Webster defines interpretation as explaining or telling the meaning of something and presenting it in understandable terms. In interpretation you are seeking to place yourself in the writer's sandals, setting aside any preconceived ideas with the ultimate goal of arriving at the writer's original intent - including the intent of the ultimate Author, which sometimes goes beyond even the understanding of the human writer (as pointed out by Peter 1 Peter 1:10-12 notes). 

A synonym for interpretation is hermeneutics which is derived from the name of the pagan god Hermes who brought messages from the pagan gods to mortals, "translating" them as it were. The related Greek verb hermeneuo (click Greek word study) means to bring someone to an understanding of what is conveyed in another language, making it clear and intelligible and thus in a sense "translating" it. Hermeneutics then is the science (and art) of interpretation in this case the interpretation of the Bible. The comments and "steps" below will enable you to practice good "hermeneutic" technique, but clearly cannot substitute for more in depth training and instruction in this area.

Listen to the wise warning from D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones...

There is nothing so dangerous as to come to the Bible with a theory, with preconceived ideas, with some pet idea of our own, because the moment we do so, we shall be tempted to over-emphasize one aspect and under-emphasize another. (from chapter 1 of "Studies in the Sermon on the Mount", a modern day classic)

Dr. Howard Hendricks reminds us that...

"Meaning” (of the Scriptural passage) is not our subjective thoughts read into the text but God's objective truth read out of the text. As someone has well said, the task of Bible study is to “think God’s thoughts after Him." The miracle is that He used human authors to do so. Working through their personalities, their circumstances, and their concerns, the Holy Spirit superintended the crafting of a document. And each of the human authors—God's coauthors, we might call them—had a specific message in mind as he recorded his portion of the text. That’s why I like to refer to the step of Interpretation as the recreation process. We’re attempting to stand in the author’s shoes and re-create his experience—to think as he thought, to feel as he felt, and to decide as he decided. We’re asking, What did this mean to him? before we ever ask, What does it mean to us?" Hendricks goes on to remark that "in Observation we excavate. In Interpretation we erect. And buildings are always determined by their foundations. The more substantial the foundation, the more substantial the superstructure...In the same way, the quality of your interpretation will always depend on the quality of your observation. It is impossible to understand what a writer means until you notice what the writer says. Therefore, to observe well is to interpret well. You always need to observe with a view to interpreting (and eventually to applying) the Scripture. Observation is never an end in itself but always a means to an end."  (Hendricks, Howard  Living by the Book)

The proper interpretation of Scripture has long been a source of debate because many people consider the process too subjective. We've all heard remarks like "Doesn't everyone have their own view?" or "Aren't there many ways to interpret that passage?" The answer in fact is "no" there are not many ways to interpret the Bible. The Bible is not some abstract Picasso painting where everyone weighs in on their opinion as to what message the artist might have meant to convey. In contrast to the relativity so common in our world, it is comforting to know that every passage of Scripture has only one intended meaning and only one correct interpretation.

On the other hand, the passage may have many applications, but it always has only one intended meaning. Therefore the next time you hear the objection, "There are so many interpretations of the Bible I don't think we can be sure of what it means. So why study it?", ask the objector to interpret a verse like John 3:16. They will usually find that they can understand the passage and that God's one intended message is very clear.

THE BIBLE HAS...
ONE INTERPRETATION
MANY APPLICATIONS

Avoid arriving at an interpretation of Scripture based on your personal opinion, popular consensus, gut feelings, the persuasiveness of an argument, and even what you have been taught by other respected teachers (including a specific "brand" of systematic theology). Sometimes the most difficult aspect of interpretation is to "unlearn" prior faulty, flawed interpretations!

Remember that interpretation is the bridge between observation and application. Accurate interpretation is not only possible but it is crucial lest we inappropriately apply the Bible (click here for a sad example).  Acting on what God has said (application) assumes that you understand what He has said.

Is your approach to the interpretation of  Scripture like a person casting lots? Do you prayerfully open your Bible to see what happens to catch your eye or even worse do you close your eyes, open your Bible, and insert your finger on the page, supposing that the passage you are pointing to is God’s will and word you?

The renowned preacher, G. Campbell Morgan, told of the man who followed this method and came up with “Judas went out and hanged himself.” Finding these words unhelpful, he did it again and this time got “Go, and do thou likewise.” In desperation he tried once more and this time the words that jumped at him were, “What thou doest, do quickly.” The point of this humorous example is that even though this practice shows vast reverence for Scripture as God’s means of communicating with us, it is essential mystical, superstitious and even dangerous.

Because we are human and now see in a mirror dimly, there will always be Bible passages on which we may never find complete agreement among even conservative, literal interpreters. On the other hand, most of God’s Word can be confidently and accurately interpreted. The agnostic Mark Twain at least had the intellectual honesty to quip that...

 "It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand." -- Mark Twain, agnostic

HANDLING ACCURATELY
THE WORD OF TRUTH

The goal of inductive Bible study is to understand what God meant by what He said through human authors.  Paul spoke to this point in exhorting young Timothy to...

Be diligent (make every effort - aorist imperative = command to do this now, sometimes conveys a sense of urgency) to present (includes idea of yielding, surrendering to the disposal or service of another) yourself approved (tried as coins were assayed for purity and found to pass the test) to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing (making a straight cut - of a craftsman cutting a straight line, a farmer plowing a straight furrow, a mason setting a straight line of bricks, workmen building a straight road!) the word of truth (Truth is the correspondence between a reality and a declaration which professes to set it forth. Whatever God says is Truth. Truth is also a Person, Jesus). (see note 2Timothy 2:15)

From this verse, it is clear that accurate interpretation takes some "holy sweat" so to speak. And why make this effort? What's the goal? To stand unashamed before our Lord someday. And how can we be certain we will be unashamed? Because during our life on earth, we handled (and lived out) God's Word of Truth with integrity and accuracy. Accurate interpretation therefore is an imminently worthwhile goal.

In this same passage in 2 Timothy, you may have observed that the Greek word for rightly dividing literally means to cut straight and was used in ancient times to describe a craftsman cutting a straight line, a sewer sewing a straight seam, a farmer plowing a straight furrow, a surgeon dissecting a straight line (we all hope so!), a mason laying bricks in a straight line or a workman building a straight road. Figuratively the key point is that whatever the endeavor, careful attention is given to performance of the task to assure utmost accuracy.

The well known Christian speaker and writer Charles Colson sounds a similar caution as Paul does to Timothy writing that...

The longer I’m a Christian, the more I’m in fear of misinterpreting the Bible. It's an awesome responsibility.

Every devout Christian can understand the Bible for as Martin Luther wrote

There is not on earth a book more lucidly written than the Holy Scripture (Exposition of the 37th Psalm).

So how does someone without a seminary background rightly divide the Scripture? As you apply the simple principles discussed in the next section, you will learn how to cut the Scriptures straight. Crooked cutting of the Scripture can result in anything from minor errors to total chaos and confusion in the church (click example) or at worst a cult.

Some people want to have their ears tickled and therefore try to make the Bible say what they want to hear. We must align ourselves with the Bible, never the Bible with ourselves. Beloved, every time we go to the Scriptures, we need to treat them as a priceless gift from God and... 
 

Rightly dividing the Word of Truth (Interpretation) is vital if we are going to

walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God. (Application) (Colossians 1:10 notes)

Mark it down - the accuracy of your interpretation is directly proportional to the amount of time and effort taken to carefully observe the text.

The more time you spend in observation of the Scriptures, the less time you will have to spend on interpretation and the more accurate will be your interpretation.

The less time you spend observing the text, the more time you will have to spend in Interpretation, and the less accurate will be your result (at least potentially). And without accurate interpretation of the text, there can be no valid application of the Word to your life. 

Accurate interpretation is possible but does require effort. Paul exhorted Timothy to

Think over these things (Ask "What things" see notes 2Ti 2:1-2  2:3-4 2:5-7 for context) I am saying [understand them and grasp their application], for the Lord will grant you full insight and understanding in everything." (see note 2 Timothy 2:7, Amplified Version).

Dr Zuck observes that...

In recent years we have seen a great surge of interest in informal Bible study. Many small groups meet weekly in homes or in churches to discuss the Bible—what it means and how it applies. Do people in those groups always come away with the same understanding of the passage studied? Not necessarily. Some may say, "To me this verse means this," and another person in the group may respond, "To me the verse doesn't mean that; it means this." Studying the Bible in this way, without proper hermeneutical guidelines, can lead to confusion and interpretations that are even in direct conflict. Did God intend for the Bible to be treated in this way? If it can be made to mean anything we want, how can it be a reliable guide?... "You can make the Bible say anything you want," some argue. And yet how many of the same people say, "You can make Shakespeare say anything you want"? Of course it is true that people can make the Bible say anything they wish so long as they disregard normal approaches for understanding written documents.

When many people approach the Bible, they jump from observation to application, skipping the essential step of interpretation. This is wrong because interpretation logically follows after observation. In observing what the Bible says, you probe; in interpretation, you mull. Observation is discovery; interpreting is digesting. Observation means depicting what is there, and interpretation is deciding what it means. The one is to explore, the other is to explain.  (Basic Bible Interpretation - this book is highly recommended if you would like to read more on the vitally important topic of hermeneutics - it is authoritative, readable and very practical.)  (Also available on Wordsearch Bible Software)

To those detractors who say that Inductive Bible Study is too tedious, too technical, too demanding, R C Sproul would say...

The Word of God is deeper than a flannelgraph (definition). It demands the closest possible scrutiny. It calls for the most excellent scholarship. It makes the finest point of technical analysis worth the effort. The yield of such effort is truth.

Finally, the attitude with which we approach interpretation is vitally important. In Isaiah we read of the importance of a trembling heart, God declaring...

My hand made all these things, thus all these things came into being," declares the LORD. "But to this one I will look, to him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word. (Isaiah 66:2, cp Isa 66:5, Ezra 9:4, 10:3)

Many resources are available to aid your study of Bible interpretation. Below are a few recommendations some available online at no charge.

How to Study Your Bible by Kay Arthur - succinct, straightforward synopsis of inductive Bible study.

Living by the Book: by Dr Howard Hendricks - classic on inductive study.

Basic Bible Interpretation by Dr Roy B. Zuck - authoritative, well written, easy to understand textbook on hermeneutics (Also on Wordsearch Bible Software)

Basics of Bible Interpretation by Bob Smith - well written book available free of charge online. Excellent guidelines on interpretation of figurative language and practical guidelines on how to utilize the original languages, Greek and Hebrew.

PRINCIPLE: Practice reading the Scriptures actively (not passively), repeatedly, interrogatively, acquisitively and purposefully.

J C Ryle  (1816-1900 - read a short biography) put it this way...

We must read our Bibles like men digging for hidden treasure.

The value of careful observation cannot be overemphasized. Weak and inaccurate interpretation inevitably results from superficial or careless observation. We must immerse ourselves in the book we are studying by repeated readings of the whole book. If we are reading about the coming of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 on Pentecost, we need to "put our sandals on", so to speak, and imagine ourselves as bystanders to the incredible scene in Jerusalem . Now you're reading with your mind engaged.

Think of the passage you are reading as analogous to one of the center pieces from the jigsaw puzzle depicted above. How do handle one of the odd-shaped puzzle pieces? Don't you usually search carefully for the more obvious pieces...the corner pieces and straight edges? Well, that's the same approach you are going to take as you begin to observe a book or a chapter. You observe with a Focus On The Obvious (F.O.T.O.) If you remember the old television program, Dragnet, Jack Webb's famous line was "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts!" That's the approach we want to take in inductive study.

If you have ever consulted one of Dr. Warren Wiersbe's commentaries, you know that he invariably has incredible insights. How did he arrive at such insightful and accurate interpretations? Well, before he writes a commentary on a passage, Dr. Wiersbe carefully reads and re-reads the entire book (up to 50 times) before he feels competent to even begin to interpret the text! He may not refer to his approach as inductive Bible study, but that is in fact what he is doing as he repetitively and carefully observes the text  and begins to understand the overall context (the corner and straight pieces of the puzzle).

In a similar way, as you read and observe with a purpose you are in essence reading and re-reading the passage. For example in an epistle, you might read through the chapter or book, observing and marking the author. The next time you might re-read and mark the recipient(s). The third time you might read observing and marking key words and/or key phrases (including synonyms). Each time you mark the text, you  should pause and ask as many as the 5 W's or H questions as possible. Using this style of purposeful reading what you are doing, you are becoming more familiar with the content of the chapter or book and you are beginning to establish the context (see next principle).

It takes some practice to make this interrogative mindset a habit, but over time you will become more comfortable with the 5 W's and H questions. You will be amazed at how competent the Scripture is at answering your questions, especially as you hone your interrogative skills! You will also begin to experience the joy of self discovery of Truth in a way that you had previously thought possible only for those who went to seminary. You will also notice that as you observe and interrogate the text, the interpretation (and application) begins to "flow" naturally out of your observations.

Martin Luther allude to this practice of careful observation noting that...
 

I study my Bible as I gather apples. First, I shake the whole tree that the ripest may fall. Then I shake each limb, and when I have shaken each limb I shake each branch and every twig. Then I look under every leaf....

Pause at every verse of Scripture and shake, as it were, every bough of it, that if possible some fruit at least may drop down.

Keep in mind that although careful observation always precedes accurate interpretation, observation does not necessarily inevitably lead to correct interpretation as shown in the humorous illustration of  "The Cow" (Click here)

Vance Havner wrote that...

Speed-reading may be a good thing, but it was never meant for the Bible. It takes calm, thoughtful, prayerful meditation on the Word to extract its deepest nourishment.

A T Pierson adds that...

Partial examination will result in partial views of truth, which are necessarily imperfect; only careful comparison will show the complete mind of God.

PRINCIPLE: If the plain sense of the Scripture you are studying makes common sense, then do not seek to make some other sense out of it or the final interpretation could be complete nonsense and totally unrelated to God's intending meaning. Take every word in its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and self-evident and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.

This principle is my paraphrase from David Cooper's widely quoted statement that...

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 light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise. (David L. Cooper, The World’s Greatest Library Graphically Illustrated. Los Angeles: Biblical Research Society, 1970)

Notice the important phrase, studied in the light of related passages. This is the biblical equivalent of a "safety net." In the same way that trapeze artists performing on the high-wire are protected by a net below which catches them in the event of a fall, comparing Scripture with Scripture provides a doctrinal "safety net" to keep the interpreter from "falling" into an inconsistent understanding or interpretation.

J Gresham Machen wrote...

I hold that the Bible is essentially a plain book. Common sense is a wonderful help in reading it.

Bernard Ramm says

We use the word 'literal' in its dictionary sense: '...the natural or usual construction and implication of a writing or expression; following the ordinary and apparent sense of words; not allegorical or metaphorical' (Webster's New International Dictionary) (Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1970, page 119.) (Bolding added)

Dr Charles Ryrie reasons that...

If God be the originator of language and if the chief purpose of originating it was to convey His message to humanity, then it must follow that He, being all-wise and all-loving, originated sufficient language to convey all that was in His heart to tell mankind. Furthermore, it must also follow that He would use language and expect people to understand it in its literal, normal, and plain sense. The Scriptures, then, cannot be regarded as an illustration of some special use of language so that in the interpretation of these Scriptures some deeper meaning of the words must be sought.

As Andy Woods explains...

literalism resists going beyond what is written. Because literalism resists “going beyond the facts,” when interpreting a given text, literal interpreters resist the temptation to import foreign ideas from outside the text. A classic example of going beyond what the text says is the ancient interpretation that the four rivers in Genesis 2, the Pishon, Havilah, Tigris, and Euphrates, represent the body, soul, spirit, and mind (One need only examine the works of Philo to find numerous examples of such a hermeneutical methodology.). Such an idea is not readily apparent from studying the text in Genesis 2. One must go outside the text of Genesis 2 and bring into it foreign concepts in order to arrive at this conclusion. (Paper by Andy Woods) (Bolding added)

Unless the immediate context clearly indicates otherwise, one should always seek to interpret the text literally, in its straightforward, natural, ordinary, usual, normal, meaning, just as you would any other writing, accepting the words at face value without the imposition of hidden or symbolic meanings.

For example, it is not intellectually honest or consistent to simply classify the book of Revelation as "prophecy" (which of course it is) and based on that classification to change the rules of interpretation from literal to allegorical/symbolical as does the following commentator...

A failure to take full account of [the apocalyptic or prophetic] feature has led to some of the most outlandish teachings on this book by some whose rule of interpretation is "literal, unless absurd." Though this is a good rule when dealing with literature written in a literal genre, it is the exact opposite in the case of apocalyptic literature, where symbolism is the rule, and literalism the exception. (Gregg, S: Revelation Four Views: A Parallel Commentary. Page 11. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1997)

Some attack the principle of literal interpretation by stating that this method denies the Bible's use of figurative language (including types, symbols, figures of speech, etc). Dr Charles Ryrie counters such fallacious arguments noting specifically that literalism

does not preclude or exclude correct understanding of types, illustrations, apocalypses, and other genres within the basic framework of literal interpretation… (Literal interpretation) might also be called plain interpretation so that no one receives the mistaken notion that the literal principle rules out figures of speech.

E R Craven adds that...

The Literalist (so called) is not one who denies that figurative language, that symbols are used in prophecy, nor does he deny the great spiritual truths are set forth therein; his position is, simply, that the prophecies are to be normally interpreted (i.e., according to received laws of language) as any other utterances are interpreted–that which is manifestly literal being regarded as literal, that which is manifestly figurative being so regarded. (Lange, J. P., Schaff, P., Moore, E., Craven, E. R., & Woods, J. H. (2008). A commentary on the Holy Scriptures : Revelation NY: Scribner, 1872 - now available on Logos Bible Software)

Apocalyptic literature does not dictate that one dismiss normative interpretation in favor of "symbolic conjecture". Why is this critical? Because the symbolic approach always raises the question "Whose symbolic interpretation is correct?" The answer of course is that no one knows who is correct because there are so many symbolic interpretations to choose from - a veritable "interpretative quagmire" ("soft miry land that shakes or yields under the foot; a difficult, precarious, or entrapping position" - Webster)!

No two allegorical/symbolic commentators hold the same interpretative position except in a handful of areas, resulting in a frustrated student who walks away discouraged and even more confused then before reading the commentary. This fact alone disqualifies a non-literal approach because it has factually demonstrated its bankruptcy in conveying a reproducible message from God. In effect, the symbolic or allegorical approach literally (pun intended) makes the book of Revelation unknowable.

Perhaps you are still asking why should one insist on a literal or "normal" interpretation of all of Scripture? Couch explains that there are at least three reasons offered by who are committed to a normal reading of Scripture:

First, the obvious purpose of language is to enable effective communication between intelligent beings. Words have meaning and in their normal usage are intended to be understood. . . . God is the originator of language. When He spoke audibly to man, He expected man to understand Him and respond accordingly. Likewise, when God speaks to man through the inspired writings of His apostles and prophets, He expects man to understand and respond accordingly. . . .

A second reason for a normal reading of Scripture concerns the historical fulfillment of prophecy. All the prophecies of the Old and New Testament that have been fulfilled to date have been fulfilled literally. . . . Thus, . . . all prophecies which are yet to be fulfilled will be fulfilled literally.

A third reason concerns logic. If an interpreter does not use the normal, customary, literal method of interpreting Scripture, interpretation is given over to the unconstrained imagination and presuppositions of the interpreter. (Couch, M: Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics. Page 36-37. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications) (Bolding added)

LESS IS BETTER

Another key advantage of literal interpretation is that it is minimal interpretation and thus superimposes the barest "interpretive layer" or "interpretative bias" on the inspired communication from God.

As the highly respected literalist commentator Henry Morris has well said...

""The best interpretation of a historical record is no interpretation but simply letting the divine Author of the record say what He says and assuming He says what He means." (Quoted from one of the few well done, literal, non-confusing commentaries on the Revelation entitled "The Revelation Record")

As Clement of Alexandria said...

Explain the Scriptures by the Scriptures.

The Puritan writer William Gurnall exhorted believers to...

Compare Scripture with Scripture. False doctrines, like false witnesses, agree not among themselves.

The greater an author's interpretative bias, the greater the danger that the commentator will add to or subtract from the meaning originally intended by God, a grave error John warns against writing:

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19)

Literal interpretation is occasionally criticized as leading to "ridiculous" conclusions. Bernard Ramm addresses this accusation against the literalist approach, writing that...

To interpret Scripture literally is not to be committed to a "wooden literalism," nor to a "letterism," nor to a neglect of the nuances that defy any "mechanical" understanding of language. Rather, it is to commit oneself to a starting point and that starting point is to understand a document the best one can in the context of the normal, usual, customary, tradition range of designation which includes "tacit" understanding. (Ramm, B: Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 3rd rev. ed. Page 11. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1970)

In other words Literal interpretation does pay attention to variations in the style of the text and thus maintains a consistency of interpretation which is driven by the text itself, not the interpretative bias of the commentator:  For example it is often stated that evangelicals who hold to a literal one thousand year reign of Christ based on Revelation 20, also demand that every single passage to be interpreted literally without exception. This is an unfair and weak attempt to discredit the literal approach, because in fact even strict literalists clearly accept that if the language of a given passage is clearly symbolic, it is to be governed by the laws relating to symbols. If the passage is clearly figurative, it also must be interpreted based on the laws dealing with figures.

It is also interesting to note that even those who espouse a symbolic/allegorical approach to the Revelation clearly rely on a normal literal approach in many if not most passages. For example, when John writes that he "was on the island that is called Patmos" (Revelation 1:9) virtually all commentators, symbolic and literal, agree that John was literally on an island named Patmos! When the symbolic/allegorical authors encounter other passages that are not so easily interpreted, they jettison the literal approach in favor of speculation. As Tony Garland quips...

This "dual hermeneutic" is employed much like the gearshift in an automobile. On the major "freeway" of the gospel text, they generally stay in literal gear. But when a prophetic "off-ramp" or doctrinal "mountain" looms ahead, they shift into a non-literal gear. This inconsistency leads to all manner of confusion and allows for the most amazing conclusions which are often in complete contradiction to the plain meaning of the text!

Smith adds that

Much Bible study is done to verify men's preconceptions,