A second common figure of speech found within the Bible is hyperbole. A hyperbole is a deliberate exaggeration made for emphasis. When a mother tells her child, “I called you a thousand times to come home for dinner,” that is hyperbole. An example of a hyperbole in the Bible would be Jesus’ statement about cutting off our right hand:

And if your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to go into hell (Matt. 5:30).

If Jesus literally meant that every one of us who sins in some way by using our right hand should cut that hand off, then all of us should be missing our right hands! Of course, the problem with sin is not really in our hands. Most likely, Jesus was teaching us that sin can send us to hell, and the way to avoid sin is to remove temptations and those things that cause us to stumble.

Not only should we interpret New Testament scriptures in the light of the Old Testament, we should always interpret Old Testament scriptures in light of the New Testament. For example, some sincere believers have read the dietary laws of Moses and concluded that Christians should restrict their diets in accordance with those laws. If they would read just two passages in the New Testament, however, they would discover that Moses’ dietary laws are not applicable to those under the New Covenant:

And He [Jesus] said to them, “Are you too so uncomprehending? Do you not see that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him; because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean) (Mark 7:18-19).

But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods, which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer (1 Tim. 4:1-5).

Under the new covenant, we are not subject to the Law of Moses, but to the Law of Christ (see 1 Cor. 9:20-21). Although Jesus certainly endorsed the moral aspects of Mosaic Law (thus incorporating them into the Law of Christ), neither He nor the apostles taught that Christians are obligated to keep the Mosaic dietary laws.

It is clear, however, that the early Christians, all converted Jews, continued to keep the old covenant dietary laws because of their cultural convictions (see Acts 10:9-14). And as Gentiles began to believe in Jesus, the early Jewish Christians asked them to limitedly follow Mosaic dietary laws purely out of deference to neighboring Jews who might be offended otherwise (see Acts 15:1-21). Thus, there is nothing wrong with Christians keeping the dietary laws of Moses just as long is they aren’t trusting that keeping those laws is what saves them.

Some of the early Christians were also persuaded that it was wrong to eat meats that had been sacrificed to idols. Paul instructed believers who thought otherwise (like himself) to walk in love towards their brethren of “weaker faith” (see Rom. 14:1), doing nothing to cause them to violate their consciences. If a person abstains from eating foods out of conviction before God (even if those convictions are unfounded), he is to be commended for his devotion, not condemned for his misunderstanding. Likewise, those who abstain from certain foods out of personal conviction should not pass judgment on those who don’t abstain. Both groups should walk in love towards the other, as this is certainly commanded by God (see Rom. 14:1-23).

In any case, because the Bible is progressive revelation, we should always interpret the oldest revelation (the Old Testament) through the light of the newest revelation (the New Testament). None of the revelation that God has ever given is contradictory; it is always complimentary.

Christ’s parables are similes, which are the same as metaphors, but similes always include the word like, as or so. They teach spiritual lessons also by comparing similarities between two things that are essentially dissimilar. That is an important point to remember as we interpret them; otherwise we may make the error of looking for significance in each little detail of every parable. Metaphors and similes always reach a place where the similarities end and the dissimilarities begin. For example, if I say to my wife, “Your eyes are like pools,” I mean that her eyes are blue, deep and inviting. I don’t mean that fish swim in them, that birds land on them, and that they freeze over with ice during the winter.

Let us consider three of Jesus’ parables, all similes, the first being the Parable of the Dragnet:

The kingdom of heaven is like a dragnet cast into the sea, and gathering fish of every kind; and when it was filled, they drew it up on the beach; and they sat down, and gathered the good fish into containers, but the bad they threw away. So it will be at the end of the age; the angels shall come forth, and take out the wicked from among the righteous, and will cast them into the furnace of fire; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matt. 13:47-50).

Are the kingdom of heaven and a dragnet basically the same? Absolutely not! They are very much different. But there are a few similarities. Just as fish are judged and separated into two categories, desirable and undesirable, when they are pulled from a dragnet, so it will be in God’s kingdom. One day the wicked and the righteous, who are currently living together, will be separated. But that is where the similarities end. Fish swim; people walk. Fishermen separate fish. Angels will separate the wicked from the righteous. Fish are judged by how good they taste after they are cooked. People are judged by their obedience or disobedience to God. Good fish are put into containers and bad fish are thrown away. Righteous people inherit God’s kingdom and wicked people are cast into hell.

This parable is a perfect example of how every metaphor and simile is ultimately an imperfect comparison because the things being compared are basically dissimilar. We don’t want to go beyond the intention of the speaker, assuming that dissimilarities are actually similarities. For example, we all know that “good fish” actually end of being cooked in fire, and “bad fish” go back into the water to swim another day. Jesus didn’t mention that! It would have worked against His purpose.

This particular parable does not teach, regardless of what anyone says, a strategy of “dragnet evangelism,” where we try to drag everyone into the church, good and bad, whether they want to come or not! This parable does not teach that the beach is the best place to witness. This parable does not prove that the rapture of the church occurs at the end of the tribulation period. This parable does not teach that our salvation is purely God’s sovereign choice, since the chosen fish in the parable had nothing to do with the reason for their selection! (I actually heard a young pastor teach this very thing once.) Don’t force unwarranted significance into Jesus’ parables!

Whenever possible, we should also consider the cultural and historical context of the scripture passages we are studying. Knowing something about the unique aspects of the culture, geography and history of a biblical setting often helps us to gain insight we might otherwise have missed. Of course, this requires some help from books besides the Bible. A good study Bible usually will contain help in this area.

Here are a few examples of how historical or cultural information can keep us from confusion when reading the Bible:

1.) We sometimes read in Scripture of people going up on housetops (see Acts 10:9) or digging through roofs (see Mark 2:4). It helps to know that roofs were generally flat in Israel in Bible days, and that there were stairways on the outside of most homes that led up to those flat roofs. If we don’t know that, we might imagine some biblical character on a rooftop straddling the roof peak and clinging to the chimney!

2.) We read in Mark 11:12-14 that Jesus cursed a fig tree because it had no figs, even though “it was not the season for figs.” It helps to know that fig trees usually have a few figs on them even when they are out of season, so Jesus was not unreasonable in His expectation.

3.) We read in Luke 7:37-48 about a woman who entered a Pharisee’s house where Jesus was dining. Scripture says that as she stood behind Jesus weeping, she began to wet His feet with her tears, wipe them with her hair, and kiss and anoint them with perfume. We wonder how such a thing could be accomplished as Jesus was sitting around a table eating. Did she crawl under the table? How was she able to get though the legs of all the other diners?

The answer is found in Luke’s statement that Jesus was “reclining at the table” (Luke 7:37). That is, the customary way of eating in those days was to lie on one’s side on the floor around a low table, propping oneself up with one arm and feeding one’s mouth with the other arm and hand. In this posture was Jesus adored by the woman.

This also helps us understand how John could lean against Jesus’ breast at the Last Supper to ask Him a question. John was lying on his side with his back facing Jesus, and he simply leaned back on Jesus’ breast to discretely ask his question (see John 13:23-25). DaVinci’s famous painting of the Last Supper, which shows Jesus seated at a table with six of His disciples on either side, reveals the painter’s biblical ignorance. He needed some historical context!

Perhaps the absolute worst interpretation I’ve ever heard of one of Christ’s parables was one preacher’s explanation of the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. First, let’s read that parable:

He presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to [is like] a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares also among the wheat, and went away. But when the wheat sprang up and bore grain, then the tares became evident also. And the slaves of the landowner came and said to him, “Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?” And he said to them, “An enemy has done this!” And the slaves said to him, “Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?” But he said, “No; lest while you are gathering up the tares, you may root up the wheat with them. Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, ‘First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn'” (Matt. 13:24-30).

Now here was that certain preacher’s explanation:

It is a fact that when wheat and tares sprout, they look identical. No one can tell if they are wheat or tares. That is just how it is in the world and in the church. No one can tell who are the true Christians and who are the unbelievers. They cannot be identified by how they live their lives, because many Christians are not obeying Christ anymore than unbelievers. Only God knows their hearts, and He will sort them out in the end.

That, of course, is not the point of the Parable of the Wheat and Tares! In reality, it teaches that believers are indeed very distinguishable from non-believers. Notice that the slaves realized that tares had been planted when the wheat bore grain (see v. 26). Tares don’t bear any fruit, and that is how they are easily identified as tares. I think it is significant that Jesus chose the fruitless tares to represent the wicked who will be gathered in the end and cast into hell.

The primary points of this parable are plain: The truly saved bear fruit; the unsaved do not. Although God is not judging the wicked yet as they live among the saved, one day He will separate them from the righteous and cast them into hell.

Jesus actually provided an explanation of this particular parable, so there is no need for anyone to search for any significance beyond what He explained:

The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels. Therefore just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear (Matt. 13:36-43).

Paul wrote to Timothy:

Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things; for as you do this you will insure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you (1 Tim. 4:16; emphasis added).

Every minister should take this admonition to heart, paying close attention, first of all, to himself, making certain that he is setting an example of godliness.

Second, he should pay close attention to his teaching, because his eternal salvation and the eternal salvation of those who listen to him are dependent on what he teaches, just as Paul wrote in the above-quoted verse.^[1] If a minister embraces false doctrine or neglects to tell people the truth, the result can be eternally disastrous for him and others. (more…)

When people read what is known as Jesus’ “Olivet Discourse,” found in Matthew 24-25, some wrongly think He was speaking to unsaved people, and thus wrongly conclude that what He said has no application to them. They read the Parable of the Unfaithful Servant and the Parable of the Ten Virgins as if they were addressed to unbelievers. But as I’ve already said, both were addressed to some of Jesus’ closest disciples (see Matt. 24:3; Mark 13:3). Thus, if Peter, James, John and Andrew needed to be warned of the possibility of not being ready when Jesus returned, so do we. Jesus’ warnings in the Olivet Discourse are thus applicable to every believer, even those who don’t think so because of their failure to note who was being addressed by Jesus.

A third figure of speech that we encounter within Scripture is anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism is a metaphorical expression where human attributes are ascribed to God for the sake of helping us understand Him. For example, we read in Genesis 11:5:

And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built (Gen. 11:5).

This is a probable anthropomorphism because it seems unlikely that the all-knowing God literally had to journey from heaven down to Babel to investigate what people were building!

Many biblical scholars consider every biblical statement that describes parts of God’s body, such as His arms, hands, nose, eyes and hair, to be anthropomorphisms. Surely, they say, almighty God does not actually have such parts as humans do.

I would disagree, however, for a number of reasons. First, because Scripture plainly teaches that we have been created in God’s image and likeness:

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness” (Gen. 1:26; emphasis added).

Some would say we are created in God’s image and likeness only in the sense that we possess self-awareness, moral responsibility, the capacity to reason and so on. However, let us read a statement that is very similar to Genesis 1:26, one that occurs just a few chapters later:

When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth (Gen. 5:3; emphasis added).

What does this mean but that Seth was similar in physical appearance to his father Adam? So if that is what it means in Genesis 5:3, why doesn’t the identical expression mean the same thing in Genesis 1:26? Common sense and sound interpretation say that it does.

Furthermore, we have some descriptions of God by biblical authors who saw Him. For example, Moses, along with seventy-three other Israelites, saw God:

Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they beheld God, and they ate and drank (Ex. 24:9-11).

If you had asked Moses if God had hands and feet, what would he have said?^[1]

The prophet Daniel also had a vision of God the Father and God the Son:

I kept looking until thrones were set up, and the Ancient of Days [God the Father] took His seat; His vesture was like white snow, and the hair of His head like pure wool. His throne was ablaze with flames, its wheels were a burning fire. A river of fire was flowing and coming out from before Him; thousands upon thousands were attending Him, and myriads upon myriads were standing before Him; the court sat, and the books were opened…I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven one like a Son of Man [God the Son] was coming, and He came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, glory and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and men of every language might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away; and His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed (Dan. 7:9-10, 13-14).

If you had asked Daniel if God had white hair and had a form whereby he was able to sit on a throne, what would He have said?

All of this being so, I’m convinced that God the Father has a glorious form that is somewhat similar to the form of a human being, although He is not made of flesh and blood, but is a spirit (see John 4:24).

How can you discern which portions of Scripture are meant to be interpreted literally and which should be interpreted figuratively or symbolically? That should be easy for anyone who can reason logically. Interpret everything literally unless there is no other intelligent alternative than to interpret what is written figuratively or symbolically. The Old Testament prophets and the book of Revelation, for example, are clearly full of symbolism, some of which is explained, some of which is not. But the symbolisms are not difficult to identify.

^[1] Moses also once also saw God’s back as He “walked by.” God held His hand in such a way so as to block Moses from seeing His face; see Ex. 33:18-23.

Oftentimes the gospel itself is misrepresented by preachers and teachers who, because they fail to consider context, misinterpret Scripture. False teaching regarding God’s grace abounds for this very reason.

For example, Paul’s statement about salvation being a product of grace and not works, found in Ephesians 2:8, has been abused to promote a false gospel, all because context has been ignored. Paul wrote:

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast (Eph. 2:8-9).

Many focus exclusively on Paul’s statements about salvation being by grace, a gift, and not a result of works. From that, contrary to the testimony of hundreds of scriptures, they derive that there is no connection between salvation and holiness. Some even go so far to say that repentance is therefore not necessary for salvation to occur. This is a classic example of how Scripture is misinterpreted because context is ignored.

First, let us consider what the actual passage under consideration says in its entirety. Paul does not say that we have been saved by grace, but that we have been saved by grace through faith. Faith is every bit as much a part of the salvation equation as is grace. Scripture declares that faith without works is useless, dead, and cannot save (see Jas. 2:14-26). Thus Paul is not teaching that holiness is irrelevant in salvation. He is saying that our own efforts are not what save us; the basis of our salvation is God’s grace. We could never be saved without God’s grace. But it is only as we respond to God’s grace with faith that salvation actually occurs in our lives. The result of salvation is always obedience, the fruit of genuine faith. By looking at the context no further away than the very next verse, this is substantiated. Paul says:

For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them (Eph. 2:10).

The whole reason we have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, now new creations in Christ, was so we could walk in good works of obedience. Thus Paul’s salvation equation looks like this:

Grace + Faith = Salvation + Obedience

That is, grace plus faith equals (or results in) salvation plus obedience. When God’s grace is responded to in faith, the result is always salvation and good works.

Yet those who have ripped Paul’s words from their context have concocted a formula like this:

Grace + Faith – Obedience = Salvation

That is, grace plus faith without (or minus) obedience equals (or results in) salvation. That is heresy as far as the Bible is concerned.

If we read just a little more of the context of Paul’s words, we also soon discover that the situation in Ephesus was the same as it was just about everywhere Paul preached. That is, Jews were teaching Paul’s new Gentile converts that they had to be circumcised and keep some of the ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Law if they wanted to be saved. It was within the context of circumcision and ceremonial works that Paul had in mind when he wrote about the “works” that don’t save us (see Eph. 2:11-22).

If we read just a little further, taking in more of the context of Paul’s entire letter to the Ephesians, we see very clearly that Paul believed that holiness was essential for salvation:

But do not let immorality or any impurity or greed even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience (Eph. 5:3-6; emphasis added).

If Paul believed that God’s grace would ultimately save someone who was unrepentantly immoral, impure or covetous, he would never have written those words. Paul’s intended meaning of his words recorded in Ephesians 2:8-9 can only be rightly understood in the context of his entire letter to the Ephesians.

It is interesting that I’ve never been asked the question regarding women wearing trousers by pastors in China. That is probably because most Chinese women have been wearing trousers for a long time. I’ve only been asked the question regarding women and trousers by pastors in countries where most women don’t wear trousers. This shows their personal cultural bias.

It is also interesting to me that I’ve never been asked a similar question by female ministers in Myanmar, where men traditionally wear what we might call a skirt, but what they call a longgi. Again, what constitutes women’s and men’s clothing varies from culture to culture, so we must be careful not to force our cultural understanding on the Bible.

Finally, I wonder why so many men who expect women to not wear trousers based on Deuteronomy 22:5 feel no obligation to apply Leviticus 19:27 to themselves, which says,

You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads, nor harm the edges of your beard (Lev. 19:27).

How can men, in defiance of Leviticus 19:27, completely shave their own God-given beards, beards that clearly distinguish them from women, and then accuse women who wear trousers of trying to look like men? That would seem to be a little bit hypocritical!

Incidentally, a little historical information helps us understand God’s intention in Leviticus 19:27. Rounding off the side-growth of beards was part of an idolatrous pagan ritual. God didn’t want His people to appear to be devoted to pagan idols.