Home » Posts tagged 'hermeneutics'
Tag Archives: hermeneutics
The Satanic Attack on Taking God’s Word Literally
Early in the Bible, God shows how that Satan attacks what He says. God wants men to anticipate this attack. Satan doesn’t want the audience of God’s Word to receive what God said. He tries to get the hearer to read something of his own opinion into it.
Without faith, it is impossible to please God, but faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). James admonishes against being swift to speak or argue against what God said (James 1:19). 2 Timothy 2:23 warns against foolish speculation regarding scripture, because that’s what Satan wants men to do, even as seen in his own example in the Garden of Eden and the Wilderness of Temptation.
Jesus and the Apostles took scripture literally. Taken literally, the Bible does not contradict itself. Everything in it fits together in a coherent whole. I say this having preached or taught in great detail through every verse of the Bible in my lifetime and several books multiple times.
The literal approach to interpreting the Bible asserts that the text should be understood according to its plain meaning, taking into account the grammatical structure and historical context in which it was written. God used human authors to convey specific messages that can be understood without allegorizing or spiritualizing them. A literal reading respects the integrity of the text of God’s Word and also agrees with historical theology. It’s not new to do this, that is, take the Bible literally.
A literal interpretation of the Bible gives clarity and certainty to biblical doctrine. Focusing on what scripture explicitly states avoids the confusion that proceeds from a subjective interpretation. Subjective interpretation means changing the meaning of the Bible often to something palatable to the audience. This isn’t hearing it. Instead, a literal interpretation allows an actual hearer to derive with confidence the unambiguous moral and ethical guidelines directly from scripture.
When readers apply the uniform method of literal interpretation—taking words at face value—they will not encounter contradictions between different parts of scripture. This consistency strengthens their faith by presenting a cohesive narrative that aligns with a correct understanding of God’s character and intentions.
No doubt scripture employs figurative language and literary devices. Still, a literal approach does not negate but enhances plain meaning of the Bible. Scripture itself clarifies the meaning of figures of speech and individual words with a multiplicity of usages and definitions. God does not allow history and culture to prevent men from an accurate understanding of what He said.
The world presents shifting views of the world with modern science and moral relativism. Taken literally, the Bible tells the truth about the world and addresses the vacillation of human philosophy. A literal interpretation provides a basis for readers of scripture to maintain their convictions even when faced with contemporary challenges. It brings clarity and consistency in doctrine and resilience against modern criticism of scriptural authority.
God and the Bible Are Dispensational (Part Two)
I’m not the first person to call a literal approach to the Bible, a “desert island” approach. Stuck on an island alone, you have only a Bible. Except for a plain reading, you have nothing to tell you what it means. You could only take a literal approach. You would read a dispensational reading, which is a literal or grammatical-historical reading.
Literal does not mean ignoring poetic language or figures of speech. If after watching you eat, I said to you, “you’re a hog,” I wouldn’t mean that you were a literal hog. That is a metaphor. I am comparing you to a hog. The use of metaphors and other such figures of speech does not require a different interpretation than a literal one.
Rightly Dividing
Context
The literal interpretation sees dispensations. That is clear in the desert island reading of the Bible. This is a reason why literal interpretation stipulates division. Paul calls it “rightly dividing” (2 Tim 2:15). Parts necessitate a division of a whole. To make up the whole, each part fits into it.
Properly understood, parts of the Bible fit into the whole cohesive story of the Bible. Those parts conform to their “context.” You won’t get the parts right if you don’t understand the context. Right understanding of words requires context. Words have a root meaning, but their full meaning demands context.
Literary, Grammatical, Historical, or Syntactical
Context does convey division. One context differs from another. It might be either a literary or historical context or both. The same word in one context will very often mean something different in a different one. Reading a literal interpretation requires right dividing, which requires understanding words in their context.
One must also consider the grammatical or syntactical reading of a word within that context, which we call usage. In a similar context, we see words used in similar ways. We know the meaning of a word by the way biblical authors use it. Very often, we also witness the same or similar wording around a word that informs its meaning.
Divisions in the Bible
How do divisions appear in the Bible? Divisions appear in the Bible like they would a telling of history or within the narrative of a true story. At its very start, God creates everything. No other time compares to that time. God’s creation of man then separates the first five days from what follows. A little later, when man sins, everything changes. Before sin, man is innocent; afterwards, he’s not. This alters everything, including and most of all man’s relationship with God.
A child for Adam and Eve separates a new age. Cain’s murder of Abel marks another. Noah’s flood changes life and history in a most extraordinary way. The Tower of Babel brings something entirely new, incomparable to the former time. God’s call of and the obedience of Abraham launches another age. The deliverance from Egypt, the Exodus, divides one era from another. So does Moses receiving God’s law on Mt. Sinai.
The Conquest of the Promised Land marks something entirely different. Reign of Hebrew Kings brought significant change. Assyria dispersed ten northern tribes into near oblivion. The forces of Babylon destroyed Solomon’s Temple and deported Israel into captivity.
Malachi ended God’s revelation to and through the prophets. Emmanuel was born. The church started. Jesus died, arose, ascended into heaven, and poured out the Holy Spirit from heaven, who indwelt believers. The New Testament was complete. The Lord will return.
Discontinuity and Continuity
Discontinuity
Every division brings a new, different normal. Scripture is replete with discontinuity. I’m representing the Bible as a reader. With a literal reading, distinct breaks occur in the narrative. The above list is not complete, but it also does not represent the major divisions of biblical history. Certain divisions are more important or vital than others to the extent that they rise to a greater level of dissection between one period and another.
A primary division occurs between the Old and New Testaments. You see the comings of Jesus, first and second, and what’s in between, the church. Before that, Israel takes a prominent place. Much in the Bible points to a future kingdom, beginning with the Messiah.
Continuity
The central figure of scripture, the One and Only God, holy and immutable, however, brings continuity. One God wrote one Bible that is one story. Many major themes cross over or through the points of distinction. God provides one way of salvation all the way through. Nothing contradicts.
Characters in the Bible speak of the story of the Bible. They acknowledge continuity and discontinuity. A few prime examples really mark this reality. One, godly believers recognize Jesus as fulfilling Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah. Two, the disciples or apostles expected a real future kingdom earth inaugurated by the promised King. The resurrection meant Jesus could mark a new era as Savior and much later distinguish another as Judge and King.
If you just picked up a Bible with suitable reading comprehension, it all fits together in one cohesive message with a literal meaning. You don’t need allegorization or spiritualization to make everything harmonize. Everything harmonizes with a literal reading. You don’t have to read anything into the text so that it won’t contradict something else.
More to Come
Changes in Personal Belief and the Effects on Relationships (part one)
Growth and Change
No one comes into this world knowing every doctrine of scripture. For someone to grow in grace and knowledge, he will change in his personal belief. He could go either way, better or worse. A person won’t remain static. Growth requires making good changes and avoiding bad ones.
Like anyone else, I have a story of change in personal belief. I have often told people that I changed on eight to ten biblical doctrines or issues of various significance through the years. No one should change from something right to something wrong. I always believed I was moving from wrong to right, but not everyone agreed with that.
Adding and Subtracting
God says, don’t take away from or add to scripture. Both directions are bad, subtracting and adding. Furthermore, someone doesn’t do better if he takes every doctrine or issue to the most strict or extreme place that he could.
In the Garden of Eden, Eve said the following in Genesis 3:2-3 to the serpent:
We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
God had said the following in Genesis 2:17:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
When you read the two statements, you can see that Eve added to what God said. God said nothing about touching the fruit of the tree. Yet, Eve did. She took an even more extreme position than God, which was wrong.
Almost every change I ever made in belief or practice, I moved in a stronger, more strict or conservative direction. Certain other Christians opposed some of those changes. In a most recent change, that developed over a number of years, I loosened in my belief or practice. I see liberty on something where I once saw regulation. Those accustomed to my rightward movement saw this as inconsistent.
Precipitating Change
In every instance I changed, some event precipitated the change. Very often I changed while preaching or teaching a series through a particular book. Sometimes I was faced with a situation that I had never encountered. I had to make a decision.
In all my years of pastoring, that I know, I have never believed and practiced in an identical way with any other church. I know of no Baptist church that is identical to another in its belief and practice. Beliefs and practices might be close to the same, but with slight variation.
Here at this blog, Thomas Ross and I don’t believe or practice exactly the same. We have differences. We’re very close, but not the same. Some of you readers have read our debates here and elsewhere. Nonetheless, we still partner on this blog.
Through the years, our church still fellowshipped with other churches even with the differences we had. It’s usually not easy to clash with another church on doctrinal and practical differences. Even interpretational differences might bring conflict between believers or churches. Almost everyone thinks they’re right.
Reasons for Change and Differences
When I change, why believe or practice different than before? Why do Bible believing and practicing churches still have some differences with each other in doctrine and practice?
Direct Statements, Plain Inferences
Differences in belief and practice start with variated understanding of either direct statements of scripture or of the plain inferences from direct statements in the Bible. Not every teaching of the Bible comes from a direct statement. Some comes from a combination of direct statements and plain inferences. In general I haven’t changed in my adult life on anything in a category of direct statements or plain inferences from scripture.
When I say direct statements and plain inferences, I also say that these proceed from only a grammatical, historical interpretation of scripture. Direct statements and plain inferences come from the actual meaning of the words of scripture in their context. I also consider the laws for the usage of those words, their syntax, and their meaning in their textual and historical context.
I take a stronger position on repentance and Lordship than I did forty years ago. In the past, I never denied that teaching. However, like every other doctrine and practice proceeding from direct statement and plain inference from direct statements, I grew in my grasp and conviction.
A Series of Overlapping Statements and Inferences
Some doctrines and practices proceed from a series of overlapping statements and inferences in the Bible. When you read all of the passages combined, you will come to certain conclusions that are also your beliefs and practices. The nation Israel, one third of its total number of people according to Zechariah, will receive Christ as the Messiah during the seven year tribulation period. Nations will surround her and at this juncture, Israel will repent with a confession such as Isaiah 53. God will save Israel.
I get my belief about the event of the salvation of Israel from conclusions arising from a series of overlapping statements and inferences in scripture. Furthermore, almost every belief and practice, comes from both the interpretation and the application of scripture. Application almost always depends on the reality of certain self-evident truths, assumed by God. God expects us to apply what He said. Man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.
Separating Differences
Many professing believers take what I call, unscriptural positions. Differences occur between believers and churches when one or more veer away from the teaching of the Bible. They might do that for many reasons. Some of them are just personal. An individual believer or a church leader may have a personal issue with someone. People might not like the way someone treated them or others with whom they fellowship.
Differences between churches may not be doctrinal or practical, but personal or political. They fellowship with others with different doctrine or practice, even with the same differences as someone with whom they won’t. Their decisions about relationship relate to hurt feelings or bruised egos. They won’t reconcile, forgive, or seek mediation because of pride. They wait for the other party to initiate reconciliation, and even if it does, they reject reconciliation or mediation. True churches separate, but scripture teaches constructive reasons, not personal or political ones.
More to Come
Recent Comments