How to Interpret the Bible
The “literal” meaning of a word is the: basic, normal,
usual, or customary, and socially-acknowledged designation of that word (e.g.,
“cat” – a house pet, in the minds of most in the
The “cultural” meaning of a word is the
anthropological/customary sense of a word in reference to the total ways,
methods, manners, tools, and institutions with which a given people, tribe, or
nation carry on their existence. It also includes the history of these peoples
(e.g., “cat” – to an Amazonian Indian, it’s a big, wild mammal; to Louis
Armstrong, it’s a devotee or player of hot jazz; to a construction worker, it’s
a big bulldozer; to the average American household, it’s a house pet).
If the literal meaning of terms is their socially designated
meaning, then we must of necessity know the culture in which these terms were
first used. What a term or word or expression literally means can be determined
only from an inspection of the culture of the people who used it.
The “critical” interpretation of Scripture means that
any interpretation of Scripture must have adequate justification. The grounds
for the interpretation must be made explicit, by appealing to, history,
lexicons (word-studies), grammar (Hebrew or Greek grammar), theology, culture,
or geography. If our interpretations are justifiably determined by the various
criteria here suggested, then they are rooted in the sort of fact that scholars
can investigate weighing the evidence.
Some
principles of interpretation which act as a general guide for all
interpretation are:
1.
The principle of “the priority of the
original languages.” The purpose of this principle is neither to confine the
study of the Bible to the students of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek nor to
discourage the average Christian from reading his/her Bible. The average
Christian with proper books and hard work can learn much of the genuine sense
of the Scriptures. As long as the interpreter does not work with original
languages, he has no method of judging the accuracy of his translation.
[E.g., in Heb. 7:3 it says that Melchizedek was without
“descent” (children) – in the King James Version. The Greek word “agenealogetos” means without “genealogy” and hence
Melchizedek could have had children, but not kept the genealogical list.]
[E.g., in Eph. 5:18, it commands to “be filled with the
Spirit”. The Greek word for “filled” is “pleroo”,
meaning “influenced fully/completely” and includes the idea of being led and
enabled by God’s Holy Spirit. – Dr. L. Richards’ Expository Dictionary of
Bible Words, p. 278.]
2.
The principle of “the accommodation of
revelation.” The Bible is the truth of God accommodated to the human mind for its
proper assimilation. The Bible was written in three human languages and in the
terms of the human environment (physical & social). The truth of God made
contact with the human mind, else it would stand meaningless. To be a
meaningful and assimilable revelation, the revelation
had to come in human languages, in human thought forms, and referring to
objects of human experience. Revelation of necessity must have an
anthropomorphic (attributing human characteristics to non-human objects)
character (such as the parabolic teachings of Christ). Our understanding of the
spiritual world is analogical.
[E.g., God’s Almightiness is spoken of in terms of “Thy
right hand and arm” – Psa. 44:3 – because among men the right
arm/hand is the symbol of strength or power.]
3.
The principle of “progressive
revelation.” The Bible sets forth a movement of God, with the initiative coming from
God and not man, in which God brings man up through the theological infancy of
the Old Testament to the maturity of the New Testament. This does not mean that
there are no advanced elements in the Old Testament, nor any simple matters in
the New, but that this is the general pattern of revelation. The interpreter
will expect, generally, the full revelation in the New Testament.
[E.g., the revelations in the O.T. came sporadically and
partially – Heb. 1:1, 2 – but now they’ve come finally through Christ. The law
of Mt. Sinai – Ex. 20 – taught a necessary but basic morality; but the Sermon
on the Mount explains and develops this morality to its wider and fuller
meaning – Matt. 5. For example, in Ex. 20:13 the command is to not murder,
personal physical killing, but in 1 Jn. 3:15 hate is considered murder. In Ex.
4.
The principle of “historical
propriety.” By this, we mean that an interpreter must have some sense as to what men
may or may not have believed in any given century of biblical revelation (see
comment above on “cultural meaning”).
[E.g., it is doubtful whether Eve fully comprehended the
future meaning of the words of Genesis 3:15. Therefore, her comment in Gen. 4:1
would not contain a reference to the God-man (i.e., Jesus), as it presumes far
more theological content in the mind of Eve than the record as it stands will
allow. The Hebrew word “eth” means “with” or “with the help of” or “from” (in
4:1), but not “even”. So it means, “I have gotten a manchild
with the help of the Lord” rather than, “I have gotten a man, the Lord.”]
5.
The principle of “ignorance.” Speech occurs within a context of
conversation and a cultural context. The meaning of a given sentence is
dependent upon the context of conversation and the context of culture. When we
have biblical sentences without the full conversational context out of which
they arose and where the cultural context is imperfectly known, we can
certainly expect some of them to be very puzzling. The obscurity of ancient
documents is far more frequently occasioned by our ignorance of a lot of
things (back then so familiarly known, that a passing allusion only was needed
to present a vivid picture), than any difficulties connected with the language
itself.
[E.g., 1 Cor. 15:29; 1 Pet. 3:19; Mal. 2:15 have over 30
different interpretations. When there is not sufficient interpretative material
on hand, the prudent interpreter will admit his ignorance and say, “I don’t
know.”). A possible interpretation for 1 Cor. 15:29 is that possibly some
believers had not been baptized yet and were motivated to boldness and got
baptized because they saw or heard about other believers being martyred, as in
inferred in 15:30-32; 7:26, 29; 2 Cor. 1:8, 9; and 4:10. A possible
interpretation for 1 Pet.
[Another example is how the word “dog” is used. It can
be: a (house) pet; a worthless person or a person (e.g., a lazy dog); any of a
number of mechanical devices for holding, gripping, or fastening that consist
of a spike, rod, or bar, or an andiron (i.e., holds logs in a fireplace);
pretended stylishness or dignity (e.g., he/she liked to put on the dog); either
of the constellations Canis Major or Minor; something
inferior of its kind (e.g., that’s dog roofing); ruin (e.g., that has gone to
the dogs); an investment not worth its price (e.g., that’s dog stock); an
unattractive woman (e.g., she’s a dog); a theatrical or musical flop (e.g.,
that film or group was a dog); a friend (e.g., What’s up, dog?). – Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 334.]
6.
The principle of “differentiating
interpretation from application.” A passage of Scripture has one meaning, but the
moral principles of the passage may be capable of many applications. Applications are not interpretations and must not
receive that status.
[E.g.,
the phrase “unequally yoked”/“bound together” in 2 Cor. 6:14 is a metaphor
emphasizing the incongruity of believers being paired, in a binding way, with
unbelievers. The application of this interpretation could include: marriage,
business partnerships, lodges (e.g., masons), fraternities/sororities, etc.]
7.
The “checking” principle. The purpose of this principle
is to check for our own blind spots and peculiarities, to save us from pitfalls
of previous erring exegesis, to improve our work with the wisdom of the past
and fill in our imperfect knowledge. Check your results with secular studies if
the passage borders on matters of science or history, etc.
[E.g., in 1 Cor. 14:21, 22 it says that “tongues are for
a sign … to unbelievers…” Matching this with Isa. 28:11-13, we see that
speaking in tongues/foreign languages was to be a sign
of impending judgment upon the unbelieving Jews. This judgment came upon the
Old Testament Jews of Isaiah’s time with the invasion of the Assyrian army – 2
Kings 17:5-12 (in Israel); 18:13 (in Judah); 20:16-18; 21:10-15; with the
invasion of the Babylonian army – 24:10-14; 25:8-11 (in Judah) – and upon the
New Testament Jews in A.D. 70 with the invasion of the Roman army – Unger’s
Bible Dictionary, p. 578.]
8.
The principle of “induction.” In our interpretation of
Scripture, we must discover the meaning of a passage, not attribute one to it.
“Exegesis” is bringing the meaning of a text to the surface. Induction (the
result of reasoning from the facts present) in exegesis means that the
Scripture is allowed to speak for itself.
[E.g., in John 14:6 Jesus says, “I am the way…” The word
“am” is the first person, singular, present indicative of “be” expressing
identity with or equivalency to an object. It is not saying Jesus’ example or
life is “the way” but He Himself.]
9.
The principle of “preference for the
clearest interpretation.” Frequently, the interpreter is confronted with two or
more equally probable interpretations as far as grammatical rules permit. One
is a strain on our tendency to believe it too readily, the other is not. One
meaning is rather obvious, the other obscure. The rule is: choose the clear one
over the obscure one.
[E.g., in 1 Pet.
Verbal inspiration does not pledge the interpreter to a
crude literalism because of the anthropomorphisms about God, the poetic
imagery, and the figures of speech found so plentifully in the Bible. Obscure
passages must give right of way to clear passages.
[E.g., in John 15:1 Jesus says, “I am the
vine…” This is obviously a figure of speech, a metaphor, showing Jesus to be
the source of life to the branches (believers). Jesus doesn’t have literal
leaves on Him. Another figure of speech is found in Psa. 17:8 and 36:7 where
God is said to have wings, symbolizing “protection”.]
10. The principle of the “unity (one-meaningness)
of the sense of Scripture.”
The interpretation of Scripture is possible only if it is determinate/fixed, and it is determinate only if the meaning
of the Scripture is one. When more than one sense is imposed on Scripture, the
meaning of the Word of God is obscured. The unity of the sense of Scripture
does not intend to deny that there is figurative language in the Bible. The
literal meaning in such cases is the proper meaning as determined by the
specific form or type of the figure of speech. Nor does this principle deny
typology nor multiple fulfillment in predicted
prophecy. There is a connection between type and anti-type (the person or thing
represented or foreshadowed by an earlier type or symbol – such as “oil” in the
Old Testament often represented the Holy Spirit), prediction and fulfillment,
so that the anti-type and the fulfillment are expansions of the original
meaning of the text, not new additional meanings.
[E.g., Elijah is a type of John the
Baptist – Mal. 4:5, 6; Matt. 11:7, 14;
11. The principle of “the similarity/analogy of faith/doctrine.” Scripture
interprets scripture, or scripture is its own interpreter. It is the constant
and perpetual harmony of Scripture in the fundamental points of faith and
practice deduced from those passages in which they were discussed by the
inspired penmen either directly or expressly, and in clear, plain, and
intelligible language. The Bible is to be interpreted as one whole, one
harmonious system of doctrine.
[E.g., Heb. 10:26, 27 seems
to say you can lose your salvation, but
[Another example is found in 2 Sam. 24:1,
where it says that God incited David to conduct the census of the people, but
in 1 Chron. 21:1, it states that Satan incited David. Actually, both did, God
indirectly and Satan directly. This reason has to what happened because the
harmony of Scripture. James
1.
The principle of “the study of words.” Words are the units of thought,
and the bricks of conceptual construction. Any study of Scripture, therefore,
must commence with a study of words, and words may be studied different ways.
[E.g., the English word “baptize” comes from the Greek
word “baptizō” which is related to “baptō.” It meant to dip under and was used in such
instances as the dipping of cloth in dye, the sinking of a ship, and being over
head and ears in debt. The word here means “completely submerged”. Our present
day English equivalent would be “sunk”. And so, the word “baptism” in the Bible
has come to mean “the introduction or placing of a person or thing into a new
environment or into union with something else so as to alter its condition or
its relationship to its previous environment or condition. According to
[E.g., the word “church” in Greek is “ekklesia”. It comes from the Greek words “ek” meaning “out from” and “kaleo”
meaning “to call”. Therefore, the word “church” means “to call out from”, a
called out body of people, called out of the world of unsaved humanity to
become the people of God; an assembly.]
[E.g., The word “cross” is the
Greek word “stauros”, meaning “stake or pole”. As
practiced by the Romans, crucifixion involved either tying or nailing the
convicted person to a crossbeam, which was attached to the “stauros”.
The cross might be in the form of a T or a t .
– Expository Dictionary of Bible Words, p. 204 by Dr. L. Richards (who
studied Greek for seven years). The fact that John
[E.g., a comparative study of the word “soul” (Gk. “psueche”) reveals that it has several meanings. It may mean
a person – Acts
[Another example is found in 1 Cor.
[E.g., when it is said that our
Lord offered “supplications” (Gk. “hikete”) in Heb.
5:7, the word used is associated with the custom of bringing an olive branch to
a dignitary from whom one is requesting a favor to assure him of the sincerity
of the appeal. Or, in Ezek. 6:11, it says, “Clap your hands…”, which was a symbol of
derision/ridicule/scoffingly rejoicing/laugh at
contemptuously, as seen in 21:14, 17; 22:13; 25:6; Lam. 2:15; Job 27:23.]
[E.g., in Jn. 2:4 and
[E.g., did Jesus
descend from Solomon (Matt. 1:6) or from Nathan (Lk.
[E.g., was Jacob
(Matt.
2.
The principle of “grammatical
interpretation.” Grammar states the principles which arrange the formation of words into
meaningful sentences. The interpreter must have clearly at his finger-tips
grammatical concepts as number (singular or plural), gender (masculine,
feminine, neuter), case (e.g., nominative, accusative, etc.), mood (e.g.,
indicative, imperative, etc.), tense (e.g., present, past, etc.), voice
(active, passive, or middle), participle (verb functioning as an adjective),
infinitive, etc., with special attention given to idioms. Some training or
understanding in the science of linguistics can greatly help the interpreter.
[E.g., in John 1:1 we read, “In the beginning was
the Word”, “Was” is in the imperfect tense. Now, the imperfect tense implies a
previous state and its continuance. If Jn. 1:1 were interpreted to bring out
the full force of the imperfect, it would be translated, “In the beginning the
Word had been existing, and is still existing.” Thus,
indicating the eternal existence of Jesus Christ. Also, in 1:1, it uses the
phrase “the Word was God”. The word “God”, here, is the Greek word “theos”. In Greek, there is no indefinite article (i.e., “a”
or “an”). So, when translating a noun from Greek (that doesn’t have a definite
article in front of it) into English, the English noun may or may not have the
English indefinite article in front of it (e.g., “a god” or “God”). When the
definite article is not in front of the noun, it expresses quality or
characteristics. So, in Jn. 1:1, “theos” emphasizes
the full Deity (i.e., quality) of Jesus Christ, vss. 14-18 – Dr. R. Summers, Essentials
of New Testament Greek, p. 16; Dr. W. Hendriksen, NTC – The Gospel of
John, p. 71. The same Greek word, “theos” is used
in Jn. 1:6, 12, 18 and is translated as “God” in all three verses. So, when the
Jehovah Witness cult translates “theos” as “a god” in
1:1, but as “God” in verses 6, 12, and 18, they are both inconsistent and
dishonest.]
[Another example is found in Col. 1:22, 23, “…He has now
reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you
before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach – if indeed you continue in
the faith firmly established and steadfast, not moved away…” This passage is
not teaching that a believer might be able to lose his salvation “if” he
doesn’t continue in the faith. One reason we know this is because many other
passages in the N.T. specifically teach a believer cannot. But another reason is because the grammar in
this passage shows that loss of salvation is not what is being discussed. The English word “if” is the translation of
the Greek word “ei”, which here is used with the
indicative mood (which expresses action really taking place). In Greek, “if
indeed you continue…” is a first class conditional clause that affirms the
reality of the condition, and so the word “if” can and does mean “since” here.
Therefore, these Colossian believers will be presented blameless before Christ
“since” they are continuing in the faith. If the Greek word “ean” (“if”) was used with the subjunctive mood (expressing
action which is not really taking place but is objectively possible), or if the
Greek word “ei” (“if”) was used with the optative
mood (expressing action which is not really taking place but is subjectively
possible), then the conditional clause would express a hypothetical condition
with the possibility of a future realization. But that’s not the case here –
Dr. Ray Summers, Essentials of New Testament Greek, pp. 106-109.]
3.
The principle of “contextual
interpretation.” Each verse or passage has a very real relation to that which immediately
precedes as well as what follows. A thought expressed
in a sentence can only be properly deduced when that thought is set in the
light of the thoughts which precede it and which follow after it (the chapter,
the book, the entire Bible, and the culture).
[E.g., in Matt. 16:28, Jesus says, “There are some of
those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of
Man coming in His kingdom.” By following through into the 17th
chapter, we find the fulfillment of this in the transfiguration of our Lord,
which interpretation is verified by Peter’s subsequent remarks on this event in
2 Peter 1:15-18.]
[E.g., in John 3:5, it says, “Unless
one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the
[E.g., another word that has multiple meanings is the
word “all”, and context will determine its meaning in any particular passage.
The word “all” doesn’t always mean “everyone or everything on the entire planet
Earth inclusively”. The Greek word “pas” and all of its various forms can also
mean and be translated as “all kinds/sorts of”, as it does in 1 Tim. 6:10 in
the NASB and NIV translations of the Bible. The KJV simply translates “pas” as
“all”, but it cannot mean “every single act of evil inclusively” because there
are other motives/reasons people commit other than because of love for money.
Many, if not most, evils are committed because they are a product of our sinful
natures/flesh/hearts, as seen in Gal. 5:19-21; Matt. 15:18, 19; Mk. 7:21-23.
Or, the word “all” can have the meaning of “all kinds/sorts of” without being
translated by those words, but only by the word “all”, yet having the meaning
of “all kinds of”. For example, in 1 Tim. 2:1, it says that prayer should be
made on behalf of “all” men, and then goes on in vs. 2 to illustrate who those
“all men” are, “kings and all who are in authority”. So the
praying for “all” men means praying for “all kinds of people, such as various
governing authorities. There’s no way we could pray for every single
individual on planet Earth because the population numbers in the billions, and
we don’t know their names either. In Acts 13:10, it states that Elymas the
magician was full of “all” deceit, meaning “all kinds of” deceit. It would be
impossible for him to commit every expression of deceit inclusively that exists
in the world. Or, it’s a hyperbole, meaning “a lot of” deceit in his life. The
Greek word “pas” can also mean “all of a certain kind/type/category”, as it
does in 2 Pet. 3:19, where “all” refers to “all believers/beloved”, as the
context shows in 3:1, 8; 1:1; 1 Pet. 1:1, 2. The word “all” in John
[E.g., another word that has multiple meanings is the
word “world”. It doesn’t always mean “everyone or every place on planet Earth
inclusively”. Rather, context determines its meaning. For
example, in Jn.
[E.g., the phrase “the many” has one meaning, but
different applications. The meaning being “a certain group of people”, but that
group of people can be different. For example, in
[Another example is in Gen. 6:20, where Noah is
commanded to take two of every kind on the ark. Does that mean two of every
species of animal on the earth? Well, the Hebrew word “min”, translated as
“kind”, has various meanings. It would include what biologists now designate as
a species, genus, family, and order. – Dr. L. Richards’ Expository
Dictionary of Bible Words, p. 375. Context would determine which it is.
Some examples of its varied uses can be seen in Gen. 1:24 (e.g., cattle,
creeping things, and beasts of the earth); Gen. 6:20 (e.g., birds, etc.); Gen.
1:21 (e.g., great sea monsters, winged birds, etc.); and Lev. 11:13-22 (e.g.,
eagle, four types of owls, heron, grasshopper, etc.). A raven is a “genus”, a
falcon is “family”, and an owl is an “order”.]
4.
The principle of “interpreting
according to the literary mold.” In that the type of literary form employed
governs the attitude and spirit in which a document is approached, it is
necessary for the interpreter to recognize literary forms as necessary to the
interpretation of Scripture. The literary form (poetic, dramatic, historical,
biographical, epistles, wisdom literature, etc.) governs the meanings of
sentences and, therefore, the interpreter must be sensitive to the implications
of the literary form for the interpretation of the passage of Scripture.
[E.g., it’s important to interpret Acts 1:4, 5
historically, “Jesus commanded them not to leave
[E.g., Another example of
literary form is poetry. This can be illustrated with synonymous parallelism,
where lines parallel in thought use synonymous words. In Psa. 89:30, 31, it
says, “If his sons forsake My law, And do not walk in
My judgments, If they violate My statutes, And do not keep My commandments,
then …” Here, we see the words “law, judgments, statutes, and commandments” all
being synonyms rather than different things.]
5.
The principle of “interpretation by
proper use of cross references.” The same topic may occur in two or more places
in Scripture, and the interpreter may gather information from one reference to
guide his interpretation of another. Such verbal cross-reference is a reference
which contains the same word or expression occurring in the passage being
interpreted.
[For example, in Gen. 2:17, God tells Adam that if he
eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that “in the day that you
eat from it you shall surely die”. The Hebrew word “muth”
is used in the imperfect with absolute infinitive, literally meaning, “dying you shall die”. Man began to physically die
(immediately and gradually deteriorate physically) from that day of
disobedience in the Garden to eventual complete death later, and he immediately
died spiritually (was separated from intimate relationship with God) that day.
– Vine’s An Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, p. 97. See Rom.
6:23;
Conceptual cross-references are those references which,
although not containing the same words, contain the same substance. They enable
the interpreter to see a given passage in greater depth and detail.
Parallel cross-references are those passages in one book
of the Bible which recount the same events or material in another part of the
Bible. To get the full account and the necessary facts before us, it is
necessary to have all parallel passages examined.
[E.g., Matt. 27, Mk. 15, Lk. 23, and Jn. 19 are parallel
cross-references on Christ’s death. Only Matthew includes the temple veil being
torn in two, the rocks splitting, the graves opening, and the once dead
believers coming alive.]
[Another example is the creation account of man in Gen.
1:26, 27, where it’s stated in very general terms, but in Gen. 2:7, 21, 22, the
creation account of man is given in more detail. These are not two different
creation accounts, but rather complementary accounts.]
[Another example is found in 1 Pet. 4:17, 18, where it talks
about “not obeying the gospel”. What does this mean? By cross-referencing to
Rom. 10:16, it becomes apparent that the word “heed”/“obey” has the same
meaning of “believe”, as found in the last part of verse 16, where the word
“heed”/“obey” is replaced by the word “believe” in the parallel clause. So, to
“obey” the gospel is to “believe” the gospel.]
[Another example is in Psa. 112:9 where the word “horns”
is used. But what does it mean? Well, in
89:17, the word “horn” is used again, but here, the word “strength” is also
used in the first part of the verse. Realizing that the Psalms use what is
called synonymous parallelism (repetition of ideas/thought), it is concluded
that the word “horn” is the same as the word “strength”.]
[E.g., did (Matt. 14:5) or didn’t (Mk.
6.
The principle of “the interpretation of
figurative language.” Literal interpretation does not mean painful, wooden, or
unbending literal rendition of every word and phrase. The literal meaning of
the figurative expression is the proper or natural meaning as understood by
students of language. Whenever a figure is used, its literal meaning is
precisely that meaning determined by grammatical studies of figures. Hence
figurative interpretation does not pertain to the spiritual or mystical sense
of Scripture, but to the literal sense. Some figures of speech are: simile,
allegory, ellipsis, metaphor, paradox, irony, hyperbole, synecdoche, zeugma,
euphemism, brachylogy, litotes, meiosis, oxymoron, personification,
paronomasia, and metonymy.
[E.g., in John 10:9, Jesus says, “I am the door; if
anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved…” This is
a metaphor, a figure of speech in which one thing is likened to another different
thing by being spoken of as if it were that other. So, the meaning of “door” is
that Jesus is the only entrance to salvation. Some examples of hyperbole are
found in Gen. 15:5; 28:14; and Eccles. 1:4. In Gen. 15:5, Abraham descendents
are to be as innumerable as the stars of heaven, yet in Deut. 1:10, they
already are said to be that numerous, showing that they really aren’t as
innumerable as the stars of heaven. In Gen. 28:14, Abraham’s descendents are to
be as innumerable as the dust of the earth, yet in 2 Chron. 1:9, they already
are said to be that numerous, showing that they really aren’t as innumerable as
the dust of the earth. In Eccles. 1:4, it says that the earth remains forever,
but in Ezek. 25:15; 1 Ki. 9:3; 12:7; 1 Chron. 28:4; Prov. 21:28, the word
“forever” does not mean without end but merely a long period of time. So, the
earth does not remain forever as the Jehovah Witness cult teaches since in 2
Pet. 3:10-13, it teaches that the world will be destroyed with fire and a new
earth created. Rev. 21:1 also teaches this idea.]
[E.g., in Ex. 32:14, it says that “the Lord changed His
mind”, but in 1 Sam.
[E.g., In Acts 10:48, Peter orders the new believers “to
be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ”, which in Matt. 28:19, 20, Jesus tells
His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. A
synecdoche is a figure of speech where a part is used for a whole or
vice-versa. Therefore, “Jesus” in Acts 10:48 represents
“the whole Trinity” by way of a synecdoche. Synecdoches are found throughout
the Bible. Some examples are: 2 Ki. 10:17, where the word “him”, referring to
Ahab, is used for “all of Ahab’s family, relatives, and friends” (vss. 7, 11,
17); Josh. 10:40-42; 11:9, 10, 12, where the word “Joshua” is used for “all of
Israel or the army of Israel” including Joshua (10:29-39; 11:7, 11); and 2 Sam.
10:18, where the word “David” is used for “the army of Israel”, including David
(vs. 17).]