With observation, one can proceed to interpret the Bible. It is important to keep the following in mind when one interprets the facts observed.

A) Bible is Gods Word

We must understand that the Bible was written through the inspiration of God (Matthew 1:22, 2:15 and 2Peter 1:21). Without this understanding, the interpretation of the Bible is no different than that of a history book. The Bible tells us the origin of mankind (history) and our destination (eternity).

B) Grammatico-Historical Exergesis

1. Original Texts- Although the Bible is the inspired work of God, through hundreds of years of hand copying and translations, textual variants do exist between various versions of the Bible. It is always useful to go back to the original text.
2. Special Meaning of Words- There are words that are meaningful to a particular group of people, culture, at a particular time frame. For example, the baseball terminology steal second base may have absolutely no meaning to someone who knows nothing about baseball. Another example can be found in Galatians 3:24, according to the New International Version it was translated as, So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ. In Hebrews, the word Paidagogos was used instead of put in charge. Paidagogos were servants who look after or were in charge of the children.
3. Language and Grammar- A good handle of the Hebrew language (Old Testament) and the Greek language (New Testament) can help one to interpret the original texts of the Bible correctly. The same word can also have different meaning. For examples, parrhsia can mean evident or brave; the word Law can mean the Old Testament, the Pentateuch (the five books of Moses), or the Ten Commandments.
4. Forms and Techniques of Literature- There are various forms of literatures in the Bible, including psalms, proverbs, descriptive literatures, letters, etc. Each type of literature has a different principle for interpretation. For example, the interpretation of historical accounts (Literal meaning) and that of the parables (hidden meaning) differs greatly.
5. Context of Literature- Interpretation of the Bible verses should never be taken out of context.
6. Historical and Cultural Backgrounds are vital in the understanding and interpretation of literature. For example, the headline of 10^th Anniversary of the Gulf War, probably has no meaning to anyone who knows nothing about the history of the Gulf War, e.g., when and where did it take place. Besides the broader sense of historical and cultural backgrounds, there is a more local background of the subject involved. For example, understand the local background will help tremendously in the understanding of Pauls letter to the churches.

C) Our Preconditioned Mind-

Everyone interprets what we read according to our preconditioned mind, based on our background, culture, knowledge, etc. If we hang on to these baggages, it would be very difficult to for us to understand the true meaning of the Bible. It would help tremendously if we take some time to meditate and pray for wisdom in understanding the Bible before studying.

Some useful tools in interpreting the Bible:

1. Ask Exploratory Questions- Ask as many questions as possible that might help one to understand the subject at hand.
2. Answer Questions- The answering of questions, sometimes requires one to make new observations in the text. In other times, research is the only solution. By answering the questions majority of the interpretation is done.
3. Interpret Observations.

Observation- There is a common structure to all five conflict episodes. They all began with Jesus and his disciples doing something or failed to do something. These actions or lack of actions were criticized by the Pharisees, and/or their followers. Jesus then rebuked them.

Interpretation: Mark commonly arranges the events of Jesus life according to certain themes. The five episodes at hand should probably belong to the same chapter, with verses 1 to 6 of Chapter Three belonging to Chapter Two.

Observation- The first two stories deal with Jesus relationship to people. Both stories deal with the question of sins. In the first story, Jesus forgave the paralytics sins to heal him. In the second story, Jesus called a tax collector (a sinner), Levi, to follow him, and he did.

Interpretation: These two stories seem to convey an important message; in order to be saved, our sins need to be forgiven by God (paralytic story); all who come to God will be accepted by Him including sinners (tax collector story).

Observation- Obviously, these two stories involve questions about the meaning of the law and the Sabbath.

Interpretation- Both of these stories evolved around the theme that implies the law or Sabbath was set up to benefit man and not to burden them.

Observation- Both of these stories began with the phrase And again he entered (King James version). Another similarity is that in both stories the oppositions did not criticize Jesus verbally but Jesus knew what they were thinking and rebuked them. In the former, the Pharisees were thinking to themselves Who can forgive sins but God alone?; in the latter, people were trying to see if He would heal on the Sabbath. Knowing whats on their mind, Jesus proceeded to cure in both cases, and charged the oppositions with incorrect believes (not believing that He was the son of God and has the power to forgive sins, and the false believe of not to heal on Sabbath). Moreover, the mechanism of healing was very similar in both stories; the patients were asked to show their faith by action. Jesus commanded the paralytic to get up and take his mat and walk, and he commanded the man with the withered hand to stretch out his hand. Also, Jesus emphasized the power of the Son of Man in both cases; the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins (paralytic) and the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath (man with withered hand).

Interpretation- Jesus rebuked the oppositions by asking a question in both cases. In the paralytic story, He asked, Which is easier to say to the paralytic, your sins are forgiven, or to say, get up take your mat and walk. In the story with the man with the withered hand, Jesus asked, Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or evil, to save life or to kill. In comparing the forgiving of sins (paralytic) to save life (man with withered hand) and get up and walk (paralytic) to kill (man with withered hand), there seems to be a hidden message. Of course it was easier for Jesus to say get up and walk, but this will only lead to death. What good it did if the paralytic was cured but his soul was not saved. Even if he was cured physically, he was still spiritually dead, without the forgiveness of his sins.

Observation- Both of these stories began with the phrase And it came to pass (King James version), hinting a similar connection. Both involved the act of eating; dinning with tax collectors and sinners in the former and eating grains that the Pharisees believed were harvested illegally on Sabbath.

Interpretation- Jesus defended his act of dining with tax collector by saying, It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners. He defended his act of harvesting grains on Sabbath by saying, The Sabbath was made for man, not man for Sabbath. The Sabbath and the law were made to benefit man, much like a physician for his patients. The man who was made for the Sabbath were those who stressed self-righteousness, and they have no need for the physician or Savior.

Observation- Jesus gave two parables in the fasting event, with repeated emphasis of the new and the old. The Bridegroom or Jesus is the new wine or the new cloth.

Interpretation: The old law was meant to benefit man but not to burden them. When we look at the law, we must look at the spirit behind the law. The Pharisees had made the law so rigid that it became a burden. Therefore, the new and internal gospel of repentance from and forgiveness of sin could not be connected to or be contained in the old and external traditions of self-righteousness and ritual.

Observation- If we look at the similarity between the stories of the paralytic (A) and the man with the withered hand (A) (as described in 4), and the similarity between the stories of dining with tax collectors (B) and the harvesting of grains (B) (as described in 5), the following pattern is observed (ABCBA).

Interpretation- Through parallel events, a central point is usually reflected, consisting of an ideal common to both of the parallelism. There is also a proverb in the game of Weiqi, if the shape is symmetrical strike at the central point, meaning that the center of a symmetry is often where the vital point is. Based on this pattern, the message is in the fasting story, pointing to the two parables of the new versus the old. Besides the message of the old and the new, the fasting story also convey a message that Jesus will be taken away. Jesus said, How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them. But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast. This signals that Jesus will eventually be killed (on the cross) so that his disciples could then fast. This is consistent with the rest of the Book of Mark, which stresses a theme of Jesus suffering.

Observation- Besides the above pattern, there is another one if we note the similarity between the paralytic (A) and the dining with tax collectors (A) (as described in 2), and the similarity between harvesting on Sabbath (C) and healing on Sabbath (C) (as described in 3). The pattern is AABCC. With this pattern, there is an escalation of the conflict, which began with an implicit accusation that Jesus was blasphemous, and ended with the Pharisees conspired with the Herodians to kill Jesus (Mark 3:6).

Interpretation- In applying the principle in 7), there should be a message between the two parallel events of AA and CC. The message between A and A is the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins. The message between C and C is the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.

Observation- When criticized about eating grains harvested on Sabbath, Jesus used the example of David eating consecrated bread. There is another parallelism here.

Interpretation- Besides the obvious parallelism between David and Jesus, there is the parallelism between the Pharisees and Doeg the Edomite. Although Doeg was not a Jew, its obvious he observed the Hebrew laws, or he wont be detained before the Lord in the temple. The timing is also very interesting. Doeg was probably detained at the Tabernacle because its Sabbath, and he did not want to break the law by travelling. Here, we have a big contrast between David and Doeg. David apparently broke the law by eating consecrated bread, and he also lied to Ahimelect. Doeg, on the other hand observed the law rigidly, much like the Pharisees.

Observation- To summarize, there is a common theme to all five conflicts. Jesus was questioned because His attitude towards the Law and the demands of Holiness differed than those understood by certain groups during his time.

a) Paralytics were considered as unclean or unholy, because they were not considered as Gods favor.

b) Tax collectors were sinners and unclean because they rip their own people off.

c) Fasting was considered as a way of getting closer to God. Those who did not fast religiously were thought to be unholy

d) and e) Observing the Sabbath was considered as a physical sign of ones adherence to Gods holy words.

Interpretation- Holiness was understood as the state of separation from the impure, so that one can stand blameless before God. The Pharisees interpreted obedience to the Law as what keeps the Israelites within the sphere of Gods people which was separated from the unholy (disabled, and people with disease, tax collectors, and sinners, etc.) These five conflict episodes then reflect a message that the old cannot contain the new. The old covenant laws given to the Jews were meant to be a measuring stick for their sins, it is the spirit of the Laws that is important. Unfortunately, most Jews stressed the formality rather than the spirit. Since no one can keep all the laws, Jesus died for our sins instead. This new covenant cannot be contained or be connected to the old rituals of the Pharisees.