When it comes to studying and interpreting the Bible, it is often said, “everyone has their own interpretation,” or when critical of someone’s understanding, “that’s just your interpretation.” It does seem that there are different interpretations of much of the Bible that supports its primary doctrines.
When it comes to the Bible, diverse interpretations aren’t the fault of the text or even the entire Bible; they’re due to different methods of approach, to the dissimilar lenses we each look through, for we all have our individual biases due to a variety of backgrounds.

There are currently two primary methods of biblical interpretation:
The Contemporary—Literal Approach
The Historical—Grammatical Approach.

The Contemporary—Literal Approach 
In criticism of the Contemporary-Literal Approach, D. R. Dungan said in his book Hermeneutics:
 “that it’s most commonly employed by dogmatists in order to maintain a view that cannot be supported in any other way. It makes [practically] all the language of the Bible literal. It treats the Word of God as if it were an essay on chemistry or mechanics (p. 79).
If these literalists would read Oriental writings on any other subject, they would be convinced that much of it is highly figurative; but, coming to the Bible, it must be made to bow to a gross materialism [i.e. literalism] and take a yoke upon its neck that will make it the merest slave of the merciless taskmaster who allots the tale [i.e. a specific number] of bricks, and will be satisfied with nothing else. 
These exegetes don’t pretend that [according to Psalm 22] David’s heart melted within him like wax; that all his bones were out of joint and staring him in the face; that he was a worm and no man; for they have no theory dependent on the literal use of these figures.
But let their theory be involved for a moment, and then, if the literal meaning will avail them anything, they will use it and deny that any other is possible (p. 80). The query should be, What does the writer mean? Not what can we make him mean? (p. 81).
Much of the Bible is written in language highly figurative. And not to recognize this fact and  treat the language according to the figures employed is to fail entirely in the exegesis. This, of course, doesn’t imply that God has said one thing while He meant another, but simply that He has spoken in the language of men and in the style of those to whom the revelations were made. No one reading the Prophecies or the Psalms without recognizing this fact will be able to arrive at any reliable conclusions whatever as to their meaning (p. 82).”

According to Cooper’s Golden Rule of Interpretation: “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths clearly indicate otherwise.“

A shortened and often used form of this very beneficial rule is this: If the plain sense makes good sense, seek no other sense, lest it result in nonsense. This sound-bite actually destroys the rule and makes for very bad hermeneutics. It leaves off the critical exception to his rule; and, unfortunately, this condensed form is all that most interpreters seem to adhere to.

There is also the idea that “literal” is used to emphasize the thought that every word must first be taken literally, expressing the exact thought of the author when it was used.

However, the word “literal” itself: it comes from the same root as “literature” and “literary,” implying that to take any word, clause, or sentence truly literally would be to interpret it according to its literary context, meaning in harmony with the type of literature it is with regard to its time and place, which leads to the next interpretive approach.

The Historical—Grammatical Approach
In his renowned and most highly respected 19th century treatise on Biblical Hermeneutics, Milton S. Terry said “that this approach, (the Historical-Grammatical Approach),  is the one which most fully commends itself to the judgment and conscience of Christian scholars. Its fundamental principle is to gather from the Scriptures themselves the precise meaning which the writers intended to convey. The interpreter will inquire into the circumstances under which [the author] wrote, the manners and customs of his age, and the purpose or object which he had in view (p. 173).”

Not only does this approach take the first part of Cooper’s rule to heart (when the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense), just as importantly, it gives full emphasis on the second part, (it gathers and studies all related evidence from the entirety of God’s revelation before making a hard and fast ruling on any given passage).

As Terry appropriately wrote, “The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are a world by themselves. Although written at various times and devoted to many different themes, taken together they constitute a self-interpreting book.“

The position that “Scripture must be interpreted by Scripture” is a most important principle in Biblical hermeneutics. Thus, the writer of the Book of Hebrews alludes to the Old Testament 50 times and quotes from it 30 times .

To correctly ascertain the usus loquendi  (the usage of a word or phrase in the author’s time) requires an extensive and careful comparison of similar or parallel passages of Scripture. When a writer has addressed a  given subject in different parts of his writings, or when different writers have addressed the  same subject, it is important to collect and  compare all that’s written, to get correct interpretation.

The whole Bible is a divinely constructed unity, and there is danger that, in studying one part to the comparative neglect of the other, we may fall into one-sided and erroneous methods of exposition.
Compare Mat. 22:23-33 with Luke 20:27-38. Two tellings of the same account, but Luke goes into more detail. By comparing the two, a better understanding of the entire event is made possible.

Besides using the Bible to explain the Bible whenever possible the interpreter needs to consider the historical position of the author, and what the writer was trying to convey in the context of his historical and cultural views. We must also consider the situation and condition of the churches and persons addressed and how they would understand the writings.

This becomes especially true in understanding New Testament prophecy. We must understand the first century Jew would understand phrases in the same way they were used in the Old Testament.
John Wycliffe wrote, “It will greatly help us to understand Scripture if we take notice of not only what is spoken or written, but also of whom and to whom, with what words, at what time, where, to what intent, in what circumstances, considering what goes before and what follows after.“

We simply must remember that all the Bible is FOR us, but it was not written TO us, making it crucial that we not only put ourselves in the places of its authors, but also in the  places of its recipients, noting especially such things as their culture and meanings of any and all of their unique idiomatic expressions (for example, the usage of heavens and earth in Isa. 13:13, 51:16, 65:17, & 66:22 with their respective contexts).

A Bible verse can never mean what it never meant. If the writer wrote a verse with the intent of communicating one specific thought, and the original readers would have understood it to have meant that one thing, we cannot apply any other meaning to it. This is one of the greatest dangers of proof-texting. It has also resulted in a plethora of bad preaching, when preachers look up a host verses using a particular word and try to blend them all together to create a message. A message that was never intended by the Biblical writers.

The meaning of words change over time. Even as far back as 1 Samuel 9:9 it was recognized that languages change: “Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.” Thus, when interpreting a word or phrase, we must find the meaning and understanding of that word at the time it was written.

Conclusion:
Whereas the contemporary-literal approach is subjective and therefore relative in nature, the historical-grammatical approach is objective and not relative in nature. In other words, the first is through the eyes of the interpreter while the latter is through the eyes of the writer.

The context and content of Scripture is unchanging. This makes the literalistic position sounds very conservative and superior. It even creates an arrogance when the position of the interpreter is that of, “I take the scripture literally. I believe what it says.” Unfortunately, this  often creates modernistic and unscriptural interpretations of Scripture.

Our goal should be to find the actual meaning of what is written, not the literal meaning.  This sounds odd, I am sure, but think of it this way:

Let’s imagine you are reading a book about the theater. In this book, one character tells another, who is about to go on stage to “break a leg.” The literal interpretation makes this sound very mean-spirited. Indeed, anyone not familiar with this expression would come to a wrong conclusion as to what was being communicated. The literal interpretation would actually be the opposite of what was being said.

On the other hand, once you understand the culture and context of the expression, you see it is just a way actors and performers wish each other luck. In the old vaudeville days, not every act would get on stage. If they didn’t get on stage, they didn’t get paid. To “break a leg” meant to get on stage, your leg broke past the curtain.

We cannot understand “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John” (Revelation 1:1) unless we interpret the language in light of the Old Testament usage of symbols and words. We cannot appreciate the warnings given to the seven churches without digging into the history of those churches and what was happening at the time the book was written.

This book was not written to 21st century Christians. It was written by and for 1st century Christians and must be interpreted in that light. This alone would eliminate most of the arguments and false theories about the end times.

In the same way, every book, every verse, every word of the Bible must be interpreted in the same way. We have a responsibility to properly interpret the scriptures. To do otherwise can lead to our own destruction.

2 Peter 3:15-16   “And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

Dennis Regling www.bibledefender.com