The first stage in serious Bible study is to consider the larger context within which a passage is found. Unless we can grasp the whole before attempting to dissect the parts, interpretation is doomed from the start. Statements simply have no meaning apart from their context.

Two areas must be considered at the beginning of Bible study: the historical context and the logical context.

• Under the first category we study introductory material on the biblical book in order to determine the situation to which the book was addressed.

• Under the second category we use an inductive approach in order to trace the thought development of a book.

Both aspects are necessary before we begin a detailed analysis of a particular passage. The historical and logical contexts provide the scaffolding on which we can build the in-depth meaning of a passage. Without a strong scaffolding, the edifice of interpretation is bound to collapse.

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT#

Information on the historical background of a book is available from several sources. Perhaps the best single source is the introduction to the better commentaries. Many contain quite detailed, up-to-date summaries of the issues. It is important to consult recent, well-researched works because of the explosion of information uncovered in the last few decades.

Old Testament or New Testament introductions are also a tremendous help, since they interact more broadly than a commentary normally does. A third source would be dictionaries and encyclopedias, with separate articles not only on books but on authors, themes and background issues. Archeological works and atlases enable us to grasp the topography behind a book. With books like Joshua or Judges, indeed all historical narrative, this is a critical consideration.

Finally, books on customs and culture in the biblical period are invaluable sources to help us grasp the historical background behind particular emphases in the text.

The information we gather from them is not final truth but rather becomes a blueprint, a basic plan that we can alter later when the edifice of interpretation is actually being erected.

The value of this preliminary reading is that it draws us out of our twenty-first-century perspective and makes us aware of the ancient situation behind the text. We need to consider several aspects here.

1. In one sense the authorship is more important for historical-critical research than for grammatical-historical exegesis. However, this aspect still helps us to place a book historically.

2. The date when a particular work was written also gives us an interpretive set of tools for unlocking the meaning of a text.

3. The group to which a work is addressed plays a major role in the meaning of a passage. Their circumstances determine the content of the book.

4. The purpose and themes are probably the most important of the four areas as an aid to interpretation. We should not study any passage without a basic knowledge of the problems and situation addressed in the book and the themes with which the writer addressed those problems.

5. The information we glean from the sources becomes a filter through which the individual passages may be passed. This preliminary material is open to later correction during the detailed exegesis or study of the passage.

THE LOGICAL CONTEXT#

In a very real sense the logical context is the most basic factor in interpretation. The term itself covers a vast array of influences on a text. These can best be diagrammed as a series of concentric circles moving outward from the passage itself.

As we move nearer the center, the influence on the meaning of the passage increases. Genre, for instance, identifies the type of literature and helps the interpreter to identify parallels, but these are not as influential as the rest of Scripture is on the passage. We can, for example, identify the book of Revelation as apocalyptic, yet although intertestamental and Hellenistic apocalyptic provide important parallels, most of the symbols are taken from the Old Testament.

At the other end of the scale the immediate context is the final arbiter for all decisions regarding the meaning of a term or concept. There is no guarantee that Paul uses a term the same way in Philippians 1 as he does in Philippians 2. Language simply does not work that way, for every word has many meanings and a writer’s use depends on the present context rather than his use of it in previous contexts.

Two aspects comprise what is often called “inductive Bible study”; namely, charting the whole of a book and diagramming the paragraph. An inductive approach normally means an intensive, personal study of a text without recourse to other study aids or tools like commentaries.

This critical control protects us from being overly influenced by the commentaries and other sources as we study the text more deeply. We must first form my own opinions before we can interact with other people’s conclusions. Otherwise, we will simply parrot these other ideas.

1. Studying the whole: Charting a book#

Only when the message of the whole passage is considered can the parts be studied for details of this central message. In reality, the hermeneutical process can be summarized in this way:

• First, we chart the whole of a book to analyze its flow of thought in preliminary fashion;

• Next, we study each part intensively in order to detect the detailed argumentation;

• Finally, we rework the thought development of the whole in relation to the parts.

We move from the whole book to its major sections and then to its paragraphs and finally to its individual sentences.

Mortimer Adler and Charles van Doren, in their classic How to Read a Book, discuss four levels of reading:

1. elementary reading, which centers on the identity of individual terms and sentences

2. inspectional reading, which skims a book to discover its basic structure and major ideas

3. analytical reading, which studies the book in-depth in order to understand its message as completely as possible

4. syntopical reading, which compares the message with other books of a similar nature in order to construct a detailed and original analysis of the subject matter

The first two levels are inductive, the latter two are research-oriented, involving secondary literature (interpretations of the book or subject by others) as well as primary literature (the text itself).

Let us now go more deeply into the process and explore:

Step 1. The most efficient way to skim the paragraphs is with pen in hand. The value of the process is that the chart becomes a map tracing the flow of the entire book.

Step 2. After charting the book, it is time to return and look for patterns of thought in the progression of the book’s paragraphs. We need to look for breaks of thought between paragraphs and then indicate them with a single line

Paragraphs with similar material form major sections of the book and greater precision results. Some breaks of thought are quite easy to detect, such as the switch from Paul’s personal comments (Phil 1:12-26) to the Philippian situation (Phil 1:27-28) or the further switch from the Philippians to Paul’s commendation of Timothy and Epaphroditus (Phil 2:19-30). Other changes are not so easy to detect, such as the slight alteration from humility (Phil 2:1-11) to warning (Phil 2:12-18), or placing Philippians 4:1 with Philippians 3:17-21 rather than Philippians 4:2-9.

Another difficulty is the method for noting major pattern breaks. While every biblical passage has a meaningful organization, the pattern of thought often is not easy to detect. Walter Kaiser provides greater detail, listing eight “clues” for discovering such “seams” between units of thought (1981:71-72):

1. A repeated term, phrase, clause or sentence may act as the heading to introduce each part or as the colophon (tailpiece) to conclude each individual section.

2. Often there may be grammatical clues such as transitional conjunctions or adverbs; for example, “then, therefore, wherefore, but, nevertheless, meanwhile,” and the Greek words oun, de, kai, tote, dio.

3. A rhetorical question could signal a switch to a new theme and section. It may be that there also will be a series of such questions which carries forward the argument or plan of a whole section.

4. A change in the time, location or setting is a frequent device, especially in narrative contexts, to indicate a new theme and section.

5. A vocative form of address deliberately showing a shift of attention from one group to another constitutes one of the most important devices. It is often used in the epistolary type of literature.

6. A change in the tense, mood or aspect of the verb, perhaps even with a change in the subject or object, may be another clue that a new section is beginning.

7. Repetition of the same key word, proposition or concept might also indicate the boundaries of a section.

8. In a few cases, the theme of each section will be announced as a heading to that section. In those unusual cases, the interpreter need only make sure that all of the contents of the section are judged in light of the stated purpose of the author.

These basic types of breaks will aid us as we skim the paragraphs and summarize the contents. By being aware of the possibilities, we often can determine a break of thought even while preparing the chart. Even more, these breaks will be of service as we begin the more detailed exegesis.

Step 3. The final step is to subdivide the sections further into major units by virtue of double lines. This will be especially valuable in didactic books like Philippians. The process is the same as the previous stage but now involves larger thought units than paragraphs, building on the results of stage two.

This is a preliminary rather than a final outline. It represents the reader’s viewpoint and not necessarily the original author’s (which must await further study). We must recognize the ease with which our own presuppositions affect our view of the text. The reader plays a crucial role in the inductive process, and deeper study is necessary before we can arrive at the writer’s intended plan. However, the inductive method still is invaluable for providing perspective in the process of interpretation.

2. Studying the parts: Diagramming the paragraph#

When we try to chart the smaller unit (the paragraph) in similar fashion to the larger unit (the book), a vertical chart is better than the horizontal chart used previously, since the unit is smaller.

Several possible diagramming models are available. Many Greek exegesis courses use a complicated diagramming procedure in which each term is placed under the word it modifies and the relationship is explained.

Gordon Fee (1983:60-76) suggests a sentence flow diagram that is similar to but not as complicated as the grammatical chart method. Both place the subject, predicate and object at the top left-hand corner of the page and indent the subordinate terms under the words or phrases that they modify. Fee suggests annotations to explain grammatical decisions and color-coding for repeated words or themes. However, much of that is the task of more detailed deductive study and might wait for a later part of the analysis.

I prefer the simpler block diagram to word or phrase diagrams, for it functions at the clause level and provides a better overview.

The other two methods diagram every word or phrase, while the block diagram charts only major and minor clauses (or lengthy phrases). These are larger building blocks of speech, and so the three charts function at increasingly broader levels - word, phrase or clause. The block method does have some disadvantages; for instance, it does not demonstrate as many details as the other two. However, three advantages outweigh this weakness:

1. It is simpler and takes less time, thus encouraging the busy pastor or layperson to continue using it.

2. Most of the other relationships (such as adjectives, modifying nouns, adverbs or prepositional phrases modifying verbs) are fairly self-evident from the clause structure.

3. The purpose of the sentence diagram is to visualize as simply as possible the thought flow of a paragraph rather than to decide grammatical details.

The other two methods introduce too many visual complexities to do this well. Grammatical details become more evident during the exegetical study, but at this early stage such details may hurt more than help. Grammar is best left for a later stage in the process. Moreover, at the later exegetical stage, diagramming is not as important because we want to clarify details within the sentence rather than to visualize thought flow. Therefore, the sentence diagram will serve our purpose better than the detailed grammatical diagram.

The first thing to do in the sentence diagram is to distinguish between major and minor clauses. Clauses are those portions of the sentence that contain a subject and a predicate. The difference between the two is that the first can stand alone as a sentence while the second cannot. When reading through a biblical sentence for the first time, I find the best way to distinguish is to read each clause out loud to myself to see which ones form incomplete sentences and which can indeed stand by themselves. The whole purpose of diagramming is to separate the major and minor clauses and see how the flow of ideas is progressing.

There are several aspects to note in a block diagram.

• First, the arrows should point to the term modified, while the subordinate clauses or phrases are indented a half inch past the clause they modify.

• Second, there is often a series of indented clauses, as minor clauses modify other minor clauses.

• Third, parallel clauses or phrases are linked together either by an arrow (if they are subordinate like the two prepositional phrases of Eph 1:5-6) or by a bar (if they are not subordinate but coordinate, like the two nouns of v. 7).

Perhaps the best means for detecting clauses in the biblical text is to study the connecting words. This is especially true for biblical study because of the frequent employment of conjunctions in both Hebrew and Greek. We must ask whether it is a coordinating conjunction (and, but, yet, both-and, not only-but also, either-or, therefore, for, so) that indicates a parallel or main clause, or a subordinating conjunction (unless, before, after, while, when, since, because, that, if, although, though, so that, in order that, except, as, then, where) that indicates a modifying clause.

However, there are two caveats:

• First, the outline, like the diagram, must remain preliminary, subject to revision as the detailed exegesis unfolds.

• Second, while the syntactical relationships help greatly to determine major segments of thought, they do not determine them automatically.

Just as important, what is subordinate grammatically at times can have equal or greater stress than the main clause in the writer’s actual thought development. Paul is especially known for this. If the subordinate idea is given extensive clarification, it is a sign that the writer considers it to be a major stress. For example, Philippians 2:2 says, “Make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose”. Obviously, the primary emphasis is not the completion of Paul’s joy but the harmony of the Philippian church, developed in four successive subordinate phrases telling the means for bringing Paul greater joy. In the sermon outline the point would be harmony, not joy.

Diagramming the Old Testament is not nearly as helpful as in the New Testament because Hebrew does not employ as many conjunctions. Poetic as well as narrative passages primarily contain main clauses. In prose the main conjunction or “and” clause predominates. Therefore, we must look for rhetorical patterns and see where the ideas themselves change. At this point a line diagram is still helpful, as it places the sentences side by side.

RHETORICAL OR COMPOSITIONAL PATTERNS#

When diagramming the structural development of ideas in a paragraph, one often comes into contact with rhetorical techniques, that is, stylistic methods for getting across a message. This provides the third and final level of the context within which an idea is found, namely, the macro level of the organizational pattern in the book as a whole and the intermediate levels of the paragraph and the compositional techniques used within those paragraphs.

Rhetorical studies often have confused the formal (genre) and the functional (organizational techniques) aspects. The four classical divisions of rhetoric as expounded by Cicero were invention, arrangement, style and memory techniques. Genre is peripheral to this, for rhetorical criticism by definition primarily is concerned with the communication process per se, that is, with the techniques and organizational patterns by which the author’s arguments are presented.

Literally scores of different types of relationships exist between ideas or thoughts. Classifying these types, however, has been difficult. I have chosen to combine the efforts of B. J. F. Meyer and G. E. Rice and of Eugene Nida, S. P. Louw, A. H. Snuman, and J. v. W. Cronje. Such a classification is important because it will guide our study of individual structures in the Bible; a basic understanding of these types will prove immensely helpful as we study various passages. Therefore, I will illustrate each rhetorical type with examples from Scripture.

1. Collection relations#

(Nida, “repetition”; Liefeld, “continuity”)

Connect ideas or events on the basis of some common point of agreement. This was a common type of rhetorical feature in the ancient world. The rabbis called it “pearl-stringing” and would often collect messianic texts together. This explains the connected series of proof-texts in Hebrews 1:4-14, taken respectively from Psalm 2:7; 2 Samuel 7:17; Psalms 97:7; 104:4; 45:6-7; 102:25-27; 110:1.

Similar collections are found in the five discourses of Matthew’s Gospel; for instance, in the apocalyptic section of the mission discourse (cf. Mt 10:16-22 with Mk 13:9-13). Often catchwords will link a seemingly disorganized series. Such is the case in Mark 9:33-50, a collection of sayings on reward and punishment. The section is organized around ‘‘in my name” (vv. 37-41), “offend” (vv. 42-47), “salt” and “fire” (vv. 48-50).

Repetition can be organized around either sound or idea. This was a memory technique that also added emphasis to the statement. Similar patterns can be found in the Beatitudes (Mt 5:1-13), the explanation of John’s purpose in writing (1 Jn 2:12-14) and the letters to the seven churches (virtually “form letters”) in Revelation 2—3. Repetition of idea is much more predominant. It is helpful to note here the predominance of parallelism in prose as well as in poetry, in the New Testament as well as in the Old. It is certainly the most frequent rhetorical pattern in the Bible. A basic error of many exegetes is to emphasize the differences of meaning between synonymous terms found in a list. We must at all times be aware of the possibility that the reason for the employment of different terms or phrases may be stylistic rather than theological; repetition may have been used for emphasis, and the differences between the terms should not be stressed.

2. Cause-Effect and Problem-Solution#

Relations contain an antecedent action and a resultant consequence. We can choose from numerous illustrations. The denunciation of Israel by the prophets often takes a cause-effect form. For instance, Amos 2:6-16 begins with the cause (“for three transgressions of Israel and for four” [v. 6]), proceeds to an enumeration of those sins (vv. 6b-13) and then concludes with the judgment (or effects [vv. 14-16]). The messianic promises of the prophets provide examples of problem-solution.

• The problem was that the righteous remnant of Israel would suffer alongside the apostates.

• For them God provided a solution: he promised that he would “not totally destroy the house of Jacob” (Amos 9:8). While the sinners would die (Amos 9:10), God himself would “raise up the fallen booth of David” (v. 11, using imagery drawn from the Feast of Tabernacles).

Similar to this is a question-answer format, used frequently by Paul as well as by the prophets. This is especially true in the epistle to the Romans, where Paul frequently employs a rhetorical question (which presents the views of his opponents) and then proceeds to answer that erroneous perspective. Similar questions introduce the discussions of justification by faith (Rom 4:1-2), the defeat of sin by union with Christ (Rom 6:1-2), the problem of the law and sin (Rom 7:1-2, 13), God’s salvific intent (Rom 8:31-32), and the justification of God (Rom 9:19-24; 11:1-2).

Under this rubric too we could include purpose and result or substantiation. These also answer the question Why? Purpose reverses the order and tells the intended result rather than the result itself.

Whether we translate “in order that” (future-oriented) or “so that” (past-oriented), the emphasis is on God’s sovereign control of the situation. The conjunction “for” often leads into a similar substantiation of a theological statement. For instance, Romans 8:29-31 tells why we can know that “all things work together for good” (v. 28): God has foreknown, predestined, called, justified and glorified his people. In other words, God is in control and we can place our trust in him.

3. Comparison#

Demonstrates similarities or contrasts between ideas. A famous example is the Adam-Christ contrast of Romans 5:12-21; both figures are corporately identified (note “the one” and “the many” [v. 15]) with sinful humankind and the Christian, respectively. We might also note the debated relationship between Romans 7:7-13 (past tense) and 7:14-25 (present tense). Proverbs employs numerous examples in the wise-foolish contrasts of Proverbs 1:7 and 15:5, and similar patterns.

Several scholars have a separate discussion of interchange, but in reality this is simply a variation of comparison. Instead of straightforward comparison, interchange alternates persons, events or categories in order to produce thematic comparison. A good example is John’s alternating of Peter’s denial (Jn 18:15-18, 25-27) with Jesus’ steadfast courage before Annas (vv. 19-23) and Pilate (vv. 28-40). The contrast between Peter’s cowardice and Jesus’ courage is obvious. We can also find alternating categories in the Adam-Christ contrast (Rom 5:2-21).

4. Description#

Is a broad category entailing clarification of a topic, event or person by means of further information. This might be called continuation and is differentiated from repetition in that it “extends” rather than “repeats” the discussion. The technique can be demonstrated in the elaboration of Jonah’s flight (Jon 1:3) in Jonah 1:4-17 or in the further description of the divine blessing of Abraham (Gen 13:14-18) in Genesis 14:1-18.

The principle of summation might be placed under this category, for it usually comes at the end of a lengthy descriptive piece in order to tie the ends together and show the basic theme or result. Needless to say, detecting such a technique is rather helpful in determining the basic thrust of a passage. At times such a summary comes at the beginning and end of the passage, as in Joshua 12:7, 24: “Now these are the kings of the land whom Joshua and the sons of Israel defeated. . . . In all, thirty-one kings” (NASB). Most of the time, it occurs at the end. In historical books such summaries or “seams” help to link material and themes. For instance, the summary sections of Acts contain one of Luke’s primary theological emphases, how the Spirit of God triumphs over the church’s troubles.

Similar to summation is the Jewish practice of inclusio, a technique in which the author at the end of a discussion returns to the point he made at the beginning. Thus he reiterates the basic point he has been developing and ties together the whole description. One of the best examples is John 1:18, which concludes the Johannine prologue and repeats the themes of John 1:1, such as Jesus as the revealer of God and as always with the Father.

Another Jewish technique that highlights major themes is chiasm, which reverses words or events in successive parallel clauses or sections. It is found frequently in the Old Testament, of course, as in the ABC:CBA organization of Isaiah 6:10. Chiasm is also found frequently in the New Testament. Lund sees it in passages like 1 Corinthians 5:2-6; 9:19-22; 11:8-12 and many others (1942).

5. Shifts in Expectancy#

Includes many compositional types. As Nida says, “They depend for their significance on the fact that the reader recognizes the unusual word order, syntactic structure, or meaning of a word, phrase, or complete sentence”.

In some ways this category is too broad, as it could include such other categories as rhetorical questions, inclusio or chiasm. Moreover, it clearly overlaps with figures of speech, which we will discuss in chapter four. However, the rhetorical devices transcend such figures as anacolutha. Nevertheless, such shifts are keys to structural emphases so must be included here as well.

Jesus’ Farewell Speech (Jn 14—16) contains many such shifts, so many in fact that some scholars see no unity in the section but rather a series of overlapping traditions haphazardly strung together. This results in theories of a Johannine “circle” or series of editors who imposed an artificial unity on the Fourth Gospel, resulting in aporias, or structural inconsistencies.

In an important recent article, however, Edwin Webster argues that “the Gospel, as a literary whole, is meticulously constructed on the basis of symmetrical design and balanced units”. Webster argues for a chiastic relationship between the critical sections of John 14 and 16, which could explain the repetitive themes. This type of shift is difficult for the modern reader but easily detectable and understandable in the ancient world. The difficulties disappear when we understand the structural development. In other words, there are no clumsy inconsistencies or repetitions but rather a carefully crafted discourse.

Climax and cruciality also belong under this rubric. The former is found in narrative and the latter in epistles, but both have a similar function in that they designate the pivotal or turning point of the writer’s basic argument.

• In the healing of the demon-possessed child (Mk 9:14-29) the climax does not occur with the miracle itself but with the cry of the father, “I do believe; help my unbelief”

• An excellent example of climax in the different order of the temptations in Matthew 4:1-10 and Luke 4:1-12 (1984:63).

  • By having his story climax with the temptation regarding the kingdoms of the world, Matthew concluded with an emphasis appropriate to his royal messianic theme.

  • By climaxing with the pinnacle of the temple, Luke on the other hand centers on the temple and in particular on the Jewish origins of Christianity, one of the major themes in his Gospel. In both cases the climax is a key to the basic theological stress.

Finally, I would include here Nida’s discussion of omission. When an author deliberately omits a point that the reader is expecting, it provides a “shift in expectancy” that is startling and emphatic. Usually such passages omit particular words (such as kai in 1 Cor 13:4-7 or the introductory formula of Heb 1:5, 8, 10).

At times, however, the crucial omissions were understandable to the original readers but cause unbelievable difficulties for the modern interpreter; for instance, the deliberate omission of any explanation/identification of the “restrainer” (2 Thess 2:6-7) or of “666” (Rev 13:18). Hundreds of theories have been propounded for the two, and it is likely that we will not know the true meaning for certain until the LORD himself returns.