IT is of first importance that the expositor should constantly hear in mind that not only are the substance and the sentiments expressed in Holy Writ of Divine origin, but that the whole of its contents are verbally inspired. Its own affirmations lay considerable emphasis upon that fact. Said holy Job, "I have esteemed the words of His mouth more than my necessary food" (23:12): he not only venerated God’s Word in its entirety, but highly prized each syllable in it. "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times" (Ps. 12:6). We believe that is more than a general statement concerning the preciousness, purity and permanence of what proceeds out of the mouth of Jehovah, for it is to be duly noted that the Divine utterances are not simply likened to silver tried in a furnace, but to "a furnace of earth." Though the Holy Spirit has employed the vernacular of earth, yet He has purged what He uses from all human dross, giving some of His terms an entirely different force from their human original, investing many of them with a higher meaning, and applying all with spiritual perfection—as the "purified seven times" purports. Thus, "every word of God is pure" (Prov. 30:5).

The Lord Jesus repeatedly laid stress on this aspect of the Truth. When making known to His disciples the fundamental requirements of their receiving answers to prayer, He said, "If ye abide in Me [maintain a spirit of constant dependence upon and remain in communion with Him], and My words abide in you [forming your thoughts and regulating your desires], ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you" (John 15:7)—for in such cases they would request only that which would be for God’s glory and their own real good. Again, He declared, "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (John 6:63). God’s Word then is made up of words, and each one in it is selected by Divine wisdom and positioned with unerring precision. It therefore behooves us to spare no pains in seeking to ascertain the exact meaning of each of its terms and most diligently to scrutinize the exact order in which they are placed, for the right understanding of a passage turns first upon our obtaining a correct understanding of its language. That should be so obvious as to require no argument, yet it is surprising how often that elementary principle is ignored and contravened.

Before stating several more rules which should direct the expositor, particularly those which relate more directly to the interpretation of words and phrases, let us mention several warnings which need to be heeded. First, do not assume at the outset that all is plain and intelligible to you, for often the words of Scripture are used in a different and higher sense than they are in common speech. Thus it is not sufficient to be acquainted with their dictionary meaning: rather do we have to ascertain how they are used by the Holy Spirit. For example, "hope" signifies very much more in the Word of God than it does on the lips of men. Second, do not jump to the conclusion that you have arrived at the meaning of a term because its force is quite obvious in one or two passages, for you are not in a position to frame a definition until you have weighed every occurrence of it. That demands much toil and patience, yet such are necessary if we are to be preserved from erroneous ideas. Third, do not conclude that any term employed by the Spirit has one uniform signification, for that is far from being the case. The force of these cautions will be made the more apparent in the paragraphs that follow.

13. The limitation of general statements. General statements are frequently to be limited, both in themselves and their application. Many examples of this principle occur in the book of Proverbs, and obviously so, for a proverb or maxim is a broad principle expressed in a brief form, a moral truth set forth in condensed and universal language. Thus, "He that is surety for a stranger shall smart for it; and he that hateth suretiship is sure" (11:15) enunciates the general rule, yet there are exceptions thereto. "Children’s children are the crown of old men; and the glory of children are their fathers" (17:6), though that is far from being the case in every instance. "Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favor of the Lord" (18:22), as many a man—the writer included—has discovered; yet the experience of not a few has been quite to the contrary. "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it from him" (22:15), yet God reserves to Himself the sovereign right to make that good to whom He pleases—where He blesses not this means, the child is hardened in his perversity. "Seest thou a man diligent in his business? he shall stand before kings" (22:29), though sometimes the most industrious meet with little material success.

General statements must be qualified if to interpret them in an unlimited sense clashes with other verses. A case in point is our Lord’s prohibition, "Judge not, that ye be not judged" (Matthew 7:1), for if that injunction be taken without any restriction it would flatly contradict His precept, "judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24); yet how often is this precept hurled at the heads of those performing a Christian duty. The capacity to weigh or judge, to form an estimate and opinion, is one of the most valuable of our faculties, and the right use of it one of our most important tasks. It is very necessary that we have our senses "exercised to discern [Greek "thoroughly judge"] both good and evil" (Heb. 5:14) if we are not to be deceived by appearances and taken in by every oily-mouthed impostor we encounter. Unless we form a judgment of what is true and false, how can we embrace the one and avoid the other? We are bidden to "beware of false prophets," but how can we do so unless we judge or carefully measure every preacher by the Word of God? We are prohibited from having fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but that requires us to determine which are such. Christ was not here forbidding all judging of others, but was reprehending an officious or magisterial, a presumptuous, hypocritical, rash or hasty, unwarrantable, unfair, and unmerciful judgment. Much grace and wisdom is required by us to heed rightly this word of our Master’s.

Another pertinent example is found in our Lord’s "Swear not at all" (Matthew 5:34). In the section of the sermon on the mount in which those words occur, Christ was freeing the Divine commandments from the errors of the rabbis and Pharisees, enforcing their strictness and spirituality. In the instance now before us, the Jewish doctors had restricted the Mosaic statutes upon oaths to the simple prohibition against perjury, encouraging the habit of swearing by the creature and the taking of oaths lightly in ordinary conversation. In verses 34-37 our Lord inveighed against those corrupt traditions and practices. That He never intended His "swear not at all" to be taken absolutely is clear from His bidding men to swear by no creature, and from His reprehending all oaths in ordinary conversation. The general analogy of Scripture reveals the need for oaths on certain occasions. Abraham swore to Abimelech (Gen. 21:23, 24) and required his servant to take an oath (Gen. 24:8, 9); Jacob (Gen. 31:53) and Joseph (Gen. 47:31) each took one. Paul repeatedly confirmed his teaching by solemnly calling God for a witness (Rom. 9:1; 2 Cor. 1:23, etc.). Hebrews 6:16, indicates that oaths are both permissible and requisite.

There are many expressions used in the Scriptures indefinitely rather than specifically, and which are not to be understood without qualification. Some of them are more or less apparent, others can only be discovered by a comparison and study of other passages treating of the same subject. Thus, "the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it" (Acts 28:28, and cf. 11:18) did not signify that every one of them would do so. Similarly, "The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together" (Isa. 40:5) and "I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh" (Acts 2:17) were simply announcements that the grace of God was to overflow the narrow bounds of Israel after the flesh. So too "the world" has a variety of meanings and is very rarely synonymous with all mankind. In such passages as John 7:4, and 12:19, only a very small part of its inhabitants were included. In Luke 2:1, the profane world is in view; in John 15:18, 19, the professing world, for it was the religious sections of Israel which hated Christ. In John 14:17, and 17:9, it is the non-elect who are referred to—compare "the world of the ungodly" (2 Pet. 2:5), whereas in John 1:29, and 6:33, it is the world of God’s elect, who are all actually saved by Christ.

Another word which is used in the Bible with considerable latitude is "all," and very rarely is it found without limitation. "All things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive" (Matthew 21:22) obviously means whatsoever we ask that is according to God’s will (1 John 5:14). When the apostles said to Christ, "All seek for Thee" (Mark 1:37), that "all did marvel" at His miracles (Mark 5:20), and that "all the people came unto Him" in the temple (John 8:2), those expressions were far from signifying the sum total of the inhabitants of Palestine. When Luke tells his readers that he "had perfect understanding of all things from the very first" (1:3), and when we are informed that Christ foretold all things (Mark 13:23) unto His apostles, such language is not to be taken absolutely. In like manner such statements as "all glorified God for that which was done" (Acts 4:21), "this is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law" (Acts 21:28), "thou shalt be His witness unto all men" (Acts 22:15), are to be regarded relatively. Consequently, in the light of those examples, when he deals with "He died for all" (2 Cor. 5:15) and "gave Himself a ransom for all" (1 Tim. 2:6), the expositor must ascertain from other Scriptures (such as Isa. 53:8; Matt. 1:21; Eph. 5:25) whether they mean all mankind or all who believe.

The same is true of the expression "every man" (see for instance, Mark 8:25; Luke 16:16; Rom. 12:3; and compare 2 Thess. 3:2; 1 Cor. 4:5). So too the words "all things." Neither "all things are clean unto you" (Luke 11:41) nor "all things are lawful unto me" (1 Cor. 6:12) can be taken at face value, or many Scriptures would be contradicted. "I am made all things to all men" (1 Cor. 9:22), must be explained by what immediately precedes. The "all things" of Romans 8:28, has reference to "the sufferings of this present time," and the "all things" of 8:32, means the "all things that pertain unto life and godliness" (2 Pet. 1:3). The "times of restitution of all things" (Acts 3:21) is at once modified by the words immediately following: "which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began," and most certainly none of them predicted the restoration of the Devil, and his angels to their pristine glory. "To reconcile all things unto Himself" (Col. 1:20) must not be understood to teach undiluted Universalism, or every passage affirming the eternal damnation of the Christless would be contradicted.

14. Positive statements with a comparative force. Many injunctions in Scripture are expressed in an absolute form, yet are to be understood relatively. This is evident from those examples which are there and thus explained. "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth" (Matthew 6:19) is expounded in the next verse: "But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven." "Labor not for the meat which perisheth" (John 6:27) is not an absolute prohibition, as the "but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life" shows. Likewise, "Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others" (Phil. 2:4): we must love our neighbors as ourselves. "So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth" is to be taken relatively, for God frequently employs both the one and the other as instruments to do those very things: "but God that giveth the increase" (1 Cor. 3:7) shows where the emphasis is to be placed, and the One to whom the glory is to be ascribed. "Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible . . . a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price" (1 Pet. 3:3, 4).

There are, however, numerous examples that are not immediately explained for us, but which the Analogy of Faith makes clear. "And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the Lord: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty; but by My name Jehovah was I not known to them" (Ex. 6:2, 3). Yet it is quite plain from the words of Abraham in Genesis 15:6, 8, from his calling the altar "Jehovah-jireh" (Gen. 22:14), from Genesis 26:2, 24, and from God’s words to Jacob in 28:13, that the patriarchs were acquainted with this Divine title. But they did not know Him as the Fulfiller of His promises or in His actual covenant faithfulness; whereas Moses and the Hebrews were now to be given proof of His word in Genesis 15:13, 14, and be brought into the land of Canaan. "Mine eyes are ever toward the Lord" (Ps. 25:15) must be understood in harmony with other Scriptures which show there were times when David’s eyes were turned away from the Lord, and, as the result, he fell into grievous sins; nevertheless that was the habit of his heart, the general tenor of his spiritual life. See 1 Kings 15:5, for another comparative statement about David.

"Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not desire" any longer continued, as what follows shows—the shadows giving place to the substance: "burnt offering and sin offering hast Thou not required" (Ps. 40:6). Those last words are obviously to be understood relatively, for such offerings were then required by Divine appointment. But the presentation of the most costly sacrifices (the ram, or a bullock) were unacceptable to Him unless they proceeded from those who sincerely desired to obey and serve Him, as is clear from such passages as Proverbs 21:27; Isaiah 1:11-15. Comparative conformity to the precepts of the moral Law was of much greater importance than compliance with the ceremonial (see 1 Sam. 15:22; Ps. 69:30, 31; Prov. 21:3; Hos. 6:6; 1 Cor. 7:19). Worship is rejected unless proffered by love and gratitude. Similarly are we to understand, "For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices" (Jer. 7:22)—those were not the primary or principal things I enjoined. No, "But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey My voice": the design of the whole revelation at Sinai being to inculcate practical subjection to God’s will, the Levitical ritual being a means to that end.

Words that are used to express perpetuity are not to be stretched any farther than the known duration of the things spoken of. As when the Jews were commanded to keep certain institutions throughout their generations to be ordinances for ever (Ex. 12:24; Num. 15:15), it was not signified they were to do so throughout eternity, but only during the Mosaic economy. Likewise the everlasting mountains and perpetual hills of Habakkuk 3:6, spoke only of comparative permanency and stability, for the earth is yet to be destroyed. "But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth" (Matthew 6:3). Neither is this to be taken absolutely, otherwise any act of beneficence which came under the cognizance of our fellows would be prohibited, and that would be contrary to the Analogy of Faith. The primitive Christians did not always conceal their donations, as Acts 11:29, 30, demonstrates. Secrecy itself may become a cloak of avarice, and under the pretence of hiding good works we may hoard up money to spend upon ourselves. There are times when a person of prominence may rightly excite his backward brethren by his own spirit of liberality. This Divine precept was designed to restrain the corrupt ambition of our hearts after the praise of men. Christ meant that we are to perform deeds of charity as unobtrusively as possible, making it our chief concern to have the approbation of God rather than the applause of our fellows. When a good work has been done, we should dismiss it from our minds, and instead of congratulating ourselves upon it, press on to other duties which are yet before us.

We are not to conclude from the terms of Luke 14:12, 13, that it is wrong for us to invite our friends and relatives to partake of our hospitality, though a comparative is there again expressed in positive language; but rather must we see to it that the poor and needy are not neglected or slighted by us. "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). How often have those words been misunderstood, yea, wrested; for it is a serious mistake to conclude from them either that there was no "grace" under the Mosaic economy or that there is no "law" under the Christian. The fact is that the contrast is not between the messages of Moses and Christ, but the characteristics of their ministries. "Ye see Me no more" (John 16:10), said Christ to His apostles. Yet they did! What then did He mean? That they should not see Him again in a state of humiliation, in the form of a Servant, in the likeness of sin’s flesh—compare "like unto the Son of man" (Rev. 1:13) because then in His glorified state. Acts 1:3, definitely informs us that Christ was seen of the apostles for forty days after His resurrection, and, of course, He is now seen by them in heaven. When the apostle declared, "I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2), he did not mean that that was his sole theme, but rather that such was his dominant and prominent subject. When we are exhorted "be careful for nothing" (Phil. 4:6), we certainly are not to understand that care to please God is excluded, or that we are not to have deep concern for our sins.

The above examples (many others could be added) show that constant care is needed to distinguish between positive and comparative statements, and between words with an absolute force and those with merely a relative one.