Sample Chapter - Chapter 2

Ox in the Ditch - Explanation of the Principle

Analogies

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A study of the nature of God often begins with an analysis of His individual attributes. Given the premise that the Supreme Being is infinite in every attribute, defining the attributes in general terms is relatively easy. Accordingly, we say that God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), etc. After the basic meaning of each attribute is determined, however, significant broader questions present themselves. How can these attributes, existing together in Deity, form a logically consistent whole? What relationships exist between the individual attributes? How is each attribute to be defined in its relationship to other attributes?

The attribute of omnipotence means that God is all-powerful. In Jesus' words, "with God all things are possible" (Matt. 19:26). But "all things" in this verse is not unqualified; it refers to a definite category the boundaries of which are established by moral and logical qualifications. Although He is omnipotent, it is "impossible for God to lie" (Heb. 6:18). The attribute of holiness in God qualifies His omnipotence so that He "cannot lie" (Titus 1:2). Also, the attributes of justice and goodness in God qualify omnipotence so that, properly understood, this attribute should produce both awe and gratitude in man. If political power unchecked by virtue is a frightening thought, the idea of a God of raw, unqualified power is horrifying indeed. Such arbitrary omnipotence could conceivably reward the ungodly in heaven and punish the righteous in hell. Thankfully for us, God is perfectly loving and just as well as infinite in power.

Calvin's view of the nature of God is a prime example of the failure to recognize the qualifying relationship between God's attributes. His overemphasis on the sovereignty of God occurred at the expense of His justice and goodness. From his belief that Paul attributed "supreme sovereignty to the wrath and power of God," Calvin concluded, "everything which he wills must be held to be righteous by the mere fact of his willing it." In this assertion Calvin subscribes to the first alternative in the proposed dilemma of Plato's Euthyphro: Are things good because God approves of them or does God approve of things because they are good? Realizing the implications of this position, Calvin added that he gave no countenance to the "fiction of absolute power." However, this disclaimer is inconsistent with his assertion that righteousness is determined merely by God's will. The sovereignty of God receives a status in the Institutes that no other attributes enjoy. His treatment of the attributes of God suggests a hierarchy in which the sovereignty of God is supreme and all other attributes are subservient. In Calvin's theology, the sovereignty of God governs all other attributes, but the other attributes are not permitted to qualify (and thus correctly define) His sovereign power.

A reciprocal qualification exists between the divine attributes of benevolence and justice. Though God in His love both desires and makes provisions for the salvation of all men (I Tim. 2:4; Titus 2:11), His justice will not allow the impenitent to enter heaven (I Cor. 6:9-10). In this sense, His justice qualifies His benevolence. Failure to recognize this qualification creates a distorted view of God, resulting in a permissive and tolerant view of love. The loving mercy of God may in a sense be said to qualify the attribute of justice. Bare justice provides no room for the opportunity of repentance and pardon; it simply requires that transgressions be punished. This qualification is seen in that:


To speak of the nature of God in this manner, however, is to invite a further legitimate question about even engaging in such a discussion. Since God is infinite in all His attributes and since the word "qualify" means to limit, how can these attributes be qualified? Obviously, the word is used accommodatively in this connection. In our inability to fully comprehend the nature of God, we create in our minds a tension between certain attributes of God. This difficulty arises from viewing the attributes of God in isolation. Such an atomistic approach is destined for confusion because the meaning and perfection of each attribute depends on its relationship to the other attributes. In other words, part of the perfection of God's power lies in the fact that it is "qualified" by His goodness, justice, wisdom, etc. These attributes are so connected that this interrelationship is an essential property of each attribute. The attributes of God should be studied as a logically consistent whole, not as characteristics existing independently of this relationship.

Since the will of God as revealed in His word is an expression of His nature, this analogy furnishes a general framework for interpreting qualifications in Scripture. The point at which one biblical principle ends and another begins its application has its origin in the nature of God.

The principle of qualification is also a part of God's creation. The laws and forces of nature work in unison to bring about the purposes of the Creator, complementing and at times qualifying one another. This relationship is such an important part of creation that:


Upon graduating from using a bottle to drinking out of a glass, a young child soon discovers that this new utensil cannot be turned upside down at will. However, a few years later in science class he learns that he can momentarily "cheat" the law of gravity by rapidly swinging a glass or a pail of water in a circular motion. In this unique circumstance, the principle of centrifugal force qualifies the law of gravity. Properly understood, the law of gravity is a fundamental principle that is qualified by other forces present in nature. Recognition of the principle of qualification at work in nature is a major reason for the rapid progress of civilization in the last century. Working together in marvelous unity, the interrelationship of forces in nature provides a fascinating arena of possibilities.

Miracles bear a different relationship to the laws of nature. Since these interventions originate from a source beyond nature, they are not qualifications of natural processes in the sense mentioned above. During supernatural activity, certain laws of nature are actually suspended. It is better therefore to refer to miracles as suspensions, rather than qualifications, of the laws of nature.

More important to the analogy is Everest's observation of gradation of forces in creation in which the higher law overrules the lower. This distinction finds an important parallel in interpretation, since the question of higher/lower laws is a crucial issue in the application of biblical principles.

Aside from these more abstract analogies, the principle of qualification in Scripture is analogous to everyday sets of instruction. Parental rules are usually general guidelines that are qualified by instructions and principles in the total amount of information conveyed to the child. A child who is expected to clean his room at certain times is not held responsible for omitting this responsibility in cases of sickness or family emergency. These extenuating circumstances qualify the normal duty required by the instructions. Of course, just what these circumstances include may be vague in the mind of the child. Ideally, the child recognizes the legitimate circumstances (which are determined by more fundamental concerns of the family) by information previously given by the parents. Still, parental instructions illustrate the use of the principle of qualification as a convenient as well as necessary part of child rearing. Employees are also involved in interpreting qualifying information given to them. They are expected to recognize qualifications of particular instructions by fitting those instructions into the broader programs and goals of the company.

The presence of the principle of qualification in these familiar areas should prevent our thinking that this subject is overly complex. Qualification is inherent in most discourse and is not peculiar to the Scriptures.

Synthesizing Biblical Material

Interpreting the Bible involves examining its contents in various levels of size. The study of individual words (which may include an analysis of the units of meaning comprising the words themselves) must be given an adequate degree of attention. This area of interpretation, known as lexicology, is primarily concerned with arriving at the meaning of words. The study of the function of the individual words in relationship to other words in the sentence is known as syntax. This aspect of interpretation focuses on grammatical relationships and seeks to determine the meaning of the sentence. The general thought expressed by a succession of sentences (which also governs the direction of those sentences) is usually referred to as the context. Linguists refer to this crucial phase of interpretation as discourse analysis. In the broader setting of the book in which it appears, a given context serves as a thought unit that contributes to the overall purpose and theme of the particular book. Also involved in the contents of the book is the historical-cultural context, which is concerned with historical and cultural aspects that are relevant to interpretation.

Important as these areas of interpretation are, the efforts given to them are risky if a further phase is not pursued: the synthesis of all related biblical information, perhaps more commonly known as interpreting the Bible as a whole. The various facets of a topic, often found in several distant passages, must be correctly fitted together before the final stage--the application of biblical principles to life--can be entered. This process requires careful research and honest reasoning, since an omitted relevant text or a significant misconstrued passage will adversely affect the final conclusions drawn by the interpreter. The fact that the Bible must be studied in this manner is a constant challenge, since all the information on a topic is rarely found in one verse.

Interpreting the Bible as a whole means that the entirety of Scripture is the total context for the interpretation of any of its parts. Any individual passage must be interpreted considering this total context. A verse must be viewed in relationship to the rest of Scripture--an exercise traditionally called "the analogy of faith." As Ramm observed, "The Bible is not a string of verses like a string of beads, but a web of meaning." He later states that


The necessity of synthesizing biblical passages is seen in that


This interrelationship of Bible verses means that other passages can have a significant effect on the interpretation of a verse. One of these effects is amplification. Complementary verses often amplify a passage by providing an example or illustration of the principle being stated in the passage. For instance, Solomon's Proverb, "the way of the unfaithful is hard" (Prov. 13:15), is powerfully and repeatedly illustrated in the Scriptures, especially in the Old Testament. The story of Saul (I Sam. 10-31), a man who by his own admission "played the fool" (I Sam. 26:21), vividly illustrates the digressive course of one who departs from God. In fact, much of the Bible restates in different forms the same basic principles. If these principles had been delivered to man in concise abstract form, the Bible would be a brief volume indeed. But God supplements the principles stated in bare conceptual form with amplifying material, providing an adequate amount of both abstract and concrete teaching.

Another effect that relevant passages have on a verse is clarification. Supplemental material in the Bible may clarify a verse in question by explaining its meaning, adding key details, or identifying its fulfillment. The book of II Thessalonians appears to have been written to correct a misapprehension about the previous epistle. From Paul's description of the second coming in I Thessalonians 4:13 - 5:3 (particularly v. 17: "we which are alive and remain ..."), Some Thessalonians had evidently concluded that Christ would return in their lifetime. Paul clarifies this issue in the second epistle by declaring, "... that day will not come unless the falling away comes first ..." (II Thess. 2:3). Abraham's statement concerning Isaac, "the lad and I will go yonder and worship, and we will come back to you" (Gen. 22:5), is clarified by the details supplied in a New Testament passage: "By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac ... accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead ..." (Heb. 11:17, 19).

Peter identified the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 in saying "this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel" (Acts 2:16); Jesus identified the Elijah of Malachi's prophecy (Mal. 4:5) by saying of John the Baptist "he is Elijah who is to come" (Matt. 11:14). Scripture thus clarifies Scripture, rendering the Bible a self-interpreting book.

Supplemental passages also may have a modifying effect on a given verse. In the original legislation delivered while the Israelites were in Egypt, the Passover was to be observed on the fourteenth day of the first month (Exod. 12:2-6). However, in specified circumstances the Passover could be observed on the fourteenth day of the second month (Num. 9:9-14). Making provisions for the observance of the Passover in these special circumstances, the passage in Numbers modified the original legislation given in Egypt.

When one biblical passage limits or restricts another passage, the effect is called qualification. A familiar example of this principle occurs in the account of Jesus' temptation in the wilderness. After setting Him on the pinnacle of the temple, the Devil challenged Jesus,


In this phase of the temptation, Satan appealed to the Scriptures. But his citation of Psalm 91:11-12 was misapplied. The providential care promised in this passage did not extend to cases of deliberate attempts to test the faithfulness of God to this promise. In response to Satan's challenge, Jesus cited Deuteronomy 6:16 ("You shall not tempt the Lord your God") as a qualification of the promise of providential care. The protection promised in the Psalms passage must be viewed considering biblical teaching on human responsibility. This obvious example of "twisting" the Scriptures (II Pet. 3:16) illustrates the need for examining the hermeneutical relationship called qualification.

Old Testament teaching on the taking of human life is a case of qualification with significant consequences for modern times. The Decalogue warned, "You shall not murder" (Exod. 20:13), yet the law also required the death penalty (Exod. 21:12-17; Lev. 20:1-21). In fact, divine authorization for capital punishment was given before Moses: "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood will be shed; for in the image of God He made man" (Gen. 9:6). Critics of the Bible allege that the Scriptures are contradictory in both commanding and forbidding the taking of human life.

A common approach to reconciling these passages emphasizes the distinction between the English words "kill" and "murder." The general word kill means "to deprive of life; put to death; cause the death of," while the more specific word murder means "to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice." Thus "kill merely states the fact" while "murder implies motive and usually premeditation in a criminal human act." Archer argues that this same distinction exists in Hebrew:


prohibition against capital punishment for capital crimes, since it is not a general term for the taking of life, such as our English word 'kill' implies.

An examination of Hebrew words and phrases denoting the taking of life, however, reveals the weakness of this argument. Rasah itself is used of one who "kills (rasah) his neighbor unintentionally" (Deut. 19:4). Also, the word harag is used to refer both to killing with malicious intent (Gen. 12:12; Judg. 9:24) and killing in capital punishment (Deut. 13:9; Lev. 20:16). The phrase "shed blood" (shapak dam) is used in both senses in Genesis 9:6. Even if Archer's case on rasah were successful, the difficulty would remain in these passages. Rather than trying to solve the alleged discrepancy on the basis of linguistic nuances, one should consult qualifying information from the overall context of the Scriptures.

At least four categories of taking human life emerge from Old Testament teaching: (1) the intentional, malicious taking of human life (Num. 35:20-21); (2) the unpremeditated taking of human life, perhaps from a fight (Num. 35:22-23); (3) the accidental causing of death (Deut. 19:4-6); (4) the intentional infliction of death as a deserved form of punishment, either by direct intervention of God (Lev. 10:1-2) or through human agency (Deut. 21:22). The killing involved in the first type is the act prohibited in the Decalogue. The other three types qualify the application of this prohibition. Also, the second and third types qualify the application of the death penalty, since this punishment was not ordered in cases of unpremeditated or accidental killing.

Types of Qualifications

Qualifying considerations occur in various forms, differing in their degree of explicitness and in their proximity to the qualified statements. Beginning with factors within the verse itself, this limiting effect may be accomplished in the following manners:

1. Words or phrases in a passage that restrict the meaning and application of the statement in question. The phrases "except for sexual immorality" (Matt. 19:9), "yet I certainly did not mean" (I Cor. 5:10), and "'Conscience', I say, not your own" (I Cor. 10:29) are explicit qualifications that are negative in force, indicating what the meaning of the teaching is not. Such explicit qualifications are rare in Scripture. If after every instruction in the Bible God had explained what the passage does not mean, the cumbersome list of endless qualifications would cause the reader to lose the real point of discussion.
2. The immediate context or thought flow in which the statement occurs. The limitations established by the thought setting of a verse must be recognized if the teaching is to be correctly applied. For instance, Solomon's often misconstrued statement, "the dead know nothing" (Ecc. 9:5), is restricted by the context to knowledge of earthly affairs (vv. 1-10). The interpretation of a verse in its immediate context is a foundational step in hermeneutics, furnishing a precedent for how the procedure should be handled in larger contexts of Scripture. The principles of interpreting a verse in the total context of Scripture are basically the same as those involved in interpreting a statement in its immediate context.
3. The overall purpose and theme of the book in which the verse appears. The purpose of Hebrews, for example, is to establish and to show the implications of its summary verse: "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law" (Heb. 7:12). Just as a verse must be interpreted in view of its immediate context, this immediate context must be viewed in relation to the basic direction of the book in which it occurs.
4. The relative aspects of the culture in which the biblical writing was originally delivered. Jesus' command to "wash one another's feet" (John 13:14) and Paul's instruction to "greet one another with a holy kiss" (Rom. 16:16) are qualified by cultural considerations. Interpretation in such matters involves separating culturally-bound instructions from the permanent principles they exemplify.
5. The temporal factors associated with the particular age in which the instruction was given. "Make yourself an ark of gopherwood" (Gen. 6:14) is limited in application to Noah because of his peculiar historical situation. Noah's response to this instruction, however, was a demonstration of the permanent principle of faith (Heb. 11:7).
6. A change in divine covenants. In one respect, such a transition amounts to the annulment, not the mere qualification, of previously given legislation. The revocation of animal sacrifices by the law of Christ illustrates this fact. In another respect, a later covenant qualifies the previous one, since some principles in the earlier covenant remain in force in the new law.
7. Circumstantial considerations in terms of the limits of physical possibility and in view of practical expedience. God does not require the impossible of man. If a man is literally unable to perform a duty, God does not hold him responsible. The principle of human inability resulting from physical limitations qualifies corresponding obligations. Also, some divine commands are restricted in application because of considerations of expedience. Though God had given man the institution of marriage, Jeremiah was forbidden to marry because of the impending dangers families would face (Jer. 16:1-4).
8. Statements in the remote context that limit the application of a verse. This relationship may be recognized when two passages are compared and an unqualified interpretation of both yields a contradiction. On a surface level, the two statements appear to conflict.
9. Authorized actions of biblical characters that constitute exemptions from general commands. Some qualifications occur in the form of examples found in the remote context. Care in interpretation is necessary at this point, since some recorded actions in the Bible are without divine approval.
10. An overriding principle that takes precedence over a biblical requirement in cases of apparent conflict. The qualifying factor in this circumstance is the relative primacy of the overriding principle. This factor determines which course of action is to be pursued in alleged moral dilemmas.
    

The first five of these types are involved in the exegesis of individual passages from considerations within the books in which they occur. Though each of these is a critical matter of interpretation, this study will focus on the last five types. These latter types involve a consideration of qualifying information found outside the confines of the immediate setting of the book. The first five emphasize the interpretation of individual verses; the last five stress the relationship between verses as they occur in the broader context of the Bible as a whole. This connection is a matter of implication, since most biblical qualifications are not explicit. The type of qualification being considered in this study involves the identification of implied qualifications through a synthesis of biblical material found in the remote context.

When God issues a command, He has in view a definite realm of application. The boundaries of that realm must be identified if the precept is to be correctly applied. By implied qualifications, the Bible establishes these boundaries. Just as the immediately surrounding context of a verse may qualify its meaning, this distant material may qualify the command in question. These qualifications delineate the point at which one biblical principle ends and another begins. The principle of qualification involves a definitional aspect in that it defines the category or realm in which a biblical mandate applies.

Areas Which Must Deal With The Principle

Though the principle of qualification is primarily a hermeneutical issue, it is also a critical consideration in other fields of study. The basic premises, emphases, and views of specialists in these areas is to a large extent determined by how they synthesize biblical material. But since these branches of study are areas of the Christian life, the problems and issues involved in the study of the principle of qualification should be the concern of every Christian. Though a study of this type may seem purely theoretical, a consideration of its connection to these areas reveals its practicality as well as its importance.

The qualification of moral duties is a fundamental issue in the study of ethics. The biblical answer to ethical questions is not always stated in explicit terms. Often two or more biblical principles seem relevant (or even applicable) to the situation in question. When the requirements of two different passages cannot both be satisfied in a given situation (although both of them appear to apply to the situation), a choice must be made. The Christian at this juncture must determine the point at which the application of one biblical principle ends and the application of another begins. Which principle qualifies and which is qualified? The apparent tension between biblical principles is seen in as commonplace an occurrence as a Christian who unintentionally orders in a restaurant more food than he can temperately eat. If he eats the remaining food, he transgresses the biblical principle of self control; if he does not, he appears to violate stewardship principles. Has he led himself into a no-win situation? Which biblical principle prevails in this situation? Is there a third alternative or some other way to resolve the apparent conflict?

To attempt to deal with these questions at this point would be premature. At this stage, the example above shows the reality of such choices in everyday life and the need for determining biblical guidelines for making proper decisions. A quick, easy answer is rarely available in such situations. The situation may be one which we have not previously encountered, and this factor adds to the complexity of the case. If judgment may be suspended, time will be afforded to reflect on the matter before making a decision. An extended period of time in making ethical decisions allows one to study relevant biblical material, consult the advice of godly and wise Christians, and pray to God for wisdom (James 1:5). But when no such suspension of judgment is possible, a choice must be made based on prior knowledge. Because of the regularity of such decisions, it is wise to give attention to the study of biblical qualification in the realm of ethics. Though it is impossible to foresee every conceivable situation, knowledge of basic biblical principles provides the general framework necessary for ethical decisions. Applied consistently, these principles give direction in specific cases. They also establish a solid foundation against changing ethical theories and trends in society.

Of course, it would be naive to think that pure mechanical knowledge of these principles guarantees right behavior. This Socratic myth continues to live through the current emphasis on education as the answer to societal ills such as crime, poverty, drug abuse, promiscuity, etc. But while knowledge of right and wrong is necessary to right behavior, such knowledge does not always insure proper moral decisions. The missing element in humanistic approaches to ethics is the primacy of free will in human actions. Because of the fact of free will and the intensity of the emotions, one who has knowledge of right and wrong may choose the wrong path. Even a conscientious, knowledgeable person may choose to sin because of the unexpected pressures of temptation. Peter boasted that he would never deny the Lord only to contradict his claim hours later (Luke 22:33-34; Matt. 26:69-75). It is possible to "sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth" (Heb. 10:26). While this factor in human behavior cannot be ignored, a legitimate need remains for determining the biblical criteria for making decisions in difficult moral issues.

The field of systematic theology also addresses numerous subjects affected by the principle of qualification. The totality of Bible teaching on a topic may be obtained only through the synthesis of its different aspects. This step in interpretation is critical. Faulty reasoning in this process leads to doctrines not found in Scripture. This stage is the point at which many Bible-believing people part company with each other, since they disagree as to how to view the Bible as a whole. Much division exists because of different applications of the principle of qualification.

The area of doctrine is affected in at least three ways by the principle of qualification. One is the identification of portions of Scripture that are no longer applicable. Several important questions must be dealt with to make this determination. Was the passage in question qualified by a change in the covenants? Is it limited in application because of cultural considerations? Are the demands of the passage confined to a special period of divine activity? Another point of concern is the distinction between obligatory matters and optional matters. A failure to consider qualifying information may result in the over-application of a biblical command. On the other hand, the same error can lead to an over-extension of the concept of liberty in the New Testament. Connected with the question of essentials and nonessentials is the relative degree of emphasis to be given to the various items of biblical doctrine. Even when all matters of biblical doctrine have been identified, it is evident that not all of them receive the same emphasis in Scripture. Some principles are more basic and foundational than others; Jesus spoke of "the weightier matters of the law" (Matt. 23:23). An understanding of this proportional emphasis in Scripture is vital for several reasons. First, it enables spiritual leaders to weigh the urgency of biblically-related issues. Out of the enormous number of such issues presenting themselves, which ones should be given the most attention? A general framework is needed for determining the relative importance of these issues. Second, recognition of this aspect of Scripture is a safeguard against extremism in doctrine. Radical doctrines are not so much the result of denying biblical principles as they are the result of getting them out of proportion. Third, an understanding of this point enables one to detect the underlying issue in many religious disagreements. A surprising number of disputes arise not because the disputants each deny the principle asserted by the other but because they disagree about the amount of emphasis that should be given to it. Sadly, this underlying disagreement often goes unnoticed, especially by the disputants.

The study of the principle of qualification also has a place in apologetics. As a part of synthesizing biblical passages, the resolving of alleged discrepancies in the Bible is often a simple matter of recognizing an implied qualification. However, when scriptural statements are invariably taken as unqualified assertions, a conflict is created in the mind of the interpreter. In fact, any number of discrepancies can be imagined if important qualifications from the immediate context or from the entire context of the Bible are ignored.

The fundamental distinction to be made is the difference between qualification and contradiction. The law of contradiction states that a proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense. When two statements contradict each other, one must be true and the other false. If one of the propositions is true, the other must be false, and if one of the propositions is false, the other must be true. It is impossible for both statements to be true or for both statements to be false. But it is essential that the two propositions have an identical point of reference. The two statements must make contradictory assertions about precisely the same thing. The propositions, "All men are equal" and "Some men are not equal" are contradictory only if the word equal has the same meaning in both statements. The statements, "I have seen God" (Gen. 32:30) and "No one has seen God at any time" (John 1:18) would be contradictory only if "seeing God" had the same meaning in both verses. In this case, Jacob's experience was the witnessing of a physical manifestation of God called a theophany; John's passage refers to seeing the very essence of God_-an impossible feat for human eyes (I Tim. 6:16). Qualification, on the other hand, is the limiting or restricting of one statement by another, and this is the relationship that exists between these verses. A qualification is not a categorical denial of a statement. It simply sets the statement in perspective by supplying additional facets of information about the subject under consideration.