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, 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. As a result of this line of thinking, certain rules were established for the interpretation of scripture. This chapter will consider those rules, and whether the rules are appropriate for the Bible. Specifically, do the rules provide appropriate guide rails, or insurmountable roadblocks, towards 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? And, 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 scripture? 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 incentive 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 aspects of the “literal historical” rule of interpretation as 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. As such, the first aspect is to determine the “plain sense” of the text. Next, to understand the meaning of the text, the critical aspect of the rule is to discern authorial intent; that is, to discern the message that the author intended to communicate to the original audience.
So, the first perceived goal for interpreters 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 try 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 deemed necessary to discern what the author intended to communicate, and what the message meant to the audience at that time.
Next, 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 author’s intended message to today’s reader. This line of thinking certainly sounds like a good and reasonable methodology, because the OT was written thousands of years ago, and the book of Job was presumably written during the ancient time of Abraham. Yet, if that is the correct method for discerning understanding from scripture, then why was it not employed by any of the NT authors? Are the NT authors seemingly ignoring the OT truths by not “applying” object lessons as our modern methodology demands, or does the suggested method prevent those truths from being revealed?
Consider the potential challenges with this line of thinking. First, can we reliably get into the head of an author or an audience member 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 necessary to discern the correct understanding, then why did 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 deemed “reliable” if they are not God-breathed? Logically, based on this line of thinking, an expert in world history would have a distinct advantage over the lay person in gaining an understanding of scripture. However, does that thinking elevate man’s wisdom above the guidance of the Holy Spirit for gaining understanding?
Similarly, the popular perception that a biblical writer has an “unstated” motive often presents a challenge, such as when the writer is perceived as arguing against the supposed beliefs of that day (i.e. a polemic). Presumably, today’s reader must also understand the belief systems of that day to truly understand the author’s intended message. However, does this approach lead to more or less subjectivity in gaining understanding? Again, is it reasonable to assume that God would ever expect anyone to seek wisdom beyond His Word?
Consider the presence of subjectivity when “applying” a literal interpretation. Notably, a basic premise of hermeneutics is that the “genre” must be considered when discerning the plain sense of the text, because poetry and apocalyptic writings are obviously handled differently than the narrative writings. Because, symbolism is common for poetry, and the apocalyptic literature often includes “out of this world” imagery that is not to be imagined literally; so, the term “literal” is subject to the type of literature. Yet, and this is a huge caveat, how does the reader know the author’s intent if the text does not obviously depict symbolism or a literal image? Obviously, Jesus is not literally a “door,” but is He literally “coming in the clouds”?
Often, especially in the narratives, the author’s intent is not obvious; so, how did man define the rule for those situations? Simply stated, the rule is to “assume” that the author intended a literal meaning unless the text does not make sense literally. Of course, that methodology is often very subjective, which obviously leads to differing interpretations. Notably, there are thousands of instances where this discernment must be applied, so did God intend biblical interpretation to be so subjective? Critically, if the Bible never explicitly demands a literal interpretation, is the decision by men to first assume the literal meaning driven by God, or by the natural mind of man which is primarily focused on the “literal” things of this world?
Perception 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 lions and wolves 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 the Bible ever states 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. 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 first assuming a symbolic meaning is strictly forbidden. Notably, this arbitrary decision to discourage the perception of symbolism is a man-made rule.
Consider Paul’s symbolic interpretation 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 why 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 story of Israel is considered a parable, then how should that perspective impact the way you approach all of scripture (Mark 4:13)? Arguably, according to Jesus, the implication is that the biblical images must be perceived with the same symbolic perspective to understand the intended message.
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, still speaks 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 listener 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, perhaps 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.
Perspective of voice
Consider who authored the Bible. 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 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 the Bible is just a book about God, or that scripture is 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? Importantly, if you perceive that scripture is literally from the mouth of God, then is the author the one who held the pen, or the one who literally spoke the words? Consequently, if God is the actual author, then should we not assume that He is the one actually speaking (Heb 1:2)?
Consider, if you perceive that God is speaking, then is He speaking to people from 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 person or the literal audience? And, if we want to consider the author’s motive, then whose motive should we seek to understand? Arguably, much of the Bible is God’s 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? 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 that the Bible 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?
Perspicuity of scripture
Consider whether the Bible 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 scripture? 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 the Bible – 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 the Bible 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?
Consider, can man’s wisdom ever perceive the secret things of God; or, will divine involvement will always be required? Arguably, 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, 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 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. 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. Instead of imagining a person speaking to a crowd long ago, can you perceive 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 the 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 the Bible 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. Because, if you follow the man-made rules for perceiving the dialog occurring within God’s Word, then you will always have that difficulty.
Perception of absolute truth
Consider how God’s Word is considered the “absolute” truth (Ps 19:7; 119:142). Yet, if the truths are absolutes about this world, then why would the meaning change such that we must “bridge a gap” over time? Is it logical to assume that absolute truths should evolve? If stoning adulterers is 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 how Solomon is oddly depicted as being renown for his wisdom of beasts, the birds, and the fish (1 Kings 4:33). So, did God literally give Solomon a wisdom of animal husbandry, or a wisdom such that he could rule over his world justly? Notably, scripture often depicts images of the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea; and Adam is depicted as having dominion over those things. So, does God want you to have dominion over the animals of this world? Instead of blindly assuming the literal meaning of the images, should we be seeking to understand their symbolic meaning? Arguably, much time and 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 the parable to be describing. So, 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 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 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 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)?
Arguably, if you are reading my effort, then 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 wisdom. So, if you now have a divine mind and eyes that can see the absolute truths of scripture, then are you using them to gain new understanding, or are you still only using your natural mind to perceive the images? Critically, do you sense that your mind is being renewed, or that you are just reinforcing your old perceptions as originally perceived?
Spiritual understanding
Consider whether you should seek spiritual understanding. Particularly, if God is providing spiritual understanding in His Word, then do you think 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 God is pleased to hear 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 the Bible. 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 the Bible reveal that understanding? Critically, if you imagine that the Bible 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). 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 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. 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?
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? Arguably, many attempt to gain understanding by relying on the wise men of religion, such as John, Cyrus, David, Billy, and Jonathan. Certainly, they understand what it means – yes? However, does not the Bible 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?” Perhaps we should accept that man’s wisdom is a deterrent to 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, 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, and that they are all brothers (Matt 23:8). He also told them not to be called leaders, for “one” is their leader, the Christ, literally the anointed “one” (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 central to understanding the mysteries of God, and the divine nature of the images of father and leader will be discussed throughout this effort. Yet, 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). So, how does someone 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 13:13, 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 something that “infects” the entire batch? Interestingly, 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 than the blind guides?
Consider how this particular scribe quoted scripture, 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 each based on their own interpretation of scripture, rather than based on other scripture. Arguably, the sense is that the scribes taught by quoting the perceptions of their favorite rabbi; “Rabbi Joe says this verse means such and such.” Similarly, whom do you follow, and where does your understanding of truth come from; a wise man who has written a commentary, or who has preached a message, quoting their own wisdom, or the wisdom of another man? Critically, 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 seriously consider the implications of the image that Jesus depicts of the scribe who is trained (i.e. discipled) for the kingdom of heaven; someone who “brings out of his treasure what is new and old” (Matt 13:52). Notably, the word that Jesus employs here to depict “discipling” is limited, and it is most notably employed elsewhere in the depiction of the great commission of discipling (Matt 27:57; 28:19; Acts 14:21).
How to discern understanding
Jesus depicts this image of “discipling” immediately after He asks whether His disciples 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 the same image of allowing scripture to interpret scripture, such that Jesus is affirming that anyone’s understanding of the images being depicted in His parables “must” be based solely on other scripture, and not your own, nor anyone else’s, interpretation of the parable.
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 literally depict two different 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 as either a nose or an ear. Yet, we agreed 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 images of an ear, whereas God is depicting the images of a nose.
Consider how you currently interpret scripture, versus my perception of how a disciple would dig for pearls 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 meant when He said “I am the door,” or the meaning of any of His parables, and if the answer points to anything other than 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 confirming source image in the OT.
Notably, like Jacob and Mary (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 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. Importantly, I am not memorizing the words of verses, rather I am imagining the images being depicted by the many words, and meditating on how the new inferences of understanding are logically building upon the mysteries being revealed.
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 the Bible, 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. 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)?
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 to become a disciple 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
Consider what is perhaps the biggest obstacle to discernment of the truth for the typical student of scripture; that is, the modern English translations. Because, 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 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 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 perception of the plain sense of the text, there is no loss in meaning due to the change in wording; however, from a spiritual perspective, these changes make a huge difference. Words matter greatly; and finding where else and how a particular word is employed is often the key to finding pearls. I am getting better at overcoming the obstacles, but it is another instance where man (Satan?) is employing his natural wisdom to transform God’s Word into its own worldly understanding, which sadly 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 better fit 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. Arguably, 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 real attempt towards spiritual understanding. Is there anything else that should be considered to determine whether a literal or a symbolic perspective should be assumed when approaching scripture? What about the concept of prophecy? What is the gift of prophecy, and why should you desire it?