curiosities, we might be off the mark when stating the main point. And if we miss the main point, our application might be unnecessary or misdirected.

Additionally, we should avoid the trap of speculation. If we get obsessed with a detail or surprise in the passage, we’ll wonder why it’s there. When we interpret, we’ll try to answer related questions even though the answers are nowhere to be found in the text. While enjoyable on an intellectual level, this is merely spinning our wheels—expending mental energy without making progress.

What’s Important?

The natural question, then, is this: How do I know if a detail is important? How do we know what to keep and what to discard?

Here’s the brief answer. If it leads to the main point, it’s important. If it doesn’t, it’s not.

In other words, when you follow the author’s train of thought, is this detail included? Is information about this character or description repeated or used later in the passage? It this detail were omitted from the text, could you still make your argument about the main point?

Here’s an example. The fifth plague is described in Exodus 9:1–7, and we read in verse 6 that all the livestock of Egypt died. However, both later in chapter 9 (verse 20) as well as in chapter 14, additional livestock are mentioned. How can this be if all the livestock died? You might pay attention to the phrase “livestock which are in the field” in Exodus 9:3 and speculate about exactly where the pestilence affected the animals. You might wonder whether Egypt simply stole animals from surrounding nations after all their animals died.

We’re not told. And all the wondering and worrying distracts from the main point of the passage: God judged Egypt and not Israel. The later reappearance of livestock is an interesting detail, but not an important one.

Build on the Main Point

It’s irresponsible to build doctrine on or draw application from mere curiosities in Scripture. Some of the oddities in the Bible are interesting, but not valuable.

When you ask questions related to your observations and turn to answer them, be vigilant. Answer only answer those questions where the text provides an explicit answer or one drawn through reasonable deduction.

We honor the Lord as we draw our main doctrine and application from the main points of Scripture. And to get to the main point, we must make sure to focus on what’s important, and not only what’s interesting.

Thanks for visiting Knowable Word! If you like this article, you might be interested in receiving regular updates from us. You can sign up for our email list (enter your address in the box on the upper right of this page), follow us on Facebook or Twitter, or subscribe to our RSS feed. 

Does Genesis Have Two Creation Accounts?

By

How are Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 related? Benjamin Shaw states the issue as follows:

One often hears the idea that there are two creation accounts in Genesis 1–2, almost as if it were intuitively obvious. There are certainly differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. But the question is whether we have here two separate accounts of creation that have been joined together by some much later editor, or whether we have one unified account with different emphases. The former view came from the skeptical scholarship that arose from the Enlightenment. The latter has, for millennia, been the view of the church.

He goes on to briefly defend the latter “traditional” view. What do you think? Does he make a persuasive case? Does he show it from the text?

Regardless of whether you think Genesis presents one creation account or two, can you do more than simply assert your position? Can you demonstrate from the text itself that your conclusion is how the original author intended the text to be read?

Check it out!

Bible Interpretation that Dignifies God as Original Author

By

Jacob Toman has a thoughtful post on how to think about Bible interpretation. It is quite common and tempting to interpret the Bible in a way that focuses on “what it means to me.” However:

When we read and interpret the Bible, we should seek to do so in a manner that if we were to have a conversation with God, God would have no corrections for us. This means our interpretation should defer to what God intended in a passage, and also how God chose to communicate that passage, through a historical writer. 

Any meaning that God himself would disagree with, however meaningful it may be to the reader, fails to dignify God or do justice to his truth.

Check it out!

Framing the Book of Revelation from the Beginning

By

Have you been confused by the book of Revelation? Has your confusion kept you from reading or studying it? James Durham is here to help.

In this post, Durham walks clause by clause through the book’s first three verses to show you how to frame the book. How are we to approach this book, and what did the author seek to communicate? This is a revelation after all—a showing forth and disclosing. It was never meant to be an illusion or obfuscation.

It may look very presumptuous to read this book, or attempt to explain it. Indeed there is need of much humility and soberness in going about such a work, and much need that the Spirit of Jesus Christ, who has given this book as a benefit to His church, would help us to take it up rightly…

Yet its subject matter is very profitable and comforting to the church, to the end of the world. And when Christ gave it, as His last will and word to His church, his aim in doing so was to give a revelation, to make known His mind to them. This is why John is forbidden to seal it up – so that it would remain open for the good of His church. There is also plenty to motivate us and encourage us to read and search into it, for example the blessing in verse 3, “Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy,” a saying which is repeated again after the prophetic part is immediately closed (chapter 22:7,14).

These all add up to notable encouragements, not only to try to read and seek to understand the Book of the Revelation, but also to lay it on us as a duty. We therefore resolve, through God’s grace, to attempt it, so that it will not be altogether useless to the “servants of God” to whom it is sent, according to verse 1.

Check it out!

Wise Commentary Use With Leah’s Weak Eyes

By

My pal Mark Ward has a wonderful piece at the Logos Word by Word blog, where he models exceptionally wise usage of commentaries to help him answer a specific question: What does it mean that Leah’s eyes were weak (Gen 29:16-17)? Ward is not so arrogant as to ignore the commentaries altogether, and he is not so slavish as to read only one commentary and accept the conclusions without inspection. He examines many commentaries, explores the nature of a variety of conclusions, and he takes the debate with him right back into the text to make up his own mind.

With something as simple as Leah’s doe-eyes, here’s what I would do: I’d land. I’d land without telling everybody where I’d flown. I’d stick with the intuitive—to me—opposition the text sets up, in which “weak eyes” are contrasted with Rachel’s beauty. And I’d appeal back to my gut feeling as someone who loves and knows language; I’d explain the text as an idiom communicating, in a delicate way, that Leah wasn’t quite the looker Rachel was.

His conclusion is rather straightforward, but the road he traveled to get there is deeply instructive. I commend it to you as a path you ought to follow him on when you have similar questions. For further reflection on this sort of methodology when using commentaries, see my ten commandments for commentary usage and the explanatory posts that have followed.

Check it out!

Facts vs. Implications in Commentaries

By

My eighth commandment for commentary usage is:

You shall distinguish, in the commentaries, between evidence-based observations of the text (such as Hebrew or Greek syntax or wordplay, historical context, or comparative ancient near eastern literature) and reasoned interpretations of the text. You shall remain aware that the first category is more likely to contain factual data that must be accounted for, and the second category is more likely to contain opinions to be weighed and considered alongside alternatives.

My purpose here is simply to discern between differing types of information, which ought to provoke different responses as we make use of commentaries. Thereby, a commentary is something like a pie a la mode, where the pie and the ice cream dwell in symbiotic union to make a dessert worthy of one’s salivary attention. A single act of consumption yields a combination of treasures and delights.

Photo by Laura Seaman on Unsplash

The Objectivity of Observation

When a commentary observes the text, the author is stating things that are objectively verifiable. Observation could perhaps be considered the science of Bible study.

For example:

  • The tenses of verbs.
  • Repetitions and word play.
  • Comparisons and contrasts.
  • Grammar and syntax.
  • Pronouns and antecedents.
  • The historical setting and background of the author and audience (when knowable).
  • Cultural context of the characters or events described in the text.

Such things are nearly always binary: True or false, correct or incorrect. If a verb occurs in the past tense (or “aorist,” if the commentator references the Greek New Testament), it is not a present or future tense. Whether a word is repeated ought not be up for debate but can be objectively perceived and verified. And commentaries can be especially helpful for pointing out such things as tenses, repetitions, and syntax that are less clear in English translation.

Commentaries are also especially helpful for pointing out historical and cultural artifacts that most people today might not be aware of when they read a text. Why are the Pharisees so bothered by Jesus healing people on the sabbath (and what is a “sabbath,” anyway?)? Why does Jesus climb onto a boat to preach? What is a mina? Why is it that, whenever people head south to Jerusalem, the text says they are going up to the city?

In addition, commentaries may draw attention to quotations or allusions to prior texts (such as New Testament texts referring to Old Testament texts, though it also happens within the Old Testament itself as well) that are easy to miss without being steeped in the breadth of Scripture yourself. So when a commentator is observing something, rejoice and be glad for the assistance provided to your visual impairment.

The Debatability of Interpretation

By contrasting observation’s “objectivity” with interpretation’s “debatability,” I am not suggesting that interpretation is merely subjective or relative. No, I’m only distinguishing between the truth of facts and the truth of facts’ implications. For example, you cannot credibly dispute the claim that my name is Peter. But you can credibly dispute whether I am a trustworthy person. The first thing is akin to Bible observation; the second is akin to Bible interpretation.

When commentaries move beyond what the text says and enter the realm of what the text means, they are moving from the facts to the facts’ implications. We ought to recognize the difference, because facts that are truly facts ought to be received as facts. And interpretations ought not to be received as facts. Interpretations could be wrong. Or they could be improved. Or they might be slightly off-center and require adjustment.

And remember that my fourth commandment was to never read only one commentary. By reading two or more, you will glimpse the manifold interpretive debates among scholars regarding the best way to interpret a text. Let each commentator make their best argument, and let those debates drive you back into the text to make up your own mind.

Conclusion

At this blog we want to help you learn to study the Bible. That means learning how to observe, interpret, and apply. As you learn this method, you will also learn to discern how others, such as commentators, use the method. This enables you to distinguish between the commentators’ observations, which—when accurate—ought to be received as facts, and the commentators’ interpretations, which are better when weighed and considered alongside alternatives.

In short, reading commentaries is another way to learn how to think. How to improve your own observation, interpretation, and application. Don’t miss out on that benefit by reading commentaries uncritically. It would be like skipping dessert when the pie is offered a la mode.

The Problem With “Just Me and My Bible”

By

I appreciate Ryan Griffith’s reflections on how Bible study must be “Not Just Me and My Bible.” Though the Reformation gave us the slogan sola scriptura (Scripture alone), we must avoid twisting it into solo scriptura (only the Bible).

There is profound danger in being disconnected from Christian tradition. Prosperity preaching, bizarre personality cults, rigorous legalism, and freewheeling libertinism are all poisons passed along to unsuspecting Christians in part because of biblical preparation that has abandoned the wisdom of the ancients.

What is more, such false teaching is sometimes justified by teachers who claim to be “Bible-only” people. They assert the validity of their interpretation by wrongly arguing that the Bible is the Christian’s only theological resource and that anyone who counters with an argument from church history has forgotten what the Reformation stood for. Whether from malice or ignorance, they can twist the Scriptures to a wrong end — a pattern of brokenness that has its root in the first garden. Unfortunately, sometimes we eat what they serve because we, too, have lost sight of the biblical value of knowing Scripture together.

While well intentioned, this rejection of tradition or help from the outside ends up causing shipwreck. Remember, we need community to apply the Bible.

Check it out!

What Not to Do with Difficult Passages

By

Elliot Clark has a wonderful piece entitled “6 Wrong Ways to Approach Difficult Bible Passages.” I am certainly guilty of a few of these. How about you?

  1. Avoid hard texts
  2. Exaggerate their significance
  3. Assume correct interpretation is simple
  4. Assume correct interpretation is inaccessible
  5. Research texts like a cold technician
  6. Query the Bible as judge and jury

Clark’s counsel is both concise and practical. For example, regarding point 2:

As I recently prepared to teach from 1 Timothy 2—one of the most controversial chapters in the Bible—I was struck by Paul’s primary command: urging prayer in the church. This focus is often obscured by the more controversial aspects of the chapter. Yet if we spend all our time thinking about a Christian’s relationship to government or women’s roles in the church and never address our calling, posture, and purpose in prayer, we’ve missed the main point. We’ve made the reader’s questions and concerns preeminent.

These errors are worth your consideration. Check it out!

How Nineteenth-Century Americans Used the Bible to Support Both Slavery and Abolition

By

You might be aware of the fact that many Christians used the Bible to support southern slavery in early U.S. history. Did you also know that many people used the Bible to support abolition? How is it possible that groups of people can all believe in the basic truth that the Bible is God’s word, communicating truth to us, and yet reach opposite conclusions on such huge issues?

We can see the same thing playing out with respect to many other issues today: customs for worship, preaching, and church life. Doctrines surrounding sacraments, church government, salvation, and the moral law. Political issues such as immigration, financial policy, and foreign intervention. Social issues such as abortion, race relations, homosexuality, and gender ideology. On nearly any issue, it is not difficult to find people who claim to believe the Bible, who also make use of the Bible to support contradictory positions from one another.

Why is that? How can the same book be used for so many contradictory perspectives?

Photo by Florian Schmetz on Unsplash

An Answer Worth Considering

While there is a complex range of factors contributing to such a complex situation, there is at least one factor we ought to give more attention to: How are people reading and understanding the Bible? What assumptions do they bring to this ancient book that shape the very methods by which they employ it in support of one position or another?

For example, one person presumes that the most literal, surface reading of a given text ought to be the most persuasive reading. Another person wants to string together a collection of verses that all appear to address a particular topic. Another focuses on their systematic theological system as the governing framework for reading any part of the Bible. Another wants to read the text the same way the heroes of old (or a subset of heroes of old) read it. Yet another wants to read the Bible in tandem with other ancient or modern texts that seem to be saying similar things.

My point is simply that we must not only observe the fact that someone makes use of the Bible to support a position. We must also take note of how they are using the Bible to support a position.

A Conversation Worth Your Time

The thing that spawned these reflections within me was a conversation I just listened to, published by the Mars Hill Audio Journal as one of their Friday Features. The host, Ken Myers, interviewed historian Mark Noll regarding his research on how nineteenth-century Americans went about using the Bible in support of either slavery or abolition in their debates. For now, you can find the interview here. I recommend listening to it as soon as you can, as I cannot promise how long it will remain on their site.

Noll discusses how Christians on both sides of the slavery debate resorted to “proof-texting” to make their case, yet the pro-slavery side tended to be better at it (i.e. more persuasive). Many of the proof-texted arguments in favor of the institution of slavery had no clear rebuttal, and as a result many abolitionists were forced to confess that, while the Bible permits the institution of slavery, they just couldn’t support the American expression of it. This led the pro-slavery camp to instill fear that abolition was simply the beginning of the slippery slope toward denying biblical authority at all.

There were a few shining (abolitionist) stars along the way, however, who were able to demonstrate abolitionist conclusions from biblical texts, through careful contextual study of those texts, tracing the unfolding revelation of God over time. In that day, however, proof-texting was believed to be the best way to arrive at truth, so such careful theological and contextual arguments often went unnoticed or unregarded.

I am confident I am not doing full justice to Noll’s research. So again, I commend to you the recording of his conversation with Myers for more detailed nuance and explanation. I commend it to you highly, as an example of why it is crucial that we not merely quote Bible verses but study them in context so as to grasp the larger arguments of the original authors. How we study the Bible matters.

Do Your Best

By

My third commandment for commentary usage is:

You shall make every effort to form interpretive conclusions or questions about interpretations before consulting a commentary.

Is this because I think you won’t need any help?

Photo by Jason Strull on Unsplash

The Short Answer

No.

A More Nuanced Answer

I’m not suggesting that you utterly bar yourself from the insights of commentaries early in your Bible study process. Last week, I suggested that different kinds of questions need different methods for finding the answers. That’s why this third commandment says that you shall make every effort to form interpretive conclusions or questions about interpretations before consulting a commentary.

In other words, if your question is more observational in nature, then go ahead and consult a commentary. Find quickly those answers ye seek. Do you just need a map? Do you need a historical tidbit? Do you not remember a proper name? Is a particular term unfamiliar to you? Just do it. Take a look; get some help.

This third commandment focuses on the process of interpretation, after observation (or in light of it). And my exhortation to you is to learn how to do the work for yourself. Paul told Timothy to “do your best” in his handling of Scripture (2 Tim 2:15). The standard for evaluation is not getting everything perfect, but for personal progress to be visible (1 Tim 4:15).

So to make progress, you need to learn how to wrestle with the text. You need foster your curiosity and learn how to investigate. You need to gain more confidence from the text than from the experts.

So I encourage you to do your own work first. Observe and interpret, all the way up to the point where you have a guess at the author’s main point. Once there, you’re in the best position to read and consider what others have said about your text. You’ll have firm footing from which to evaluate what they say, testing everything, that you may hold fast to what is good and reject what is bad (1 Thess 5:20-22).

Six Reasons You Should Have Your Own Interpretive Ideas Before Consulting a Commentary

  1. “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him” (Prov 18:17). The first commentary you read will likely seem to be right. Unless it’s not your first time reflecting that deeply on the text.
  2. Commentators often disagree with one another. Why shouldn’t you be able to disagree with them when necessary?
  3. Commentators often change their minds from their earlier writings to their later writings. They are constantly re-evaluating and re-thinking their conclusions based on new insights into the text. So why shouldn’t you do the same with their conclusions?
  4. It is more important for you to make progress in your ability to handle the word than for you to have perfect answers for any given text. If you can get answers only by reading a commentary, what happens if you lose access to your commentaries? Or can’t find a decent one for the next book you study?
  5. If you teach, people will ask you questions the commentary may not have answered. If you haven’t learned to answer your own questions from the text, how will you help others learn how to do that?
  6. Over-reliance or premature reliance on commentaries comes dangerously close to establishing those commentators as a high priestly class through whom your relationship with God is mediated. Jesus died to tear the veil and give you access to the very mind and heart of God through his word.

For the Record

And less you misunderstand my perspective, let me repeat: Once you have a guess at the author’s main point, consult some commentaries! You should welcome the help. It would not be wise to cut yourself off from the trained insights of others to guide you toward even further progress. Do your best.