Interpreting the Bible is not a free-for-all mystical experience

I am sure you have been in a discussion on the Bible, whether in a Bible study, or some other setting, and someone raised a comment concerning a verse saying something like, “To me, this verse means [enter personal meaning here].”

Over the last 2000 years, the Bible has been abused, misused and misinterpreted horribly by all kinds of people. Some very well meaning, but others simply just charlatans and heretics.

The responsibility of interpreting the Bible correctly is no small issue, as D.A. Carson writes,

“Make a mistake in the interpretation of one of Shakespeare’s plays, falsely scan a piece of Spenserian verse, and there is unlikely to be an entailment of eternal consequence; but we cannot lightly accept a similar laxity in the interpretation of Scripture. We are dealing with God’s thoughts: we are obligated to take the greatest pains to understand them truly and to explain them clearly.” (D.A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, Second Edition, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, Third Printing 1998, p15)

Eric J. Bargerhuff writes,

“[W]ell-intentioned Christians have misquoted the Bible and misunderstood its meaning, leaving behind a trail of confusion and faulty decisions pertaining to God’s will for one’s life. Many a theological heresy has resulted from the misuse or misinterpretation of Scripture, and this can happen no matter how noble the intentions of its interpreters.” (Eric J. Bargerhuff, The Most Misused Verses in the Bible: Surprising Ways God’s Word is Misunderstood, Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis, MN, 2012, p15)

In another post I wrote some time ago,

“Our aim in interpreting the Bible is not to be unique and different to everybody else. In fact, chances are good that the unique interpretation is wrong. The aim of the interpreter is to get to the plain meaning of the text. In the end, the litmus test of good interpretation is that it makes good sense of the text at hand.

“Whether we like it or not, each one of us is an interpreter. Everything we read or hear is interpreted by us. When we approach any text—Biblical or not—we bring a whole lot of baggage to the text; and it is that baggage—not necessarily all bad—that influences us when we interpret the text. Since we already interpret what we hear, see and read, we may as well make sure that we become good interpreters of the Word while we are at it. Learning to be actively involved in proper hermeneutics will safeguard us against ‘every wind of doctrine.’

“The Bible is at the same time human and divine. The Bible was given to us in the words of the people of history. The Bible is not written outside the scope of history or the context of that history. This alone suggests to us that some interpretation will be needed to understand the Bible.” (William Dicks, Hermeneutics—Part 1: Need, tools and principles, 2012)

You do not need anyone to teach you

Did the title of this post catch your attention? Well, it should have!

Based on my post, 10 Books every Christian should read, from yesterday, a dear brother responded with the following:

And there is the very important aspect of being taught by the Holy Spirit himself:

I John 2 26
"I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. 27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him."

This kind of comment comes from common mistakes that lead to the misuse of Scripture. One of the books I could have added to the optional books that I didn’t add to the list of 10, is The Most Misused Verses in the Bible by Eric J. Bargerhuff. In his book, Bargerhuff takes an exegetical look at some of the most misused verses such as Mt 7:1, Jer 29:11-13, Mt 18:20, Jn 14:13-14 and many more. In his conclusion, chapter 19, he looks at some common mistakes that lead people to misuse Scripture. They are as follows:

1. Partial or surface reading of Scripture: This is insufficient because it isolates “a certain passage without reading the fuller context” and “can result in a major misreading of the text.”
2. Not using Scripture to interpret Scripture: If you come up with an interpretation of a text that contradicts the rest of Scripture, chances are that you have interpreted that text incorrectly. God does not contradict Himself.
3. Making a passage say what we want it to say: Many have “read into Scripture what they want to see.” This one is akin to point 1. I have always said (who I got it from I do not know), that a text without a context is a pretext. Instead of exegesis, finding out what the Bible says to us, eisegesis is employed by reading meaning into the text that is foreign to the text.
4. Misquoting texts: Have you ever heard someone say, “Money is the root of all evil?” That is not what 1 Tim 6:10 says.
5. Inadequate understandings and implications of the gospel that are read back into some passages: Sometimes we add promises to the gospel that the Scriptures never promised us such as continuous good health, wealth and prosperity. Jer 29:11-13 comes to mind.

Thinking of the response above, I would classify it under points 1 and 2.

Quoting big names out of context

I found this review of a book that seems like pure science fiction instead of reality. The book is called “Exo-Vaticana: Petrus Romanus, Project L.U.C.I.F.E.R., and the Vatican’s Astonishing Plan for the Arrival of an Alien Savior.” Apparently a MUST-READ! I love sci-fi and always have. And this book seems to fit right in there with the best of them: Star Trek, Star Wars, Star Gate, etc. You can find out more about the book here.

The only difference between this book and the rest, is that it claims to be meticulously researched truth! It sounds more like a hashed-up conspiracy theory, and we all know how these conspiracy theories are laced together to build an alternate truth!

Of course, they can “conspiracize” as much as they like to. The problem I have with them is that they quote Francis Schaeffer as backup for their cause. Maybe Schaeffer did write something that showed that he believed like they do? The problem is that they quote Schaeffer out of context as if he does agree with them. The point is that Schaeffer didn’t!

They quote the following from Schaeffer in his book, “Genesis in Space and Time,”

“More and more we are finding that mythology in general, though greatly contorted, very often has some historical base.  And the interesting thing is that one myth that one finds over and over again in many parts of the world is that somewhere a long time ago supernatural beings had sexual intercourse with natural women and produced a special breed of people.” (p125-126)

I have “The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer” in 5 volumes. So, I decided to check it out. So, what did Schaeffer actually say?

The context in which Schaeffer made the quoted statement is within an explanation of two possible interpretations of Gen 6:1-2:

“(1)  Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them,  (2)  that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.”

Schaeffer, in the context of the quote pointed out two different options for interpreting these verses of which the quote was part of option 1. In this option he explained the belief by some that angels came to earth, mated with these beautiful women and produced the Nephilim, hybrid creatures made of angelic and human DNA.

After this part, Schaeffer continued:

“The other reading—that verse 2 denotes that there were those in the godly line [of these genealogies] who intermarried with others in the ungodly line to the destruction of the godly line—fits into the whole of Scripture, for there is a constant prohibition throughout the Old and New Testaments against the people of God marrying those who re not of the people of God. The Old Testament says repeatedly: if you marry those who are not God’s people, and if you give your sons and daughters to them, the godly line will be destroyed. The New Testament contains the same command: ‘Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?’ (2 Cor. 6:14). This passage has to do with those links which are central to men’s lives, and no link is more central than marriage. This point is made explicit in the great marriage passage in 1 Corinthians 7:”39. Paul instructs the church that ‘the wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.’ The principle is clear: God’s people are to marry God’s people. It is therefore possible to interpret Genesis 6:2 as indicating the intermarriage between the godly line and the ungodly line.” (The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, Volume Two, Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois, 1982, p89)

Right after this passage in Schaeffer’s book he continues to speak of the godly line, and how the genealogies lead up to Noah as the last in the godly line.

So, Schaeffer is in no way underscoring the beliefs of the writers of “Exo-Vaticana!”

God’s Lavish Grace (by Terry Virgo)

I just finished Terry Virgo’s book “God’s Lavish Grace.”

What I like about the book is that it sites many passages from the Bible. Grace is something many Christians battle with, thinking that in order to remain accepted by God, we need to follow certain laws or do certain things to be accepted. Virgo writes:

“You reign in life by receiving abundant grace, not by putting yourself under laws. It is because of your standing that you reign in life. It is because you have obtained grace, not because you have achieved or accomplished merit. It is by your position, not by your performance! The imposition of law upon your life will never cause you to reign in life. It will never cause you to enjoy fellowship with Jesus and the grace-filled life that is so necessary for you to bear fruit for God.” (p15-16)

Virgo’s main point, at least as I see it, is that the law cannot make us better. In fact, adding “the law to [the utterly sinful man] does not improve him but strangely makes him even worse.” (p24) It is the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ that brings freedom and we have died to the law and are now married to a new husband. It is He who will sanctify us by His Word.

I definitely will recommend this book to others and I think it accomplishes what it sets out to do, point us to the grace of Christ!

I have but one thing to complain about, and I find this with many charismatics (as Virgo is), even if they are reformed. Of course, I do not say that this is the case with all charismatics, and even less that this is how it is with all reformed charismatics.

In his sixth chapter, “A conscience cleansed from dead works,” Virgo does make Scripture say what it doesn’t say. It is the subject of “dead works” as mentioned in Hebrews 9:14, “how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” Concerning these "dead works, Virgo writes that they are:

1. Something with no life in it, done without faith, like church programs. Things done by routine.
2. Things done presumptuously. Things we think are good.
3. Things that God did not personally tell you to do.

When we look at the passage that Hebrews 9:14 comes from, it is clear that the writer of Hebrews did not have any of the three points in mind that Virgo proclaimed to be dead works. The context is clear as to what dead works are, regulations concerning food and drink, and of various washings, sacrifices of bulls and goats. It is attempting to be accepted by God through the law and rituals. The book of Galatians is very clear on this subject! It is not the law and rituals (dead works) that will cleanse our consciences, but “ the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, [will] cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”

It is always important to read the Scriptures in context, and not to tag our own ideas onto what we read!

AGAPE and PHILEO: That much different?

Introduction

"So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon, son of John, do you love (ἀγαπάω) Me more than these?' He said to Him, 'Yes, Lord; You know that I love (φιλέω) You.' He said to him, 'Tend My lambs.' He said to him again a second time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love (ἀγαπάω) Me?' He said to Him, 'Yes, Lord; You know that I love (φιλέω) You.' He said to him, 'Shepherd My sheep.' He said to him the third time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love (φιλέω) Me?' Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, 'Do you love (φιλέω) Me?' And he said to Him, 'Lord, You know all things; You know that I love (φιλέω) You.' Jesus said to him, 'Tend My sheep.'" (John 21:15-17)

Notes:

Verb	Noun
ἀγαπάω – agapaō	ἀγάπη – agape
φιλέω – phileō	φιλία – philia

How many of us have not heard a sermon on this passage? Probably everyone reading this who has been a regular church attendee would have heard a sermon on this passage at least once in the last ten years.

I will do my best to remain objective at all times, even though objectivity is one of the most difficult frames of mind to keep and practise. We all have our rose-coloured glasses on, and that is how we look at the world.

The differences between these two words intrigued me ever since Bible college in the years between 1985 and 1989. I will be drawing from various resources, e.g. lexicons, e-mail discussion groups, and finally, the highest authority I could find on this subject, the Scriptures.

Before we carry on to execute our study, let me clarify my assumptions concerning the God kind of love, whether it be ἀγάπη or not. Firstly, it must be unchangeable. Why? God is unchangeable. Any attribute of God has to be unchangeable if God is unchangeable. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Secondly, it has to be pure. Due to the holiness of God any attribute of His has to be holy and pure. No stench, or darkness can be associated with any attribute of God.

Word Meanings

The meanings I present here I have gleaned from several lexicons (dictionaries), and one theological dictionary. They are:
Bauer's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (commonly known as BAGD), Second edition Revised and augmented by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker from Walter Bauer's Fifth edition, 1958, published 1979, the University of Chicago press.
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains Volume 1 Introduction & Domains, Second impression, 1988, United Bible Societies;
A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament by Joseph Henry Thayer, Twenty-first Zondervan printing 1981, Zondervan;
Theological dictionary of the New Testament by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, reprinted, May 1986, William B. Eerdmans;
Strong's exhaustive concordance of the Bible found in the Online Bible, version 7.03;
The Expository dictionary of New Testament words by W.E. Vine, Seventeenth impression, 1966, Oliphants;

Agape

Agape means the following: to be fond of, to love dearly; to love, to be full of good-will, to have a preference for, regard the welfare of: . . . to take pleasure in the thing, prize it above other things, be unwilling to abandon it or do without it; a spontaneous feeling which impels to self-giving, the weak sense to be satisfied, to receive, to greet, to honor, or more inwardly, to seek after; to have love for someone or something, based on sincere appreciation and high regard.
Louw and Nida says this concerning ἀγάπη and φιλέω:

“. . . Though some persons have tried to assign certain significant differences of meaning between ἀγαπάω, ἀγάπη and φιλέω, φιλία (25.33), it does not seem possible to insist upon a contrast of meaning in any and all contexts. For example, the usage in Jn, 21:15-17 seems to reflect simply a rhetorical alternation designed to avoid undue repetition. There is, however, one significant clue to possible meaningful differences in at least some contexts, namely, the fact that people are never commanded to love one another with φιλέω or φιλία, but only with ἀγαπάω and ἀγάπη. Though the meanings of these terms overlap considerably in many contexts, there are probably some significant differences in certain contexts; that is to say, φιλέω and φιλία are likely to focus upon love or affection based on interpersonal association, while ἀγαπάω and ἀγάπη focus upon love or affection based on deep appreciation and high regard.” p294

and

“. . . It would, however, be quite wrong to assume that φιλέω and φιλία refer only to human love, while ἀγαπάω and ἀγάπη refer to divine love. Both sets of terms are used for the total range of loving relations between people, between people and God, and between God and Jesus Christ.” p294

BAGD adds that ἀγάπη and φιλέω

"seem to be used interchangeably here; cf. the freq. interchange of synonyms elsewh. in the same chapter [βόσκειν - ποιμαίνειν, ἀρνία - προβάτια, ἑλκύειν - σύρειν]." p4

Phileo

φιλέω means the following: friendship, to be friendly to one; φιλέω more nearly represents tender affection; To love; to be friendly to one, to treat somebody as one of one's own people; to have love or affection for someone or something based on association; love, have affection for, like.
Kittel says,

"In the LXX phileo, which is less common than agapao, is mostly used for 'hb. In meaning it is very similar to agapao. . . . Like the LXX, the NT prefers agapao to phileo. . . . Alternation between agapao and phileo occurs in Jn. 21:15ff. Some exegetes think that Peter is grieved because Jesus uses phileo the third time (21:17), but the words are mostly synonymous in John, and Peter is more likely grieved because Jesus asks for a third time. . . ." p1263-1264

We have now seen what the lexicons have to say concerning ἀγάπη and φιλέω. Even so, the best way of finding out what is meant by a word is to see how that word is used in a certain context.

How are these words used in the Scriptures?

Misunderstood Bible verses–Rom 8:14 and the like (led/walk by the Spirit)

I have written about this topic before, and it handles the issue of being “led by the Spirit” or to “walk by the Spirit” and can be found in the following:

Walk by the Spirit

“so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” (Rom 8:4)

“But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.” (Gal 5:16)

“If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.” (Gal 5:25)

Led by the Spirit

“For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.” (Rom 8:14)

“But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.” (Gal 5:18)

Since I wrote on these verses before, I will not go through it all again. To read about it, simply visit my article Being led by the Spirit doesn’t mean what you think it does!

Misunderstood Bible verses–Rom 10:17

You’ve probably been in church services, or listened to sermons where the preacher would quote a verse and build his whole sermon around that verse; just to realize that what the preacher is preaching is not what the verse actually says. That really happens a lot!

I was sitting in a meeting not so long ago where we were all listening to a teaching (on MP3) in which the preacher mentioned several verses and preached the usual about them. He used verses like Rom 10:17 and Mt 18:19, and gave them the usual spin. It is just that, his spin wasn’t what these verses meant!

He used Rom 10:17 to teach us that we could use the Word of God to grow our faith, while others believe that we must hear God’s voice to grow our faith, since the Greek word for “word” is ρημα (RHEMA)!

After just a little reading in the context within which this verse finds itself, we soon realize that it has nothing to do with the ideas raised above! The fact is, that a verse without a context is merely a pretext for our own human imaginations.

Hermeneutics - Part 2: Different Genres

Part 1 of this blog post can be found at Hermeneutics–Part 1: Need, tools and principles

1. Introduction

When it comes to interpreting Scripture, it is important to notice the style of writing and the genre used in the writing, for it will bear upon the way the specific writing needs to be interpreted. It is no use interpreting passages that fall into the symbolic genre as literal. You will start believing in horses that fly. It is no use taking history and interpreting it as doctrine, since that will lead to believing that a work of God is identified by how long it is around.

[38] So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail;  [39] but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!" So they took his advice, (Ac 5:38-39 ESV)

This is a historical account of what Gamaliel told the Jewish council concerning this new “faith.” Many today have exactly the same attitude concerning all kinds of groups. Most notably the Word-of-Faith (WOF) movement led by men such as Kenneth Copeland and also the Toronto Blessing (TB) led by men such as John Arnott. Should we take what Gamaliel said as a way of testing a work’s validity whether it is from God or not? Definitely not! Then we have to conclude that the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons and the Roman Catholic Institution are works of God, since they have been around for much longer than WOF and TB!

2. Genres

2.1 Types

2.1.1 The validity of types as a method of hermeneutics

According to Ramm there are three reasons why typology is a Biblical discipline of hermeneutics.

“(1). The general relationship which the Old Testament sustains to the New is the very basis for such a study. The strong prophetic element in the Old Testament establishes a real and vital nexus1 [connection] between the two Testaments. The fact of prophecy establishes the principle that the New is latent in the Old, and that the Old is patent [obvious] in the New.”²

“(2). Our Lord’s own use of the Old Testament is His invitation to us to find Him in the Old Testament. In Luke 24:25-44 Christ teaches the disciples about Himself, beginning at Moses and following through all the Scriptures.”³

“(3). Even more specific is the vocabulary of the New Testament with reference to the nature of the Old. The following words are used in the New of the Old. Hypodeigma means a sign suggestive of anything, a representation, a figure, a copy, an example. Typos and typikos (from the verb, typtō, “to strike”) mean the mark of a blow, the figure formed by a blow, an impression, a form, a letter, a doctrine, an example, a pattern, a type. Skia (from skēnē, a tent) means a shade, a sketch, an outline, an adumbration [a general idea of something without details]. Parabolē means a placing by the side, hence a comparison, a likeness, a similitude. Eikon means an image, a figure, a likeness. Antitypon means a repelling blow, an echoing, a reflecting, a thing formed after a pattern, a counterpart, an antitype. Allegoreō means to tell a truth in terms of a narrative.”⁴

2.1.2 Principles of using types

Hermeneutics–Part 1: Need, tools and principles

1. Introduction

Many times when studying the Bible people get to a point where they just cannot make sense of the passage in question. With the proper hermeneutical skills, many such difficulties could be solved.

“Hermeneutics is the science and art of Biblical interpretation. It is a science because it is guided by rules within a system; and it is an art because the application of the rules is by skill, and not by mechanical imitation.”¹

Admittedly, skill in the area of hermeneutics is not gained in a week or a month. It takes time and dedication. It takes hours and hours of thinking and rethinking. In order to do honest hermeneutics it may become necessary to throw out preconceived ideas, until such ideas are confirmed by the proper study of God’s Word. And, such study is not achieved by a superficial glimpse into the riches of God’s Word. Once artificial study of God’s Word becomes a habit, one will almost never get to the point where Biblical knowledge becomes part of who we are.

The study of God’s Word is not to become clever, but to live in truth and to have changed lives.

Charles Spurgeon once said: “Truth Is of necessity intolerant of falsehood.”

2. The need to interpret the Scriptures

Our aim in interpreting the Bible is not to be unique and different to everybody else. In fact, chances are good that the unique interpretation is wrong. The aim of the interpreter is to get to the plain meaning of the text. In the end, the litmus test of good interpretation is that it makes good sense of the text at hand.