When I began my deep dive into scripture, I investigated the methodology that is recommended by modern theologians for approaching God’s Word. In particular, I took an online course taught by a leading seminary in California, and 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 texts within scripture. And, as a result of this line of thinking, rules were established for interpreting scripture. This chapter will consider those rules, and whether the rules are appropriate for scripture. That is, do the rules provide appropriate guide rails, or do the rules create insurmountable roadblocks towards the intended understanding of the images? Ultimately, is scripture to be interpreted like any other book?
Also, early in my journey, a method of bible study I learned from others is to ask three questions. What does God’s Word say? What do you learn about God or man? And, how do you apply that understanding to your life? Again, this guidance sounded like a very sensible approach for deriving the wisdom from scripture; yet, is that how God intended us to approach His Word? What are we to imagine as we read scripture? What wisdom should we be seeking?
Why are rules necessary?
Consider again the challenges that exist within any written communication between two or more people. First, the author must clearly and fully state the message, which we will assume is accomplished by God’s Word. The much bigger challenge is for the recipients of the message to understand what the author is communicating. That can be a challenge because a recipient will likely have different biases and core beliefs that will influence his understanding, therefore there exists a risk that some understanding will be lost in the communication. That chance of misunderstanding can 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? Obviously, we cannot talk to the author of each book of God’s Word to gain clarity, so there is an apparent necessity to establish rules for the interpretation of ancient texts. Yet, can the rules enable us to discern an “absolute” understanding?
Arguably, an additional reason for establishing the rules was the haphazard “allegorical” interpretation as often suggested by the early church fathers. Origen infamously “spiritualized” many biblical images, such that, still today, the one question not to be asked in a bible study class is “what does the passage mean to you?” Because, with that one question, the meaning of any passage will likely vary depending on the reader’s opinion of what the author is depicting. As such, the meaning becomes one’s own interpretation, yet clearly that cannot be acceptable. So again, there is an apparent need to establish rules for interpretation, such that everyone can agree on the intended understanding.
The principles of hermeneutics
According to the principles of hermeneutics, the primary goal is to discern the “plain sense” of a text such that the “authorial intent” of the passage is realized; in other words, to discern what the author was communicating to his original audience. As such, the basic premise is to approach scripture with the “literal grammatical” rule, which dictates that various texts are interpreted based on the standard linguistic rules of grammar for the particular language and genre. Because, poetry and the apocalyptic writings are obviously handled differently than the narrative writings, as symbolism is very common for poetry, and “out of this world” imagery is often in apocalyptic writing. Therefore, neither of those genres are to be imagined literally, so the term “literal” is subject to the type of literature.
Typically, the first perceived goal for interpreters is to “get into the head” of the author, often by researching the author’s background to discern his motive for the communication. Similarly, the rule suggests the need to get into the head of the author’s audience to discern their original understanding, so their background must also be researched. Supposedly, the culture and customs of their time must be fully understood to appreciate the author’s intended message, and what the message meant to the audience in that time setting.
Next, the approach tries to “bridge the gap” in understanding from what the message meant in that day to what it means today, such that the message can be applied to today’s reader. This methodology seems appropriate for discerning meaning from ancient texts, so the approach appears appropriate for scripture, since the OT was written thousands of years ago.
Challenges with a literal methodology
This hermeneutical methodology creates several challenges. First, how can we reliably get into the head of an author, or an audience member, of whom we know little or nothing about? Are we allowed to speculate about what they were thinking? Particularly, are we required to understand more about these people than what scripture gives us? Notably, if God thought that additional information was deemed necessary to discern the correct understanding, then why would He not include it? Importantly, does God ever indicate that the reader must employ other sources of information to understand His Word? Regardless, what other sources could, or should, be perceived as being reliable if they are not also similarly God-breathed? Logically, based on this methodology, experts of this world’s history would have a distinct advantage over the typical lay person in gaining a true understanding of scripture. However, does this approach elevate man’s wisdom and ingenuity above the guidance of the Holy Spirit for gaining an understanding?
A related challenge is the perception that a biblical writer has an “unstated” motive, where the writer is perceived as arguing against other supposed beliefs of that period (i.e. a polemic). Presumably, a reader must understand those competing belief systems in order to perceive the author’s intended message. However, again, who decides what unstated motive should be ascribed to the author; and, is it reasonable to assume that God would ever expect anyone to seek wisdom beyond His Word? Arguably, if non-biblical sources of information are employed to speculate an understanding of scripture, then this approach will always result in a subjective understanding rather than an absolute understanding.
Also, the reader is often challenged to perceive whether the author intended a literal or symbolic perspective because the text does not always clearly indicate the intent. Critically, the methodology states that you should “assume” that the author intended a literal meaning unless the text does not make sense literally. Obviously, Jesus is not a literal “door,” but will He literally be “coming in the clouds”? Yet, if Jesus in not literally a door, then who decides what the author intended to depict? Perhaps you can make a guess at the intended meaning based on your perception of the context, but are you not influencing the meaning by your own subjectivity? Importantly, there are thousands of verses where this discernment must be applied, so did God intend biblical interpretation to be subjective?
Arguably, while man is nobly attempting to discern an absolute understanding of God’s Word, these hermeneutical rules of interpretation literally ensure that much of the understanding is subjective, because any reader can influence the meaning of any passage by his perceptions of the author, or the audience, or the nature of the times as dictated by non-biblical sources. Certainly, there is often a consensus amongst various wise men regarding their perception of a passage, but archeological discoveries and modern science often shed some doubt on the consensus opinion. As such, many Christians today perceive that an absolute understanding can never be claimed, yet the consequence of approaching scripture with a literal perspective is much more significant than just this matter of subjectivity. Because, the literal perspective always results in the perception that scripture is a set of history books written by ancient men, and that perception forces the reader to misperceive God’s Word in several ways, regardless of God’s intent.
Misperception of voice
Who do you perceive is the author of God’s Word? Certainly the books are different, so it appears obvious that there are multiple authors. Yet, do you consider that the sixty-six books of the canon were written by various men who were somehow “inspired” by God; or, is the “God-breathed” scripture literally from the mouth of God (2 Tim 3:16)? And, do you consider that scripture is just a book about God, or that God’s Word has a divine nature (John 1)? Certainly, no amount of words can fully reveal the infinite God, but is scripture the extent of the divine revelation of Himself and His truth that He decided to give us? Most importantly, if you perceive that God’s Word is literally from the mouth of God, then is the author the one who held the pen, or the one who had literally spoken the words? Consequently, if God is the author, then should we not assume that He is the one who is actually speaking (Heb 1:2)?
However, if you perceive that God is actually speaking, then is He speaking to people of long ago, or is God speaking to you? Yet, if God is literally speaking to you, then is there any need to get “into the head” of a literal author or the literal audience? And, if we are supposed to consider the author’s motive, then whose motive should we be seeking to understand? Arguably, much of scripture is His polemic to you against your individual man-made false belief system; because, do we not all have the tendency to fashion a god in our own image? So, just as the Pharisees and their religion did in their day, are you and your religion also stoning the prophets by perceiving that scripture is just a history book written by ancient men who are speaking to people long ago, instead of perceiving that God is speaking directly to you? O Jerusalem, Jerusalem (Matt 23:37).
Misperception of dialog
Consider for whom scripture is written, and 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 God’s Word 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 the assumed methodology is arguably wrong. Importantly, could this distant perspective of an ancient dialogue be the biggest obstacle to appreciating the wonder of God’s Word?
Consider who is speaking to whom if God is perceived as the one who is speaking, and if the Holy Spirit is perceived as the one who receives the Word and reveals divine understanding. So, instead of imagining a person speaking to people long ago, can you imagine reading scripture as being a conversation that occurs between the divine Word and the divine mind in you? Such that, when you read Isaiah, instead of imagining a person talking to people long ago, can you imagine Isaiah as being an anointed priest inside you who is speaking to the “rest of you.” And, if you can imagine that perspective, then do you think that Isaiah would be revealing to your conscious mind the things of this world, or the nature of his world inside you?
Consider whether you sense that scripture is solely speaking to you, for you, and about you? I suspect many sense that feeling, but they find it difficult to “make sense” of it. Arguably, if you follow the man-made rules for perceiving the dialog occurring within God’s Word, then you will always have that difficulty.
Misperception of symbolism
As mentioned, the poetic and apocalyptic literature within scripture is often approached in a symbolic manner, yet many still argue that a literal perspective must first be considered. Because, how do you know whether or not we will actually lay down peacefully with a wolf and a lamb in the end times, or whether or not one day an actual beast will rise out of the sea? Perhaps Jesus did come to literally separate fathers from their sons, and mothers from their daughters; how can you be sure?
Consider whether scripture ever states either that the author is talking literally about the things of this world, or that we are to assume the “plain sense” of a passage? According to the rules of hermeneutics, any spiritual understanding must be obvious. Again, the popular example of an obvious metaphor is when Jesus depicts Himself as a door; otherwise, any “spiritualizing” of a text by assuming a symbolic meaning is strictly forbidden. Notably, this arbitrary decision to discourage the perception of symbolism is a man-made rule.
Because, consider Paul’s symbolic perception of Genesis that “spiritualizes” the OT image of the sons of Sarah and Hagar (Gal 4:24). On what basis could Paul have pursued that symbolic understanding? And, how could Paul and the writer to Hebrews spiritualize the literal OT festivals by calling them a shadow of heavenly things to come (Col 2:17; Heb 8:5, 10:1)? So, why do they not apply a literal meaning to the images, nor employ the images as object lessons to teach proper behavior? Arguably, all of the “doctrine” in the NT is derived solely from the symbolic perception of the OT images; yet, could a literal perspective ever perceive the intended symbolism of the OT?
Consider how parables are depicted throughout scripture (e.g., Num 12:6-8; Hos 12:10; Matt 13:35; Mark 4:11-12). Of course, parables by their very nature are a form of symbolism, and the critical aspect of a parable is to discern the image that the story teller intends the reader to lay alongside their story. And, if the entire story of Israel is perceived as a parable, then how should that perspective impact the way you approach all of scripture? Arguably, if Jesus perceived the story as a parable, then all of the biblical images must be perceived with the same symbolic perspective to understand the intended message (Mark 4:13).
Consider how Mark tells us that Jesus began to only speak in parables, and how Jesus also stresses the aspect of symbolism with His disciples (Mark 4:34). Notably, after completing a lesson on symbolic teaching, Jesus depicts the “leaven” of the Pharisees (Mark 8:17). Yet, how does Jesus respond when the disciples imagine that He is speaking literally about bread? Jesus berates them for perceiving Him literally, so perhaps the first rule of hermeneutics is wrong. Arguably, Jesus, the Word, is still speaking today only in parables; so, is He is similarly berating us for imagining that His Word is speaking literally about the things of this world rather than symbolically about the things of His (Matt 15:16)? Notably, the literal things of this world are easy to imagine with the natural mind. Perhaps the critical aspect of symbolism is how it forces the reader to earnestly meditate on the images to engage and exercise their new mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16). Why would anyone ever care to meditate day and night on a book of literal historical facts? Therefore, arguably the preponderance of biblical evidence suggests that we should consider a symbolic perspective before a literal one. Importantly, as discussed in chapter one, it would be illogical to perceive otherwise.
Misperception of absolute truth
Consider how God’s Word is perceived as the “absolute” truth (Ps 19:7; 119:142). Yet, if the truths are absolutes, then should the meaning evolve such that we must bridge a gap over time? For instance, if the stoning of adulterers is an absolute truth, then why would that truth change over time? And, why would absolute truths cause so much division within the church?
Consider whether scripture depicts the absolute truths of the world around us, or of the world within us. If within, then while we may not understand what adultery means spirituality (although I suspect many have an idea), 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? Similarly, when David is depicted as crying out to God to destroy his enemies, is that image intended to depict what you should be crying out, or what the future righteous part in you will one day cry out? So, which perspective results in timeless absolute truths, and which perspective results in confusion and ambiguity?
Consider again how Solomon is depicted as being renown for his wisdom of beasts, birds, and fish (1 Kings 4:33); and, how God frequently depicts the bones of people being given to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field as food (e.g., 1 Kings 14:11; Jer 7:33). So, did God literally give Solomon a wisdom of animal husbandry, or a symbolic understanding of the nature of beasts, birds, and fish? Does God want you to imagine a literal image of having dominion over animals of this world, or to imagine a symbolic image of having dominion over things of your spiritual world? Which is a timeless absolute truth?
Instead of simply assuming the literal meaning of the images, should we be seeking to understand their symbolic meaning? Arguably, a diligent thoughtful effort is required to perceive the “absolute” meaning of beasts, birds, fish, stoning rebellious sons, slaves, eunuchs, and eating or sacrificing children; however, can you imagine the joy of seeking and finding pearls in scripture that provide wisdom without causing confusion?
Consider that Jesus also spoke often 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 your heart from receiving His Word; so, is that obstacle external, or internal? Do you perceive the birds as depicting an external evil person, or an evil element within you? Obviously, those are two totally different answers that depend on which “world” you imagine Jesus’ parable to be describing. So, which world do you lay alongside this parable, and consequently every other parable? What wisdom do you perceive Jesus is conveying; a wisdom of the world around you, or of the world inside you? Again, this is the parable that Jesus claimed you must understand in order to understand all the others; so, do you imagine that the sower is sowing to people around you, or to elements within you?
Of course, religion with its external focus and its man-made rules of interpretation will always imagine that Jesus is giving a wisdom of the visible world. However, perhaps you can begin to consider 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. And, according to Paul, what is the only way that the veil can be lifted (2 Cor 3:14)?
Spiritual understanding
Consider whether you should seek spiritual understanding. Particularly, if God is providing spiritual understanding in His Word, then do you think that He wants you to understand it? Critically, do you think that you will need to earnestly seek the understanding, or that the 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 that God is pleased when you say “I don’t care to know,” or “I will trust God to provide the understanding if it’s important”? Also, are you mocking God if you say “I will ask Jesus when I die”? Arguably, you can ask Jesus (i.e. the Word) now or later, in this life or the next, but He will always require a diligent effort from you to uncover His pearls of wisdom. Certainly, an earthly father “gives 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?
Consider what we are to understand from scripture. Notably, since God states that His people are destroyed because of a lack of knowledge, what knowledge are you rejecting that God deems essential? What are the secret things, and 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? And, since Jesus spoke primarily about the kingdoms of God and heaven, did He perceive that it was important to understand those mysteries? Yet, should we expect that the mysteries are revealed by God’s Word, or some other resource? Does the “plain sense” of scripture reveal that understanding? Critically, if you imagine that God’s Word mostly describes the things of this world, then what text reveals the secret things?
Consider how your heart should burn as mysteries are revealed (Luke 24:32). So, does your heart burn when you read the OT? Arguably, no one’s heart could ever burn while reading the historical stories of Israel. However, if those same images are perceived as depicting shadows of heavenly things that have, or will, occur in your eternal life, then can you imagine how those perceptions would certainly make your heart burn?
Consider that after 20+ weeks of a 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 to not reject God. Arguably, no hearts were burning, and no secrets revealed. Critically, what is the primary goal of biblical study, and 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 approach scripture to perceive the mysteries of the kingdom of God? Which did the Pharisees seek (John 5:39)? Notably, if I said that I was constantly being overwhelmed by the mysteries being revealed by the stories of the kings, then which approach do you think could produce more fruit? Obviously, if you do not earnestly seek the pearls of wisdom, then will you find them (Jer 29:13)? And, do you imagine that God laid the pearls on the surface in the plain sense of the text; or, that the pearls are hidden, such that you must dig for them? Importantly, how are we to dig for pearls?
Perspicuity of scripture
Consider whether scripture can be understood by anyone and everyone. Because, similar to the concept promoting a literal perspective, there is the belief in the “perspicuity” of scripture. This concept promotes that scripture is clearly expressed and easily understood by anyone with even minimal intelligence. Arguably, this belief is promoted to justify the argument that anyone can perceive the message of salvation, therefore no one can use ignorance as an excuse for not accepting the message. Yet, where is this concept of perspicuity stated in God’s Word? And, if the text was meant to be perceived literally in the plain sense, and if the text can be easily understood, then the natural mind should be able to make sense of scripture – correct? Yet, what does Paul claim is required to make sense of God’s Word (1 Cor 2:14)? So, if the natural mind can understand the plain sense, then why would there ever be a need for the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12)? Importantly, does the plain sense even make sense? If so, then why are there so many instances where many just throw up their arms and say “that does not make any sense”? If scripture is to be read like any other book by interpreting the plain sense of the text in a literal historical manner, then why are there so many apparent contractions and such confusion?
Arguably, man’s wisdom can never perceive the secret things of God, such that divine involvement will always be required. The only way anyone can 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?
Where to seek understanding
Consider how anyone gains any understanding from scripture. Can I just sit back and meditate on a verse or a parable until the understanding comes to me? If I meditate long enough, will I eventually figure it out? How should we gain wisdom? Certainly, many attempt to gain understanding by relying on the wise men of religion, such as John, Cyrus, David, Billy, and Jonathan; because, they will understand what it means – yes? However, does not scripture make it clear that the wise will be made to look foolish? Obviously, since scripture states that no true understanding comes from anyone’s own interpretation, why should you ever consider another person’s interpretation as truth? As my brother wisely exclaimed, “whom can I trust?” Arguably, man’s wisdom is a deterrent to obtaining the correct understanding, and not an aide. Certainly, our minds must be renewed, but what can, or should, the natural mind contribute to the process other than to ask questions? So, from where are we to seek the understanding of God’s Word?
Consider how Jesus is depicted as proclaiming many woes upon the Pharisees and the scribes, particularly how they loved being called rabbi (teacher), whereas He told His disciples that they are not to be called rabbi, because “one” is their teacher (Matt 23:8). He also told them not to be called leaders, for “one” is their leader, the Christ, or the anointed (Matt 23:10). Importantly, while we are told that the word “teacher” is the translation of “rabbi” (John 1:38), which is the word frequently employed by many who inquired of Jesus, the word translated as “leader” is only employed in this one instance. Jesus does provide an inference into its meaning by also depicting that they should not call anyone on earth as their father, rather that “one” is their father, He who is in “heaven” (Matt 23:9). So, who is Jesus depicting as the “one” who is to be their teacher, leader, and father; and, who is Jesus warning His disciples to avoid? Critically, the depiction of “one” is key to perceiving the mysteries of God, and the divine nature of the images of father and leader will be discussed throughout this effort. However, pertinent to the discussion of where to seek understanding of scripture, arguably the depiction of “one” being their teacher provides the ultimate support for a critical catchphrase, that is, to “allow scripture to interpret scripture.”
Consider how Jesus is depicted as teaching with authority, and not like the scribes (Matt 7:29). Yet, how does one teach with authority, and how is that teaching different than the teaching performed by the scribes? Notably, Jesus also criticizes the Pharisees and scribes for “shutting the kingdom of heaven in peoples faces,” and 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” (Matt 23:13, 15). Repeatedly, Jesus 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 the Pharisees’ teaching such that He compared it, obviously in a negative sense, to a thing that “infiltrates” the entire batch? Jesus commended a scribe by telling him that “you are not far from the kingdom of God” (Mark 12:34). So, what did this scribe do differently?
Consider how this particular scribe quoted God’s Word, just as Jesus did whenever He taught. Notably, the scribes said that Jesus “spoke well” when He used other scripture to interpret the scripture in question (Luke 20:39). Arguably, by inference, Jesus is depicting how the teaching of the Pharisees was based on their own interpretation of scripture, rather than based on other scripture. Such that, the sense is that the scribes taught by quoting the perceptions of the rabbi whom they followed, claiming that “Rabbi Joe says this verse means such and such.” So, who do you follow, and who do you claim is the source of your understanding? Are you a disciple of a wise man who has written a commentary, or of someone who preaches a message by quoting their own wisdom, or the wisdom of another man? Critically, particularly if you claim to be a teacher, then who is the only “one” whom you should quote?
Arguably, whether you are a student or a teacher of scripture, you should consider the implications of the image that Jesus depicts of the scribe who is trained (i.e. discipled) for the kingdom of heaven as being someone who “brings out of his treasure what is new and old” (Matt 13:52). Notably, the word that Jesus employs for “discipling” is limited (Matt 27:57; 28:19), and it is most notably employed elsewhere in the depiction of the great commission to the apostles (Acts 14:21). Critically, Jesus depicts this image of discipling immediately after He asks His disciples whether they understood His parables regarding the kingdom of heaven; so, why does He proceed to depict a head of the house who brings forth old and new treasures?
Arguably, just like the other depictions of proper teaching, the depiction of a disciple who employs both the “old and new” is a profound image of the renewal process occurring within Israel. Yet, the correct perception of that image is only possible when you allow scripture to interpret scripture, just as the parables “must” be based solely on the understanding of other scripture, and not your own, or anyone else’s, perceptions of the images.
How to discern understanding
The premise of my entire effort is that God intended scripture to be perceived symbolically, and that the two testaments are depicting the story of Israel to guide each person through this life and the ages to come, rather than religion’s perception that the two testaments are literally depicting two distinct religions. Importantly, as discussed in chapter two, we learned how the areas within the overall image are perceived differently based on the perspective, such that a smaller area could be perceived either as a nose or as an ear. Also, I argued that the intended perspective could be determined by surveying multiple areas for consistency within the overall image, so much of this effort analyzes the perceptions that result from the two perspectives. And, pertinent to how to discern any understanding, and how to confirm the intended understanding, the most important realization is that a literal perspective will never be able to find the matching images between the old and new testaments, because you are looking for the literal image of an ear, whereas God is depicting the symbolic image of a nose.
For instance, consider the frequent depictions of beasts of the field, and how God oddly employs that image (e.g., Ex 23:29; Lev 26:6; Ps 50:10; Isa 43:20; Ezek 5:17; 34:25; Heb 12:20). Again, my argument is that the literal perspective of scripture will often result in a subjective understanding for those images because the intended meaning is not obvious. Sure, you can try to imagine that God will have animals literally eating people, or that a crafty beast in the form of a snake can actually talk (Gen 3:1), or that beasts were actually covered in sackcloth (Jonah 3). Alternatively, you can seek to understand how God employs the image to symbolically depict deeper truths.Therefore, consider how you currently interpret God’s Word, versus my perception of how a disciple would dig for pearls elsewhere in scripture to discern the intended understanding. This section on hermeneutics started with my perceptions of the reasons why man needed to make rules for interpretation. Certainly, randomly assigning meaning to any text is obviously wrong, however it still occurs. Ask anyone what Jesus means by “I am the door,” or the meaning of any of His parables, and if the answer points to anything else other than other scripture, beware of the leaven.
Arguably, if you cannot find the “source” image that Jesus, or Paul, or whomever in the NT is employing for their statement, then you cannot be certain that you correctly perceive the understanding being conveyed. Origen did a lot of guessing, and it’s still prevalent today. So, I must state this emphatically; none of my understanding comes from anyone’s perceptions. Rather, I “know” that I understand the meaning of a NT truth based solely on finding the source image in the OT.
Just as Jacob and Mary are depicted (Gen 37:11; Luke 2:19), there are many sayings that I keep in mind close to my heart, and there is great joy during meditation when they are brought to light. However, there is one thing that is consistent; that is, the answer that 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, a very strange feeling when John 14:26 occurs in my meditation. So, are you a disciple who is being trained by a prophetic voice who leads you to other scripture, or do you rely on the voices of the wise men of religion who lead you to their subjective understanding of the images?
Perception of untrained scribes
Consider whether seminaries produce trained or untrained scribes as teachers. Having attended one semester of seminary, I quickly learned how students are taught to be good teachers, where the emphasis is to quote “scholarly” resources that support your particular line of thinking. Does your teacher or preacher frequently quote the thoughts of other “wise” men? That is how they were trained, but would Jesus think they were a scribe discipled for the kingdom of heaven, or a blind guide? Notably, seminaries strictly enforce the rules of hermeneutics, so “spiritualizing” biblical text is verboten in every seminary.
Arguably, seminary students are not trained how to study and interpret God’s Word, rather they are trained to parrot the perceptions of their particular rabbi of choice. It truly is a rare blessing to see a teacher solely employ other scripture to clarify an understanding; however, a friend preferred the approach of quoting the wise men with their “catchy” phrases. Of course, he remembers and quotes to others the catchy phrases, rather than scripture. So, 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? Who is the one who is currently opening your mind to your understanding (Luke 24:32, 45)?
The goal of my entire effort is to guide others in their efforts to be “discipled” in the truth of scripture, and not to convince you of my perception of the images. Importantly, my hope is to demonstrate how a disciple is someone who seeks pearls that build towards an understanding, rather than simply assigning your own, or someone else’s, perception of the images.
Obstacles to truth
Arguably, the biggest obstacle to discerning the truth of God’s Word for the typical student is the modern English translation. Because, many translators have “modernized” the wording to make it easier to read, but some translators have literally changed 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 the image 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 meaning of the original Hebrew and Greek cannot always be simply translated into English. Occasionally, the original text is either unclear or garbled, so the translator will make an assumption. And, if the translator has a preconceived notion of what the author is presumably intending to communicate, then an English word will be added to convey the translator’s understanding. Sadly, today’s reader is rarely aware of the many liberties assumed by the modern English translations, so they do not recognize that even the supposed “word for word” translations have been corrupted by the translator’s preconceived notions.
These changes to God’s Word are happening frequently, yet, does scripture need to be updated based on changing times? Based on man’s perception of the plain sense of the text, there is no loss in meaning due to the change in wording; however, from a symbolic perspective, these changes make a difference. Words matter greatly, and finding how a particular word is employed elsewhere is often the key to finding understanding. Does it make a difference to you? Should it?
Arguably, man is employing the natural wisdom of Satan to transform God’s Word into his own earthly understanding, which further hides God’s intended spiritual understanding. For instance, I had a recent experience where I discovered how a change in wording is being made because the revised image better fits religion’s message. 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. Religion perceives that “man” sins by making a bad choice; whereas scripture depicts the nature of “iniquity” as something within us that causes us to sin. Obviously, the perception of sin is dramatically different between the two perspectives.
How the matter of sin and other areas are perceived differently will be discussed throughout this effort, however hopefully you better understand why scripture is approached with a literal 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 meaningful attempt towards a spiritual understanding. So, is there anything else that should be considered to determine whether a literal or a symbolic perspective should be assumed whenever you approach God’s Word? What about the concept of prophecy? What is the gift of prophecy, and why should you desire it?