Basics of Bible Interpretation

[John of Japan]

"We don't have the liberty of adding our own thoughts to Scripture. It is vital that we take what the Word of God says, and get as close to the original meaning as we can."

That quote is from you, John. I like it. I thought I would start with a point of agreement.

So far so good.

Take your time. My point is that you were misusing the 2 Peter verse as a whacking stick against non-literal interpretation. Wrong on two counts.

1. The verse is speaking of inspiration from God opposed to a lack of it. The idea of literal vs. metaphorical is not in rhis passage.

Prove it. Simply saying, "It ain't so" is not a valid debate point. Deal with my point about the Greek word idios, "one's own."

2. Neither does the passage have to with the reading of Scripture. It has to do prophecy. More specifically, as you can see from the next verse (unhelpfully, a new chapter) it has to do with true prophets vs. false prophets.

Okay, wait. So you don't think prophecy has anything to do with the reading of Scripture? You are divorcing prophecy from Scripture? That doesn't make a lick of sense. Furthermore, principles of proper interpretation are the same, whether the discourse is spoken or written.

And simply because Peter throws false prophets into the mix in the context does not make his point about true prophecy invalid.

When I said to forget Poythress (who has written much that I agree with) I meant that his insertion,had nothing to do with that Petrine verse you cited.

Then you missed my point about communication.

Hopefully this is clearer.

Sort of.

 

[John of Japan]

To become a full futurist one must abandon the plain sense of many, many "soon", "at hand", "quickly", and "this generation" passages.

Oh, come now. I've dealt with these questions in dialogue with you before. The least you could do is acknowledge that I have an answer for each of them, and actually a simple answer.

1. "Soon"--preterists have exactly the same problem with "soon." Whenever you put the 2nd coming of Christ, it wasn't "soon" if it was even one year, and you can't prove it was.
2. "At hand" is the Greek eggus, and it can mean spatially as well as temporally.
3. "Quickly" is an adverb describing speed of action, not lapsed time.
4. "Generation" can easily be translated "race."

 

[HankD]

What does Titus have to do with this?

So we clash swords again!

You are quite correct to ask that question brother and your answer to your own question is also correct. Obviously, it will be the same Jesus.

The same Jesus who went up in a visible and bodily form so shall He return as I see no scripture anywhere that states that He shed the body in which He was crucified, made alive by the Spirit, resurrected and glorified.

AOBTW if He did shed that body what scripture describes the disposition thereof, that body in which He fellowshipped, and ate a meal with the disciples.

Luke 24
41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

"Same manner", an adverbial phrase (Come on. This basic grammar) refers to How He left - invisibly. You are writing as if the angel said "same Form".

Yours is the rebuttal from silence not mine as the angel did not say He would return "in a different form".

Revelation 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

He left from the Mount of Olives, He shall return "in like manner".

Zechariah 14
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.

We all assign meaning to prophetic words of Scripture - literal or allegorical or otherwise and bring forth a point of view and I respect your point of view Tom.

 

[rlvaughn]

In debating the basics of Bible interpretation, it looks like we have lit mostly on one aspect in interpreting the Bible -- eschatology. Interesting.

Back to more basic thoughts on interpreting the Bible, I discovered online a book on Bible interpretation that I have owned for many years, The Golden Key by Ben M. Bogard. I link it here as a matter of historical interest, as well as for the good it might contain (which doesn't mean I would agree with Bogard throughout). Paul Goodwin, president of the Missionary Baptist Institute at the time the book was reprinted, said:

This book is the fruit of over fifty years of teaching and preaching. The principles of Bible interpretation set forth were taught to students of the Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary before being printed in a book...The author, though dead, continues to instruct his readers in "the way of God more perfectly."

 

[rlvaughn]

Accept the plain and literal meaning of the scripture, unless there are legit reasons to do otherwise, based upon its literary genre.

I doubt we could come up with one terminology that very many Baptists could agree upon, but I personally like the terms "plain meaning" or "plain sense." Seems to me that literal has more baggage -- such as is gotten into with the eschatology debate -- and is more prone to misunderstanding (such as, how can it be literal if it is a figure of speech?). The Roman Catholic perversion of the Lord's Supper seems to hinge on a sort of literalism misconstrued, when Jesus says "Take eat, this is my body" et al. They take it literally literally, and wholly miss the figure of speech. But that is a more problem of bad theology than the fault of the word "literal."

trust that God indeed gave to us an infallible scripture
The person must be born again, and come to the scriptures in prayer...

I agree that these are two important things that precede biblical interpretation. Though the writer of Hebrews wasn't talking specifically about the written word, he says, "..without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him" (Hebrews 11:6) The reader coming to the Bible, at least the one who will benefit most from it, is the one who similarly comes to it in faith, believing that it really is God's word, and that it is sufficient and authoritative.

Further, the things of the Spirit of God, including the word he inspired, are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14; cf. John 8:42-44). I agree with the historical-grammatical method of biblical interpretation, within the bounds of my belief in spiritual discernment. When we read the Bible, we read what the words and grammar actually say rather than looking for some deep hidden mystical meaning that no one else has found or can find (cue Origen Adamantius). Nevertheless, if it were only a matter of words and definitions, grammar and syntax, then lost language scholars would be more competent to understand the Bible than saved simpletons such as yours truly (and maybe even some of you). Why are they not, if it is just a matter of what words actually say (reading the Bible like we read the newspaper, Brother Bogard called it)? I'll assert that that the lost language scholar may clearly understand what the words say, but is not reading it spiritually or authoritatively, so the point is lost on them even though they understand the word meanings. Over a lifetime, for a Christian the pieces of the puzzle that they understand individually begin to fall into place as they see (and live) the meaningful whole. Spiritual discernment itself probably isn't as mystical as some of us may make it sound. Jesus said, "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself" (John 7:17; cf. also Ephesians 5:16-17, James 4:8). How would some of you explain this, reconciling the propriety of historical-grammatical reading while acknowledging that the simple believers have the capacity to understand it in a way the lost language scholars do not?

 

[kyredneck]

he is a full blown pretierist, so of course the literal/historical/grammatical methods makes little sense to him!

To become a full futurist one must abandon the plain sense of many, many "soon", "at hand", "quickly", and "this generation" passages.

'Full Futurist', 'Full Blown Futurist', I luv it.

 

[HankD]

No matter our point of view something cherished by others must be abandoned.

But that doesn't mean we must abandon each other.

 

[Yeshua1]

'Full Futurist', 'Full Blown Futurist', I luv it.

At least that view would not be heresy, as Full blown pret is!

 

[John of Japan]

Jesus said, "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself" (John 7:17; cf. also Ephesians 5:16-17, James 4:8). How would some of you explain this, reconciling the propriety of historical-grammatical reading while acknowledging that the simple believers have the capacity to understand it in a way the lost language scholars do not?

We must not confuse inspiration and illumination. The doctrine of inspiration teaches us that God gave us truth in humanly recognizable form--language. Since it is "God-breathed," it is very mistaken to take the form of language that we have received and not interpret according to normal linguistic meaning. The fact that the Hebrew of the OT and the Greek of the NT were the language of the man in the street emphasizes the truism that the Bible must be read with normal interpretation.

As for the difference between the "simple believer" and the unbelieving scholar, it is the unbelieving scholar that tends to ignore the literal meaning, because the normal meaning is spiritual. Note that "spiritual" does not mean "mystical." When I tell someone that Jesus loves them and died for them, that is a spiritual statement (of and pertaining to the spirit), not a mystical statement, but it is easily understood in a literal way. This is where illumination comes in. The unbelieving scholar is inimical to the truths of salvation, so he will reject the gentle pleading of the Holy Spirit, illuminating the plainly understood Scripture

Again, let's go back to the "simple believer." Imagine you are in Uganda. You read Acts 1:11 to a new believer who only has a minimal education. How would he understand it? Would he jump to an allegorical interpretation that says Jesus came "spiritually" in 70 AD? Absolutely not. He would interpret with the normal, literal meaning and rejoice that Jesus is going to come again physically someday. Allegorical interpretation is a learned hermeneutic, but literal interpretation is a natural hermeneutic.

Just a note on the figures of speech in the Bible. It is, of course, foolish for the Catholics to take the Lord's Supper literally, since it is so obviously a figure of speech. Having said that, who interprets the figures of speech more normally, the literal interpreter or the allegorical? Check the commentaries. Allegorical interpreters do not often try to explain the figures of speech in the Bible, yet dispensationalists and other literalists do. Just check the commentaries. Allegorical interpretation can't handle the figures of speech well because they are already taking so much in a non-literal fashion that the lines blur.

 

[Yeshua1]

We must not confuse inspiration and illumination. The doctrine of inspiration teaches us that God gave us truth in humanly recognizable form--language. Since it is "God-breathed," it is very mistaken to take the form of language that we have received and not interpret according to normal linguistic meaning. The fact that the Hebrew of the OT and the Greek of the NT were the language of the man in the street emphasizes the truism that the Bible must be read with normal interpretation.

As for the difference between the "simple believer" and the unbelieving scholar, it is the unbelieving scholar that tends to ignore the literal meaning, because the normal meaning is spiritual. Note that "spiritual" does not mean "mystical." When I tell someone that Jesus loves them and died for them, that is a spiritual statement (of and pertaining to the spirit), not a mystical statement, but it is easily understood in a literal way. This is where illumination comes in. The unbelieving scholar is inimical to the truths of salvation, so he will reject the gentle pleading of the Holy Spirit, illuminating the plainly understood Scripture

Again, let's go back to the "simple believer." Imagine you are in Uganda. You read Acts 1:11 to a new believer who only has a minimal education. How would he understand it? Would he jump to an allegorical interpretation that says Jesus came "spiritually" in 70 AD? Absolutely not. He would interpret with the normal, literal meaning and rejoice that Jesus is going to come again physically someday. Allegorical interpretation is a learned hermeneutic, but literal interpretation is a natural hermeneutic.

Just a note on the figures of speech in the Bible. It is, of course, foolish for the Catholics to take the Lord's Supper literally, since it is so obviously a figure of speech. Having said that, who interprets the figures of speech more normally, the literal interpreter or the allegorical? Check the commentaries. Allegorical interpreters do not often try to explain the figures of speech in the Bible, yet dispensationalists and other literalists do. Just check the commentaries. Allegorical interpretation can't handle the figures of speech well because they are already taking so much in a non-literal fashion that the lines blur.

The non saved person can do a decent job of translating the original language texts into English, but they really do not understand what it means!
I base that upon someone like a Thayer, who made a very good NT lexicon of his time, was well regarded, and yet believe that he was a Unitarian, so denied jesus was God, but still stated what the scriptures said in Greek about him.

 

[rlvaughn]

We must not confuse inspiration and illumination. The doctrine of inspiration teaches us that God gave us truth in humanly recognizable form--language. Since it is "God-breathed," it is very mistaken to take the form of language that we have received and not interpret according to normal linguistic meaning.

I agree, and assume you are emphasizing that everyone -- saved and lost -- has access to the God-breathed word passed down to us, whereas the saved have that and illumination from the Holy Spirit. I don't want to confuse the two, but suggest the second is what gives believers the advantage of understanding scripture over the unbelievers, even when the unbelievers have linguistic advantages.

As for the difference between the "simple believer" and the unbelieving scholar, it is the unbelieving scholar that tends to ignore the literal meaning, because the normal meaning is spiritual.

Here I would agree and disagree, in the sense that sometimes they may ignore the literal meaning, and sometimes they know exactly what it says and obstinately refuse to accept it. For example, most people know what the plain reading of Genesis 1:1 means, and many of them still reject the fact that God created the heaven and the earth.

Again, let's go back to the "simple believer." Imagine you are in Uganda. You read Acts 1:11 to a new believer who only has a minimal education. How would he understand it? Would he jump to an allegorical interpretation that says Jesus came "spiritually" in 70 AD? Absolutely not. He would interpret with the normal, literal meaning and rejoice that Jesus is going to come again physically someday. Allegorical interpretation is a learned hermeneutic, but literal interpretation is a natural hermeneutic.

Again I agree here, but would add to this that it is not just "them" -- but also "I" have trouble unlearning what I have learned incorrectly, even though it is not usually allegorical.

Just a note on the figures of speech in the Bible. It is, of course, foolish for the Catholics to take the Lord's Supper literally, since it is so obviously a figure of speech. Having said that, who interprets the figures of speech more normally, the literal interpreter or the allegorical? Check the commentaries. Allegorical interpreters do not often try to explain the figures of speech in the Bible, yet dispensationalists and other literalists do. Just check the commentaries. Allegorical interpretation can't handle the figures of speech well because they are already taking so much in a non-literal fashion that the lines blur.

Agree here as well, but will add on again a problem that "we" have had (i.e., those among the more conservative and fundamentalist Baptists who come to the Bible with a historical-grammatical approach). It's somewhat off your topic, but I suppose this is a good place to say it. 40 years ago the teaching seemed to be that all kinds of things in the Old Testament were "types" of things in the new. They did have applications, but we were overzealous in calling all sorts of things types without NT justification. Seems that we have corrected that a good bit, though.

 

[John of Japan]

I agree, and assume you are emphasizing that everyone -- saved and lost -- has access to the God-breathed word passed down to us, whereas the saved have that and illumination from the Holy Spirit. I don't want to confuse the two, but suggest the second is what gives believers the advantage of understanding scripture over the unbelievers, even when the unbelievers have linguistic advantages.

My caveat would be that illumination helps us spiritually, but not necessarily mentally. A believer in the pew, as well as an academic, is still obliged to do the tough study to get the facts of history and grammar straight--thus, "grammatical-historical."

Here I would agree and disagree, in the sense that sometimes they may ignore the literal meaning, and sometimes they know exactly what it says and obstinately refuse to accept it. For example, most people know what the plain reading of Genesis 1:1 means, and many of them still reject the fact that God created the heaven and the earth.

Point well made. As unbeliever Mark Twain supposedly said, "It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."

Again I agree here, but would add to this that it is not just "them" -- but also "I" have trouble unlearning what I have learned incorrectly, even though it is not usually allegorical.

That's why on the mission fields of the world as well as in the homeland, we need to train our church leaders in the grammar and history, especially.

Agree here as well, but will add on again a problem that "we" have had (i.e., those among the more conservative and fundamentalist Baptists who come to the Bible with a historical-grammatical approach). It's somewhat off your topic, but I suppose this is a good place to say it. 40 years ago the teaching seemed to be that all kinds of things in the Old Testament were "types" of things in the new. They did have applications, but we were overzealous in calling all sorts of things types without NT justification. Seems that we have corrected that a good bit, though.

Point well taken. I have often heard sermons by fundamental Baptist preachers that were really allegorical, though the preacher may not even have understood that. To stay true to the Word of God requires Spirit-led thought and meditation.

 

[OnlyaSinner]

I've heard types being defined as an Old Testament picture of a New Testament truth. Without that tie to the NT, typology can (and has) run wild.
Another somewhat simplistic rule that I like for interpretation is, "When the plain sense of scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense."

 

[Yeshua1]

I've heard types being defined as an Old Testament picture of a New Testament truth. Without that tie to the NT, typology can (and has) run wild.
Another somewhat simplistic rule that I like for interpretation is, "When the plain sense of scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense."

One of the hardest things we have to do when coming toi the bible and understanding it is to not force our own sytem of theology unto it, as we need to have it be the source of authority, and not our theological system

 

[asterisktom]

First, I am typing on a Peruvian computer, my laptop having been stolen, and cannot find several of the punctuations. Hopefully my work-around is understandable.

Oh, come now. I've dealt with these questions in dialogue with you before. The least you could do is acknowledge that I have an answer for each of them, and actually a simple answer.

Then do I not merit the same courtesy.? You post as if I had never answered the points you raised.

1. "Soon"--preterists have exactly the same problem with "soon." Whenever you put the 2nd coming of Christ, it wasn't "soon" if it was even one year, and you can't prove it was.
2. "At hand" is the Greek eggus, and it can mean spatially as well as temporally.
3. "Quickly" is an adverb describing speed of action, not lapsed time.
4. "Generation" can easily be translated "race."

No, we do not have the the same problem. Not at all. That is what began to draw me to Preterism after decades of being a futurist myself. I just could not find satisfying answers to those troublesome verses. The passages that speak of the soon-coming Parousia were all, or almost all, written in the 60s – just a few short years before that event. That is why John spoke of it being the last hour.

Are you seriously going to argue that "soon" cannot be a few years --- and yet CAN be twenty centuries?

From your other post

Deal with my point about the Greek word idios, "one's own."

No, I am not going to go down this rabbit-trail. Save the assignment for your students. There are certainly times when Greek is helpful, but many times it leads to the problem of not seeing the forest for the trees. Context is all-important here – what has Peter been writing about and will return to in the very next verse?

The true messengers of Gods Word contrasted to false prophets and teachers. – 2 Pet. 1.16 through 2 Pet. 2.1. Peter had earlier brought up this topic in 1 Pet. 1.10 through 12.1.

It is not about our interpretation of the Word of God. Certainly it has nothing to say about the issue of literalism vs. metaphorical interpretation.

Okay, wait. So you don't think prophecy has anything to do with the reading of Scripture? You are divorcing prophecy from Scripture? That doesn't make a lick of sense. Furthermore, principles of proper interpretation are the same, whether the discourse is spoken or written.

I have no idea where you come up with these accusations. And your follow up is meaningless. Maybe you could be clearer on this. I get the feeling you are reading for ammunition, not understanding.

And simply because Peter throws false prophets into the mix in the context does not make his point about true prophecy invalid.

He did not throw it into the mix. He was continuing the topic he had already developed. And your second part – once again – is a head scratcher.

 

[John of Japan]

Don't have time for your whole post--it's VBS week here. But I'll mention a couple of crucial things.

No, I am not going to go down this rabbit-trail. Save the assignment for your students. There are certainly times when Greek is helpful, but many times it leads to the problem of not seeing the forest for the trees. Context is all-important here – what has Peter been writing about and will return to in the very next verse?

Okay, so actually debating about the passage you have questioned is a rabbit trail. I guess I'm just supposed to accept your non-debated view. Nah, I think I'll claim victory instead. You have no answer for the Greek word idios.

he true messengers of Gods Word contrasted to false prophets and teachers. – 2 Pet. 1.16 through 2 Pet. 2.1. Peter had earlier brought up this topic in 1 Pet. 1.10 through 12.1.

It is not about our interpretation of the Word of God. Certainly it has nothing to say about the issue of literalism vs. metaphorical interpretation.

I'm laughing. I'll ask you the same thing I asked Deacon then. It's not about interpretation even though the word is right there in the verse? Then what word would God and Peter have used other than "interpretation" to make it about interpretation?

 

[asterisktom]

I'm laughing. I'll ask you the same thing I asked Deacon then. It's not about interpretation even though the word is right there in the verse? Then what word would God and Peter have used other than "interpretation" to make it about interpretation?

Good grief. I guess I have to shout. Bad manners but you seem to require it. It is not about OUR interpretation. Yes, the word is in there. Never said it wasn't.

I suspect that your knee-jerk
reaction is negative toward what I write. I will let AT Robertson make the same point. Maybe you will agree with the two of us now.

From Robertson's Word Pictures:
"Peter is not here warning against personal interpretation of prophecy as the Roman Catholics say, but against the folly of upstart prophets with no impulse from God."

And, no, I am not going to bother with idios. It is not pertinent to the point I am raising.

Funny. To a surgeon every problem patient seems to call for surgery. To you, theological problems must always be solved by recourse to the Greek. Not so. Certainly not in this case.

 

[TCassidy]

"Peter is not here warning against personal interpretation of prophecy as the Roman Catholics say, but against the folly of upstart prophets with no impulse from God."

Isn't that what John said? Substituting his own "prophecy" in place of what God actually says?

 

[Covenanter]

Is it just me or did Mark make a humerus allusion to ἴδιος by using the word "idotic" which comes from ἴδιος?

I thought it was funny. Tom, did you miss the joke, or am I imagining things?

In England the "humerus" (the upper arm bone) is called the "funny bone." Quite different from its homophone "humorous."

Are you trying to slay those "idots" who believe that Jesus came as he promised in AD 70 (Luke 21:20-32), with an ass's front leg (humerus) as Samson slew 1,000 with an ass's jawbone?

No, we didn't miss the joke, but while you are dodging the unicorn's horn, beware of the kick from its hind legs.

To become a full preterist, one must abandon the plain sense of many, many passages.

I'm not a full Preterist, but I as a partial Preterist, understand the many Scriptures that support Preterism in their plain sense.

But they did not see Him literally because He literally did not come. So the full preterist narrative is not literal. End of story.

Jesus literally said he would come before "this generation" passed. "This generation" is used repeatedly by the LORD Jesus in his condemnation of those who rejected him. In context, "race" is not valid. We often refer to "seeing" as meaning understanding, rather than seeing with our eyes. When the prophesied judgment destroyed the city, the rebels would see & understand the dreadful meaning of Jesus' prophecy.

 

[asterisktom]

Isn't that what John said? Substituting his own "prophecy" in place of what God actually says?

No, not what he originally said. If he had he would have agreed with me earlier on this point.