When I began my “deep dive” into God’s Word, I investigated the methodology that is recommended by modern theologians for approaching the Bible. In particular, I took an online course that is taught by a leading seminary in California. The professor provided a very thorough and quite logical explanation of the concept of hermeneutics. Basically, hermeneutics is the study of “how to study” various texts of literature including the Bible. As a result, certain rules have been established for the interpretation of scripture. This chapter will consider those rules, and whether the rules are appropriate for the Bible. Do the rules provide appropriate guide rails or insurmountable roadblocks to the understanding of God’s Word? Ultimately, is the Bible to be interpreted like any other book?
Also, early in my journey, a method of Bible study which I learned from others is to ask three questions: What does God’s Word say? What do you learn about God or man? How do you apply that understanding to your life? Again, this guidance sounded like a very sensible approach for deriving wisdom from the Bible; however, is that how God intended us to approach His Word? What are we to imagine as we read the Bible? What wisdom should we be seeking?
Finally, in this chapter, I will discuss briefly how seminaries are intended to produce the teachers of God’s Word; however, are they producing untrained scribes instead? What is the difference between a trained and an untrained scribe?
Why are rules necessary?
Consider again the challenges that exist in any written communication between two people. Perhaps the author’s first challenge is to clearly state the message; which we will assume is accomplished by the Bible. The much bigger challenge is for the recipient of the message to understand what the author is communicating. Why is that a challenge? Perhaps because the recipient has different biases and core beliefs that will influence their understanding, therefore there is a risk that some understanding is lost in the communication. That risk of misunderstanding can often be mitigated during in-person conversations through the use of follow up questions to gain clarity. However, does that recourse exist when reading a book; particularly a book written thousands of years ago? Can we talk to the author of each book of the Bible? If not, then how do we gain clarity? So, there appears to be the need to establish rules for interpretation of ancient texts.
Consider why man created rules for interpreting the Bible. I suspect that much of man’s need to establish rules was a result of the haphazard interpretation by the early church. Still today, what question must not be asked in a Bible study class; “what does the passage mean to you?” With that one question, the meaning of any passage will vary depending on the opinion of the reader. The meaning becomes one’s own interpretation, but clearly that cannot be acceptable. So again, there certainly appears to be the need to establish rules for interpretation.
Literal historical rule
Consider the logic of the “literal historical” rule of interpretation developed by the principles of hermeneutics. From my understanding, the rule dictates that we are to approach the text using the standard linguistic rules of grammar for the particular language and genre; consequently, the first goal is to determine the “plain sense” of the text. Next, to understand the meaning of the text, the rule attempts to discern “authorial intent;” that is, the message that the author intended to communicate to the original audience. So, the first perceived challenge is to “get into the head” of the author. This is typically accomplished by researching the author’s background and attempting to discern his motive for his communication. Similarly, the rule suggests the need to also “get into the head” of the author’s audience to attempt to discern their original understanding. This is typically accomplished by researching the makeup of the audience. Supposedly, many factors such as the culture and customs of the time must be understood to fully appreciate the author’s intended meaning, so researching both the author and the audience are necessary to discern what the author intended to communicate and what the message meant to the audience at that time. Then the approach tries to “bridge the gap” in understanding from “that day” to what it means today. The goal is supposedly to learn how to “apply” the understanding of the intended message to today’s reader. That process sounds like a good and reasonable method for interpreting a book; however, if that is the correct methodology for approaching the Bible, why wasn’t it used by the NT authors? The OT was written centuries earlier; Job was written supposedly during the time of Abraham. So, why do the NT authors seemingly ignore the OT truths by not “applying” object lessons as our modern methodology demands? Perhaps the NT authors are not ignoring the OT truths; instead, perhaps the common methodology for approaching God’s Word cannot perceive how those truths are being revealed.
Consider the potential hazards with this standard method of interpretation. How can we reliably get into the head of an author or an audience whom we know little or nothing about? Are we required to understand more than the Bible gives us? Are we to guess or speculate what an author was thinking? If God thought that additional information was necessary for correct understanding, do you think He left it out on purpose? Is God supposedly suggesting that the reader must also seek other sources of information beside the Bible? What other sources could be deemed reliable if they are not God-breathed? Does someone with a knowledge of world history have an advantage over the lay person in gaining an understanding of God’s Word? Does this approach value man’s wisdom more than the Holy Spirit for gaining understanding?
Consider the popular perception that the prophetic biblical writer has a unstated motive to provide a “polemic” or an argument against the supposed beliefs of that day. So, how does one discern the unstated motive of the writer? Supposedly, today’s reader must often understand the belief systems of that day to truly understand the author’s intended message. Again, does God expect us today to seek wisdom beyond His Word for correct understanding? Does this approach lead to more or less subjectivity in gaining understanding? And who is to say what is the correct use and understanding of extra-biblical information? Again, was God unable to provide all the necessary information in the canon we have been given?
Consider whether a literal historical interpretation should be applied to the Bible. A basic premise of applying a “literal” interpretation is to consider the “genre” or type of writing. Poetry obviously is handled differently than the typical narrative. For instance, exaggerating or embellishing thoughts is common for poetry and is not to be imagined as literally happening in this world. Likewise “apocalyptic” literature will often include “out of this world” imagery not to be imagined literally. So, the term “literal” is subject to the type of literature. However, and this is a big however, how does the reader of the Bible know when the author is being symbolic or literal? Very often, especially in the narratives, it is not clear whether the truth is intended to be imagined literally or symbolically. So, do you know how man decided to apply the rule in that situation? Simply stated, the rule is to assume a literal interpretation unless it doesn’t make sense literally. Of course, that methodology is often very subjective which obviously leads to different interpretations. Unfortunately, there are thousands of instances in the Bible where this discernment supposedly must be applied. Did God intend biblical interpretation to be subjective? Where does it say in the Bible to first assume a literal meaning? Perhaps the decision by man to first assign a literal meaning is driven not by God, but by the natural mind of man which can only imagine the literal things of this world.
Consider whether the Bible ever states that the author is talking literally about the things of this world. Where does it state that the Bible should first be interpreted as events of this world, and then try to apply those lessons to your life? Where does it say that we are to assume the “plain sense” of a passage? According to the rules of hermeneutics, any spiritual understanding must be obvious. A popular example is when Jesus states that He is the door; that’s an obvious metaphor of a spiritual truth. But otherwise, any “spiritualizing” of the Bible by assuming first a symbolic meaning is strictly forbidden. Notably, this is a man-made rule.
Spiritualization of images
Consider Paul’s interpretation of early Genesis that “spiritualizes” the image of the sons of Sarah and Hagar (Gal 4:24). On what basis could he pursue that symbolic understanding? Also, how could Paul and the writer to Hebrews “spiritualize” the OT festivals by calling them a shadow of heavenly things to come (Col 2:17; Heb 8:5, 10:1)? So, does their interpretation of the OT apply a literal historical methodology? Do they use the OT characters as object lessons to teach proper behavior? Perhaps all of the doctrine in the NT is the “spiritualization” of the OT images, but it is not made obvious to the casual reader.
Consider why Jesus speaks in parables (Mark 4:11-12). Also, why do the prophets speak in parables (Hos 12:10)? Did God only speak in parables to the prophets (Num 12:6-8)? Is the story of Israel meant to be imagined as a parable (Ps 78)? Did Jesus or Matthew consider it as such (Matt 13:35)? I describe a parable as an earthly story with a heavenly meaning. The story teller presents an earthly image, and the listener is to “lay alongside” a parallel image to gain understanding. Perhaps this is the most important question to be asked: What is the basic premise of the parallel image that you lay alongside the parables?
Jesus employs the teaching technique of parables as recorded in Matthew 13 and Mark 4. His “judgement” parables (wheat/tares, sheep/goats, and the dragnet) are typically perceived as end-times events; however, why would Jesus use parables to say “good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell”? Why would He want to hide that message? Is that a secret of the kingdom? Do you need spiritual eyes to see that truth? Perhaps He is challenging the listener when He states critically that by misunderstanding the parable of the sower you will misunderstand all the parables (Mark 4:13). Notably, if it does not make sense that Jesus would “hide” a message of salvation from eternal judgment, then what message is He hiding?
Consider that Jesus states He is describing the kingdom of God or the kingdom of heaven, so what “world” do you imagine that He is depicting; the world around you or the world inside you? For instance, in the parable of the weeds (Matt 13); do you imagine the “weeds” literally as bad people, or symbolically as the wickedness in you? Do you imagine the “field” literally as the world around you, or symbolically as the one in you? Do you imagine the offspring (the sons of the kingdom and the sons of the evil one) literally as people, or symbolically as the righteous and wicked fruit of your womb? Likewise, in Psalm 1, do you imagine the “wicked” and “chaff” literally as evil people or symbolically as the wickedness in you? Do you think the Pharisees imagined themselves literally as the “righteous” in Psalm 1? Do you?
Consider the “gnashing of teeth” image that Jesus uses in His parables. Notably, there is the OT image of evil gnashing its teeth against the righteous (e.g. Ps 37:12); so, is Jesus using that same image to literally depict a battle of flesh and blood against other people, or symbolically as the spiritual war inside you? Similarly, which is more likely: that Jesus is using the image of the blazing furnace uniquely as depicting the sending of people to hell, or that He is using the image in the same symbolic manner depicting the “purification” of Israel as portrayed several times in the OT (e.g. Ezek 22)?
So, do you imagine that He is describing the ridding of evil from the world around you or from the world inside you? Considering again Mark 4:13, Jesus is warning you that your answer to that question will define how you perceive all of God’s Word. Perhaps He is saying the entire Bible must be perceived with the same symbolic perspective in order to understand the intended message. Perhaps the biblical evidence suggests that we should first consider a symbolic interpretation before a literal one. Perhaps the first rule of interpretation should be to perceive God’s Word as symbolically depicting the kingdom of God in each of us (1 Cor 2:13; Luke 17:20-21).
Consider when Mark tells us that Jesus began to only speak in parables (Mark 4:34), and Jesus also stresses this fact in His discussions with the disciples. Recall when Jesus, after just completing a lesson on His symbolic teaching, mentions the “leaven” of the Pharisees (Matt 16:8; Mark 8:17). How does Jesus respond when the disciples think He is speaking literally about bread? Jesus berates them for taking Him literally, so perhaps the first rule of hermeneutics is wrong. Perhaps Jesus, the Word, speaks today only in parables. Perhaps Jesus is also berating us today for imagining that His Word is speaking literally about the things of this world rather than symbolically about His (Matt 15:16). Notably, the literal things of this world are easy to imagine with the natural mind. Perhaps the purpose of parables is to force the listener to earnestly meditate on the image to engage their new mind of Christ which can imagine the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor 2:16).
Perspective of voice
Consider who authored the Bible. Certainly the books are different, so it appears obvious that there are multiple authors. Do you consider the 66 books of the canon that we have received as being written by men who were somehow “inspired” by God; or, is the “God-breathed” Word of God literally from the mouth of God (2 Tim 3:16)? Is the Bible just a book about God, or is the Word literally divine (John 1)? Certainly, no amount of words can reveal all of the infinite God, but is the Bible the full extent of the divine revelation of Himself and His Kingdom that He decided to give us? And if you agree that scripture is literally from the mouth of God, is the author the one who held the pen or the one who spoke the words? Most importantly, if God is the author, then shouldn’t we assume that He is therefore the one speaking (Heb 1:2)?
Consider, if God is speaking, do you believe that He is talking to just the people from long ago, or is God speaking to you? Yet, if God is speaking to you, then is there any need to get “into the head” of a literal person or the literal audience? And, if we want to consider the author’s motive, whose motive should we seek to understand? Perhaps much of the Bible is God’s polemic to you against your individual man-made false belief system. Do we not all have the tendency to fashion a god in our own image? O Jerusalem, Jerusalem (Matt 23:37). Just as the Pharisees and their religion did in their day, are you and your religion also stoning the prophets by perceiving the Bible literally as just a history book written by men to people long ago?
Perspicuity of scripture?
Consider whether the Bible can be understood by anyone and everyone. Similar to the concept promoting a literal interpretation, there is the belief in the “perspicuity” of scripture. This belief implies that scripture is clearly expressed and easily understood in its “plain sense” by anyone with even minimal intelligence. I suspect man’s motive for this belief is to justify the argument that anyone can understand the message of salvation, therefore no one can use “ignorance” as an excuse for not “accepting” the message. However, where is this concept of perspicuity stated in God’s Word? And, if the plain sense of the text was meant to be perceived literally and it is easily understood, then the natural mind can make sense of the Bible – correct? Yet, what does Paul claim is required to make sense of God’s Word (1 Cor 2:14)? If the natural mind can understand the plain sense, why would there be a need for the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12)? Notably, does the “plain sense” of God’s Word even make sense? If so, why are there so many instances where many just throw up their arms and say “that does not make sense”? If the Bible is to be read like any other book by interpreting the plain sense of the text in a literal historical manner, why are there so many apparent contractions and such confusion?
Consider, can artificial intelligence populated with all of man’s wisdom ever understand the secret things of God; or, will divine involvement always be required to gain any understanding of God’s intended message? Perhaps the only way to gain any true understanding of God’s Word is if the Holy Spirit (dwelling in you in some manner) is receiving the Word and giving you understanding that bears fruit (Matt 13:23). Without the Holy Spirit, can you have ears that hear and eyes that see? Can you understand the Word of God or perceive the kingdom of God without the Holy Spirit?
Perception of dialog
Consider for whom the Bible is written. Who is the intended audience of God’s Word? And most importantly, who is speaking to whom? Notably, the literal historical method of interpretation essentially requires that you “assume” the speaker is a human author who is speaking literally to the audience of that time. So, supposedly the Bible was written “to” them, “for” them, and it is “about” them. Our role is supposedly to “learn” from it and “apply” it to the way we live in this life. As mentioned, the NT authors do not apply understanding in that manner, so perhaps the assumed methodology is wrong. Perhaps this “distant” perspective of an “ancient” dialogue is the biggest obstacle to appreciating the wonder of God’s Word.
Consider who is speaking to whom if God is the one who is speaking, and the Holy Spirit is the one who receives the Word and reveals understanding. Instead of imagining a person speaking to a crowd long ago, can you imagine that dialogue as being a divine conversation that occurs between the divine Word and the divine mind of Christ in you? If you can imagine that perspective, then when you read Isaiah or any of the priestly prophets, instead of imagining a person talking to people long ago, perhaps you can imagine Isaiah as being an image of the anointed priest inside you who is speaking to the “rest of you.” If you can imagine that perspective, do you think Isaiah would be revealing to your conscious mind the things of this world, or the nature of his world inside you?
Consider whether you can sense that the Bible is speaking solely to you, solely for you, and solely about you? I suspect many “sense” that feeling, but they find it difficult to “make sense” of it. And if you always follow the man-made rules of how to perceive the dialogue occurring within God’s Word, then perhaps you will always have that difficulty.
Absolute truth of what?
Consider how much is made about God’s Word being “absolute” truth (Ps 19:7, 119:142). However, if the truths are absolutes about this world, would the meaning change such that we must “bridge a gap” over time? Should not absolute truths be timeless? If it was an absolute truth to stone adulterers in that time, why would that truth change over time? And if they are absolute truths about this world, then why do they cause so much confusion and apparent contradiction? How can absolute truths cause so much division in the church?
So, if the biblical images are not intended as absolute truths of historical events, perhaps they are intended as absolute truths about the world inside each one of us. If so, perhaps we do not understand what “adultery” means spirituality (although I suspect many have an idea), but would not that truth be timeless regardless of when you lived? Which image do you perceive: the literal stoning of a woman, or somehow ridding yourself of an adulterous spirit within you? When David is crying out to God to destroy his enemies, do you perceive that image as a depiction what you should be doing in this world, or as a depiction of the future righteous part in you calling out for the destruction of the wicked parts in you? Which depiction sounds more like a timeless absolute truth from God, and which one is demanded by the man-made rules of hermeneutics?
Consider that Solomon was renown for his wisdom of the beasts, the birds, and the fish (1 Kings 4:33). Do you perceive that as a wisdom of the things of this world, or the things of the world inside you? God speaks often of the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea. Notably, Adam was to have dominion over those things. What does God want you to have dominion over: the things of this world or the spiritual things inside you? Should we be seeking to understand the meaning of those images? Perhaps it takes time to understand the spiritual meaning of beasts, birds, fish, stoning rebellious sons, slaves, eunuchs, and eating or sacrificing our children; but can you imagine the joy of seeking and finding pearls in scripture that give understanding without confusion or apparent contradiction?
Consider that Jesus also spoke of beasts, birds, and fish. And very pertinent to this discussion, how did He describe the birds which ate the seed sown on the path? According to Jesus, Satan is the first obstacle that prevents His Word from reaching your new heart; so, is that obstacle something external or internal? Do the birds symbolize an external evil person, or an evil element inside you that is keeping the Word from you? Those are two totally different answers that depend on which “world” you imagine the parable to be describing. Which world do you lay alongside this parable and consequently every other parable? What wisdom do you perceive Jesus trying to give: a wisdom of the world around you or inside you? Again, this is the parable that He said you must understand in order to understand all the others; so, do you imagine the sower as sowing to the world around you, or to the world inside you?
Of course, religion with its external focus and its man-made rules of interpretation will always first imagine Jesus as giving a wisdom of the visible world. However, perhaps after thoughtful consideration of all the pertinent biblical information, you might realize that the evil element is actually your own natural mind, with its external-only perspective, which has solidified your core beliefs into a veil that is blinding you from seeing anything spiritual. According to Paul, what is the only way that the veil can be lifted (2 Cor 3:14)?
Arguably, if you are reading my effort, you already have the mind of Christ. Presumably, you have been given eyes that see and ears that hear, such that you are no longer incapable of spiritual sight and understanding. So, if you now have a divine mind and eyes that can see the Kingdom of God, are you using them to gain new understanding? Or do you still only understand God’s Word as perceived by your natural mind when you were blind? Is your mind being renewed, or are you just reinforcing your old understanding?
Spiritual understanding
Consider whether you should seek spiritual understanding. If God provides spiritual understanding in His Word, do you think He wants you to understand it? More importantly, do you think you will need to earnestly seek that understanding, or do you think that understanding will just be given to you by osmosis or however? I am not asking which you would prefer, but rather which do you think is more likely God’s way? Do you think God is pleased to hear you say “I don’t care to know” or “I will just trust God to give me that understanding one day if it’s important”? Are you mocking God if you say “I will ask Jesus when I die”? You can ask Jesus (i.e. the Word) now or later, in this life or the next, but perhaps He will always require a diligent effort from you to uncover the pearls. Of course, an earthly father may “give in” to his children, but does your perfect heavenly Father? Understandably, you have been blinded by man’s wisdom and the man-made rules, but can you sense that there is a deeper meaning intended by God? And once you have that sense, are you then without excuse for not diligently seeking to understand? God states often that His people are destroyed because of a lack of knowledge? Are you rejecting the knowledge that God deems essential?
Consider what we are to understand from the Bible. What are the secret things? What does Paul mean when he discusses the “mystery of Christ in you”? Do you think we are supposed to seek understanding of that mystery? Given that Jesus spoke primarily about the kingdoms of God and heaven, did Jesus think it was important to understand? Do you think God wants you to understand His Kingdom in you? Should we expect that mystery to be revealed by God’s Word or some other resource? Does the “plain sense” of the Bible reveal that understanding? If you imagine the Bible as mostly describing the things of this world, what text reveals the secret things? Do you think your heart should burn as the mysteries are revealed (Luke 24:32)? Does your heart burn when you read all of the OT? If not, why not? Could a literal story of a people long ago ever make anyone’s heart burn? However, if those images were meant to be perceived as shadows of heavenly things that have or will occur in you, can you imagine how that perception of those images would make your heart burn?
Consider that after 20+ weeks of a recent group study of the kings of Israel, I asked the two dozen men in my groups what they learned from their serious investment of time. Essentially the forced answer was that the kings were mostly bad, and that we should learn from them to be good and not reject God. To say that no one’s heart was burning is obviously an understatement. Were any secrets revealed and understood? Did anyone find any pearls? What is the primary goal of biblical understanding? What knowledge is to grow? What have you been taught to seek? Are we to search the scriptures to apply lessons to this life, or are we to first seek them to understand the “implications” of the Kingdom of God? Which did the Pharisees seek (John 5:39)? Are we to seek a wisdom of this world or His? If I said I was constantly overwhelmed by the numerous spiritual implications revealed from the stories of the kings of Israel, which approach do you think has the potential to bear more fruit? If you do not earnestly seek the pearls of spiritual understanding, will you find them (Jer 29:13)? Do you think God laid the pearls on the surface in the plain sense of the text, or are they hidden in some manner requiring you to dig for them? How are we to dig for pearls?
Where to seek understanding?
Consider the primary rule for gaining understanding from biblical interpretation. Can I just sit back and meditate on a verse until the understanding comes to me? If I think long enough about it, will I eventually figure it out? How do you gain understanding from the Bible? Many rely on John, Cyrus, David, Billy, Jonathan, and many others who are widely perceived as “wise” men. Surely, they understand what it means – yes? Yet, does not the Bible make clear that the wise will be made to look foolish? If the Bible makes clear that no true understanding comes from anyone’s own interpretation, then how can we be sure that anyone’s interpretation is correct? As my brother wisely exclaimed, “whom can I trust?” Perhaps we should accept that man’s wisdom is a deterrent to correct understanding, not an aide. Certainly, our minds must be renewed, yet what can a natural mind contribute other than ask questions?
Consider what it means to allow scripture to interpret scripture. Is that a biblical principle? Notably, Jesus is described as teaching with authority, not like the scribes (Matt 7:29). What is a scribe, how did they teach, and why did Jesus proclaim many “woes” upon both the Pharisees and the scribes (Matt 23)? In particular, He said that they loved being called rabbi (teacher), whereas He told His disciples that they are not to be called rabbi. He said there is only one instructor, the Christ. He also criticized the Pharisees and scribes as “shutting the kingdom of heaven in peoples faces.” And perhaps the most pertinent thought to consider is Jesus claiming that they go to great effort to make a convert, but the result is that the convert is “twice as much a son of hell as themselves.” Repeatedly He calls them “blind guides.” And when Jesus told His disciples to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, what was His issue with them? What was wrong with their teaching? Interestingly, Jesus commended a scribe as “you are not far from the Kingdom of God” (Mark 12:34). What did this scribe do differently than the woes He proclaimed on the others? This scribe quoted scripture, just as Jesus did whenever He taught. By inference, perhaps we are to understand that the Pharisees were teaching man’s wisdom by interpreting the scripture based on their own natural understanding. The sense is that the scribes taught by quoting the interpretation from their favorite rabbi; “Rabbi Joe says this verse means such and such.” Perhaps Paul was expressing a similar concern when he quoted others as saying “I follow Paul” or “ I follow Apollo” (1 Cor 3:4). Whom do you follow? Does your understanding come from a commentary written by a wise man who is giving you his interpretation? When you teach, whom do you quote? Perhaps we should seriously consider Jesus’ description of a scribe who is “trained for the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 13:52). What is Jesus describing by stating that the trained scribe “brings out of his treasure what is new and old”? Notably the scribes said that Jesus “spoke well” when He used other scripture to interpret the scripture in question (Luke 20:39).
Trained or untrained scribes?
Consider whether seminaries produce trained or untrained scribes as teachers. Having attended one semester of seminary, I quickly learned firsthand how seminary students are taught to be “good” teachers. The emphasis is on finding “scholarly” resources that support a particular point of view. So, go to any seminary and you will be encouraged to quote certain “experts” who support your particular interpretation. Does your teacher or preacher frequently quote “wise” men? That is how they were trained, but would Jesus think they were a “scribe trained for the kingdom of heaven” or a blind guide? And remember, seminaries enforce the man-made rules of hermeneutics, so “spiritualizing” biblical text is verboten in perhaps every seminary. Arguably, seminary students are not trained how to study and interpret the Bible, rather they are trained to parrot the interpretation of their particular rabbi of choice. It truly is a rare blessing to see a teacher solely use other scripture to clarify understanding. However, a good friend didn’t like it; he preferred the approach of quoting wisemen with their “catchy” phrases. Notably, it is the catchy phrases he remembers and quotes to others, not scripture. Do you want to be like an untrained scribe who teaches by quoting the wisdom of man, or like Jesus who taught with authority through the wisdom of God? Is man or Jesus (i.e. the Word) opening your mind to the scriptures (Luke 24:32, 45)?
Consider how you interpret scripture. How do you dig for pearls? This section on hermeneutics started with my perception of the reason why man needed to make rules for interpretation. Yes, looking at any “symbolic” text and assigning meaning based on one’s understanding is obviously wrong, but it still occurs. Ask anyone what Jesus meant when He said “I am the door,” or the meaning of any of His parables; and if the answer points to anything but other scripture, beware of the leaven. If you cannot find the source image from scripture that Jesus or Paul or whomever used to make their statement, then you are guessing at the intended message. Origen did a lot of guessing, and it’s still prevalent today. I must state this emphatically; none of my understanding comes from anyone’s interpretation. I “know” I understand the meaning of a NT truth based solely on finding the confirming source image from the OT; and I do not think it is possible to find those matches with the worldly perspective. Maybe that matching process is what Jesus described as “bringing out the old and new.” Notably, like Jacob and Mary, I have many “sayings” that I keep in mind close to my heart (Gen 37:11; Luke 2:19), and there is great joy during meditation when they are brought to light. However, there is one thing that is consistent; the answer I am given always points to another place in scripture. Always. Early in my journey I used to ask myself; where did that thought of other scripture come from? It was, and still is, by far the strangest feeling when John 14:26 occurs in my meditation.
Obstacles to truth
Consider what is perhaps the biggest obstacle to Bible study for the average student: the modern English translation of God’s Word. Many translators have “modernized” the wording to make it easier to read, but some translators literally change words to what they think were meant by the author. For instance, there is a good reason why the “sons of Israel” are called sons, but the trend is to change that to the “children of Israel.” To the modern reader the change makes sense, but to me it disguises the true meaning.
Another obstacle is how the intended meaning of the original Hebrew and Greek cannot always be simply translated into an English translation. Occasionally the original text is unclear or presumably garbled, so the translator often makes an assumption. And, if the translator has a preconceived notion of what the author is supposedly intending to communicate, then an English word will be used to convey the translator’s understanding. The modern reader is rarely aware of these liberties taken by English translations, so they do not realize that even a supposed “word for word” translation is corrupted by the translator’s preconceived notion.
These changes to God’s Word are happening frequently, and I have to ask; does the Bible need to be updated based on the changing times? Based on man’s understanding of the plain sense of the text, there is no loss in meaning from the changed wording; however, from a spiritual perspective, these changes make a huge difference. Words matter; and finding where and how a particular word is used is often the key to finding pearls. I am getting better at overcoming the obstacles, but it is another instance where man (Satan?) is using his natural wisdom to transform God’s Word into its own worldly understanding which further hides the intended spiritual understanding.
Notably, I had a recent experience where I discovered how a change in wording was made because the revised image fit the message of religion better than the original image. In Micah 7:19, many translations state that “our” sins are cast into the sea; whereas God’s Word actually depicts that it is the sins from the “iniquity” in us, “their” sins, as being cast into the sea. Notably, religion perceives that “man” sins by making a bad choice of the will; whereas scripture depicts the nature of “iniquity” as something within us which causes us to sin. Obviously, there is a dramatic difference between the two perspectives in their perception of sin.
How the matter of sin and other areas are perceived differently will be reviewed shortly, however hopefully you better understand “why” the Bible is perceived with a worldly perspective. Simply stated, the natural mind of man can easily perceive the biblical images as literal events occurring in this temporal world, and the pride of man is convinced that he alone has the ability to understand the meaning of the images. Therefore, there is a natural inability to perceive anything symbolically, and a man-made rule that essentially prohibits any real attempt towards spiritual understanding. Is there anything else that should be considered to determine whether a literal or symbolic perspective should be assumed when approaching God’s Word? What about the concept of prophecy? What is prophecy, and why should you desire it?