At this point you must begin tentatively drawing together in your mind the essential discoveries from the previous sections for the purpose of focusing on the specific “message” of the passage as it relates more broadly to the message of both its immediate and its wider context. In other words, you can no longer pay attention only to individual features of the passage. How the passage as a complete entity actually fits into a broader body of truth now calls for attention.
At this stage you may find it helpful to summarize for yourself what you consider to be the passage’s message—including its central point(s), essential characteristics, unmistakable implications, or the like. Such a summary is necessarily quite tentative, but it helps to focus your attention on the biblical and theological significance of the passage. The three procedures outlined next are designed to help you make headway as regards the passage’s connections with the rest of Scripture, and the three that follow in step 1.10 should help you relate the passage to the more general discipline of dogmatic theology.
1.9.1. Analyze the use of the passage elsewhere in Scripture
Is the passage or any part of it quoted or alluded to anywhere else in the Bible? How? Why? If more than once, how and why, and what are the differences, if any? What does the reference made elsewhere to the passage tell you about how it was interpreted and is to be interpreted? If it is alluded to, how does the allusion shed light on how the passage was understood within the context where the allusion is found? If it is quoted, how does the circumstance under which it is quoted aid in its interpretation? The fact that a portion of a passage is quoted elsewhere in Scripture may say a great deal about its intended impact, its uniqueness, its foundational nature theologically, or the like. The way a later inspired biblical writer uses the words or concepts of an earlier biblical passage can take you a long distance toward appreciating the point of that earlier passage.
1.9.2. Analyze the passage’s relation to the rest of Scripture
How does the passage function dogmatically (i.e., as teaching or conveying a message) in the section, book, division, Testament, Bible—in that order? Does it have any special relationships to any apocryphal or pseud-epigraphic writings or any other extrabiblical writings whose content or perspective might illumine the passage ? How does it or its elements compare to other Scriptures that address the same sorts of issues? What is it similar or dissimilar to? It may be necessary to address these questions with various portions of the passage if you judge that various portions make individual assertions. But the primary goal is always to see the message of the passage as a whole as it fits within and contributes to the overall biblical revelation.
1.9.3. Analyze the passage’s import for understanding Scripture
What hinges on it elsewhere? What other elements in Scripture help make it comprehensible? Why? How? Does the passage affect the meaning or value of other Scriptures in a way that crosses literary or historical lines? Does the passage concern issues dealt with in the same or different ways elsewhere in Scripture? Does the passage exist primarily to reinforce what is already knowable from other portions of Scripture, or does it make a genuinely special, perhaps even unique contribution? Ask yourself the following question: Suppose the passage were not in the Bible at all. What would be lost, or how would the message of the Bible be less complete if the passage did not exist? Answering that question should yield useful results for appreciating the biblical context.
1.10.1. Locate the passage theologically
Where does the passage fit within the whole corpus of revelation constituting Christian theology? Under which covenant does it fit? Are aspects of it limited in part or in whole to the Old Covenant as, for example, certain cultic sacrificial practices or certain rules for tribal responsibilities would be? If so, is it still relevant as a historical example of God’s relationship to human beings, or as an indication of God’s holiness, standards, justice, immanence, transcendence, compassion, and so forth? (The reason theology is called theology [literally, the study of God] is that the better one understands God, the better one understands what life is about, what truths and practices are essential or important, and what values best protect against disobedience to God. One can understand much about God from the covenant God revealed to Israel even if various aspects of that covenant are superseded by the New Covenant.) Is the passage related to far broader theological concerns that encompass both covenants and are not strictly bound by either? To which doctrine(s) does the passage relate? Does it have potential relevance for the classical doctrinal conceptions of God, humanity, angels, sin, salvation, the church, eschatology, and so on? Does it relate to these areas of doctrine because of its vocabulary or subject matter, or perhaps because of something less explicit? (A passage that shows the nature of God’s love for us may not happen to mention love, God, or us directly.)
1.10.2. Identify the specific issues raised or solved by the passage
Go beyond the general areas of doctrine touched on in the passage and identify the specific issues. What are the problems, blessings, concerns, confidences, and so forth about which the passage has something to say? How does the passage speak to these? How clearly are they dealt with in the passage? Is the passage one that raises apparent difficulties for some doctrines while solving others? If so, try to deal with this situation systematically and also in a manner that is helpful to your readers.
1.10.3. Analyze the theological contribution of the passage
What does the passage contain that contributes to the solution of doctrinal questions or supports solutions offered elsewhere in Scripture? How major or minor is the passage’s contribution? How certain can you be that the passage, properly understood, has the theological significance you propose to attach to it? Does your approach agree with that of other scholars or theologians who are known to have addressed themselves to the passage? How does the passage conform theologically to the entire system of truth contained in Christian theology? (It is a basic and indeed necessary assumption that a proper theology should be consistent overall and univocal: coherent and noncontradictory.) How does your passage comport with the greater theological whole? In what way might it be important precisely for that whole? Does it function to counterbalance or correct any questionable or extreme theological position? Is there anything about the passage that does not seem readily to relate to a particular expression of Christian theology? (Remember that the Scripture is primary and theological systems are secondary.)
What solution can you offer for any problems, even tentatively? If a solution is not readily forthcoming, why? Is it because the passage is obscure, because you lack knowledge, or because the presumptions and speculations required would perhaps be too great to be convincing? The Bible contains some things that from a human point of view may seem difficult to comprehend or even paradoxical. Does your passage deal with an area where there are so many unknowns that you must refrain from trying to identify some aspects of its theological contribution? If so, your reader deserves to be told this, but in a constructive rather than a destructive way. Do everything you can to milk the passage for its theological value, but do not force anything from or into the passage.
Everyone agrees that exegesis seeks to determine the meaning of a passage of Scripture. Many exegetes believe, however, that their responsibilities stop with the past—that exegesis is the attempt to discover what the text meant, not what it means now.
Placing such arbitrary limits on exegesis is unsatisfactory for three reasons. First, it ignores the ultimate reason why the vast majority of people engage in exegesis or are interested in the results of exegesis: they desire to hear and obey God’s word as it is found in the passage. Exegesis, in other words, is an empty intellectual entertainment when divorced from application. Second, it addresses only one aspect of meaning—the historical—as if God’s words were intended only for individual generations and not also for us and, indeed, for those who will follow us in time. The Scriptures are our Scriptures, not just the Scriptures of the ancients. Finally, it leaves the actual personal or corporate existential interpretation and use of the passage to subjectivity. The exegete, who has come to know the passage best, refuses to help the reader or hearer of the passage at the very point where the reader’s or hearer’s interest is keenest. The exegete leaves the key function—response—completely to the subjective sensibilities of the reader or hearer, who knows the passage least. Naturally, the exegete cannot actually control what the reader or hearer does in response to the passage. But the exegete can—and must—try to define the areas within which a faithful response will be found and likewise to warn about putative areas of response that the passage might seem on the surface to call for but that turn out not to be justified by the results of good exegesis.
Making decisions about application is more an art than a science; it is qualitative, not quantitative. Nevertheless, the following procedural steps will help you isolate the applicable issues of the passage systematically and will maximize your chances of relating those issues properly to the persons or groups for whom your exegesis should have benefit. An application should be just as rigorous, just as thorough, and just as analytically sound as any other step in the exegesis process. It cannot be merely tacked on to the rest of the exegesis as a sort of spiritual afterthought. Moreover, it must carefully reflect the data of the passage if it is to be convincing. Your reader or hearer needs to see how you derived the application as the natural and final stage of the entire process of careful, analytical study (exegesis) of your passage.
Subjectivity is the primary enemy of good application. When people think that they can derive from a passage an application somehow relevant to them but not to others, or somehow unique to one passage but not even comparable to the applications of genuinely similar passages, the probability of logical consistency is reduced and the likelihood of accuracy is threatened.
Objectivity in application is best assured by following the sort of systematic process outlined next. See also “A List of Frequent Hermeneutical Errors” (in appendix 2) for brief explanations of some of the most common hermeneutical fallacies that undermine the likelihood of proper application.
1.11.1. List the life issues
A starting point for the proper application of a passage is comparing life issues. To apply a passage, you must try to decide what its central issues are and what issues in it are only secondary. In other words, what aspect(s) of life is the passage really concerned about? You must try to decide how such issues are or are not still active in the lives of persons or groups today. What do “I” or “we” encounter today that is similar or at least related to what the passage deals with? The life issues will emerge from the exeget-ical data on the one hand, and from your own knowledge of the world on the other.
First identify all potential life issues included in the passage. Then identify issues transferable from the passage to the current situation, using the following steps to help make the transfer accurate. The audience for whom you are doing your exegesis can have an effect on the way you isolate the issues but should not per se change the issues themselves.
1.11.2. Clarify the nature of the application (does it inform or direct?)
Applications may generally be of two kinds: those that basically inform the reader and those that basically direct the reader. A passage that functions to describe some aspect of God’s love might be considered primarily to inform. A passage that functions to command the reader to love God wholeheartedly primarily directs. Obviously there is considerable overlap between informing and directing, and a passage can contain elements that are at the same time informative and directive. Nevertheless, the force of your application will be much clearer and more specific if you divide the applicability in this way, at least tentatively. At first, maximize—include all the possibilities, knowing that you will discard some or most later, after more analysis. Caution: Narrative passages do not generally teach something directly; rather, they illustrate what is taught directly elsewhere.
1.11.3. Clarify the possible areas of application (faith or action)
Applications may fall into two general areas: faith and action. In practice, faith and action should ultimately be inseparable—a genuine Christian could not display one without the other. But even though they must belong together in the Christian’s life, faith and action may be considered distinct entities, and a given passage, part or whole, may concentrate on one more than the other. Try therefore to decide the potential areas of application for the material contained in the passage, tentatively dividing the areas into categories of faith and action. Be inclusive at first; reject and discard later.
1.11.4. Identify the audience of the application
There are primarily two audiences to whom the application(s) may be seen to be directed: the personal and the corporate. What in the passage gives information or direction regarding faith or action to individuals? What to groups or corporate structures? If such a differentiation cannot be made, why not?
If the passage informs or directs individuals, what kind of individuals are they? Christian or non-Christian? Laypersons or clergy? Parents or children? Powerful or weak? Haughty or humble? Desperate or confident? What in the passage makes this clear? How does the passage address the object of its informing or directing? If the passage informs or directs groups or corporate entities, which kind are they? Church? Nation? Clergy? A profession? A societal structure? A family? People who are closely allied? People who are at enmity with one another? Some other group or combination of groups? And so on.
1.11.5. Establish the categories of the application
Is the application directed toward matters primarily personal in nature or primarily interpersonal in nature? Matters that relate to sin, or perhaps to doubt, or perhaps to proper piety? Or to the relationship of God and people? Is the concern social, economic, moral, religious, spiritual, familial, financial, or other areas? And so on.
1.11.6. Determine the time focus of the application
Does the passage call primarily for a recognition of something that has occurred in the past as a way of orienting us to what God has done, what God is like, or who we are in relation to him, or the like? Or does it expect present faith or action? Does it perhaps look primarily to the future? Does the application involve a combination of times? Is there a concern for immediate action? Or is what the passage calls for more a matter of steady, consistent response over a long period of time? Does the timing of the application depend on the nature of the audience or some other factor? And so on.
1.11.7. Fix the limits of the application
This is an important step: it often is as valuable and necessary to explain how a passage does not apply as to explain how it does. Does the passage call for a response that could possibly be misunderstood and then taken too far? If so, how can you define what is too far? Does the passage call for an application that is secondary rather than primary? That is, does your passage function more as a background or support, or part of a further or larger passage that more specifically suggests an application than does your passage? Is your passage one of several that all function together to indicate a given application that none of them individually would quite indicate, or at least quite indicate in the same way? Are there any applications that at first might seem appropriate to the passage but which upon more careful examination are not? If so, briefly identify these for your reader and give your reasoning. Does the passage have a double-barreled application, as certain messianic passages do—one application having immediate reference for the people who first heard it in OT times, the other having more of a long-range reference, for people in our day? If so, are both applications of equal weight now? Were they of equal weight when the passage was first spoken or written?
In general, it is probably safest to limit potential applications as much as possible. Rare is the passage that calls for several applications, all of equal relevance or practicability. Try to decide what single application is most central to and follows most naturally from the passage. If you are convinced that the passage demands more than one application, at least try to rank these in order of either universality of application or urgency of application. Remember: You are not responsible for discussing all the possible ways in which the passage might strike the fancy of the reader or be put to use—wisely or not—by the reader. Rather, you are responsible for educating the reader about what the passage itself calls for or leads to in terms of application. If the passage is so brief or specialized that you are at a loss to suggest any application for it (even as part of a greater whole), you would be wiser to suggest no application than to suggest one that is ultimately unsound. By all means, an application must derive demonstrably from the data of the passage and not from preconceived notions to which the passage is then forced to conform.
1.12.1. Investigate and learn from what others have said about the passage
Even though you will have consulted commentaries, grammars, and many kinds of other books and articles in the process of completing the preceding eleven steps, you should now undertake a more systematic investigation of the secondary literature that may apply to your passage. In order for the exegesis to be your work and not merely a mechanical compendium of others’ views, it is wise to do your own thinking and to arrive at your own conclusions as much as possible before this step. Otherwise you are not so much doing an exegesis of the passage as evaluating others’ exegeses—and therefore potentially prejudicing yourself not to go beyond what they have achieved.
Now, however, is the proper time to ask what various scholars think about the passage. What points have they made that you have overlooked? What have they said better? What have they given more weight to? Or conversely, what do you feel you must reject in their views? Can you point out things they have said that are questionable or incorrect? If in your opinion any of these scholars is to be disagreed with, you can point this out by using footnotes for minor differences and the body of the paper for more significant ones. As a rule, it is considered far more convincing to disagree with a scholar’s views if you have also given that person proper commendation for the views that you do agree with, and to state your own conclusions modestly rather than stridently. If you cannot describe with appreciation and respect someone else’s earnest attempt to explain a position and defend it, even though you disagree with it, you will surely undercut the degree to which your own arguments seem convincing as you try to refute it.
1.12.2. Compare and adjust
Have the conclusions of other scholars helped you to change your analysis in any way? Do other scholars analyze the passage or any aspects of it in a manner that is more incisive or that leads to a more satisfying set of conclusions? Do they organize their exegesis in a better way? Do they give consideration to implications you had not even considered? Do they supplement your own findings? If so, do not hesitate to revise your own conclusions or procedures in steps 1.1 through 1.11 (textual analysis through application), giving proper credit in each case. But never feel that in your exegesis you must cover everything that the others do. Reject what does not seem germane, and limit what seems out of proportion. You decide, not they.
1.12.3. Apply your discoveries throughout your paper or project
It should not be necessary to include a separate section of findings from secondary literature in any draft of your paper/project. So do not view this step as resulting in a single block of material within the paper. Rather, this step will show itself generally in the quality of the paper, in the suitability of your interaction with the views of others, in the footnotes, and in the bibliography. Thus step 1.12, consulting secondary literature, is a step in your research process but not something you need to discuss in your final written product. At many points throughout the exegesis, your discoveries should produce additions or corrections or both. You must always be willing to go back and adjust what you have previously thought you understood. Try to be sure that a change or addition at one point does not contradict statements made elsewhere in the paper. Consider the implications of all changes. For example, if you adjust the textual analysis (step 1.1) on the basis of what you have now learned from something in the secondary literature, how will this affect the translation, lexical data, and other parts of the exegesis? Aim for consistency and evenness throughout. This will considerably influence the reader’s ability to appreciate your conclusions. Carefully give due credit to secondary sources in the footnotes and bibliography. Every source that has contributed to your conclusions requires citation somewhere in your paper/project, lest you implicitly claim that ideas you received are ideas you generated.
After completing the research in step-by-step fashion, you will want to organize the results into a format that presents them effectively to the reader.
There are many acceptable formats. If a given one is specified for you by a professor or editor, you will obviously follow that. Otherwise you might wish to consider using one of the three most common options. The first is the topical format, which proceeds much in the same order as the twelve steps above, but with sections and headings rearranged, combined, expanded, or otherwise adjusted according to your own best sense of how the material of the passage can be drawn convincingly to the attention of the reader. The second is the commentary format, which moves more or less verse by verse through the passage, marshaling relevant data and conclusions as they apply to individual parts of the passage, yet not excluding appropriate additional sections, such as introductions, excursuses, and summaries. The third is the unitary format, in which the passage is discussed in a relatively free-flowing fashion, apart from a strictly systematic or methodical outline, with or without the use of formally identified sections, subsections, headings, and so forth.
Any of these formats—and others—can serve you well. Do not hesitate to be innovative, as long as the format you choose aids in getting the full impact of your findings across to your readers clearly.