The Mountain Retreat
Center for Biblical Theology and Eschatology
Index

Biblical Principles of a Sound Hermeneutic

by Tony Warren


"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." 2nd Timothy 3:16-17


A Sound Hermeneutic

hermeneutic image Hermeneutics (as related to Christianity) is the science of textual interpretation, the branch of theology that deals with the methodologies and principles of study, knowledge, and elucidation of the Scriptures. Sound Hermeneutics has to do with the proper way of approaching, receiving, handling, and adjudicating scripture. What system of interpretation we use determines how we will both approach the Bible, and if we will justify ourselves in manipulating it. In this article, I will endeavor to introduce young Christians to the biblical principles of judicious, authoritative, and faithful interpretation. God does not want His servants to be ignorant of the mysteries, so Christians should be able to define and apply the basic rules of biblical interpretation to gain proper knowledge. This is the ability to evaluate the text and reach conclusions with confidence. There are inherent dangers of denominationalism, careless assumptions, conjecture, subjectivity, and speculation that we must avoid in order to come to sound conclusions. We should also know the difference between exegesis and eisegesis so that we steer clear of mankind's inclination to read ideas into the Scriptures rather than out of them. I believe that it is imperative that we are able to accurately interpret the divinely inspired passages, types, allegories, prophecy, parables, and cryptic imagery that is found throughout the Bible, most notably in books like Zechariah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Revelation. As the passage above, of 2nd Timothy illustrates, God divinely inspired and gave us the Scriptures specifically so that we might be able to hold correct doctrine, be able to reprove or refute with confidence, that we know, correct, teach, and instruct. Its whole purpose is so that we might be able to be authoritatively furnished or equipped to know what are, and what are not, the righteous works that God teaches. God says in Hosea 4:6, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge," indicating that mankind's biblical ignorance is contrary to God's desire for His people.

    Proverbs 2:2-6

God's command is that we apply our ears or listen attentively and reflect seriously on the wisdom of God's word unto understanding. That's His desire for us. Some professing Christians believe that the Bible was inspired written so crypticly and in such a way that any person can interpret it however he wants. That's an easy out for the languid, but it is certainly not true. While any person can make a pretense of interpreting the Bible righteously, it is not true that any person can interpret the Bible justly--and there is a difference. The Bible alone and in its entirety is sufficient to explain itself to anyone with the Spirit of truth in them to judge honestly. But accurate interpretations are not from any man or woman, they come directly from the Spirit of God within them, through the word itself. Every sound interpretation is from textual keys God has inspired embeded in the Scripture as a whole. In order to understand the text rightly, there has to be a crucial rule of analyse in submitting to how God has ordered the information to reveal or unlock its meaning. The studious exegete must take the text and compare it with with the rest of Scripture in order to properly grasp the intended meaning from the perspective of the author. Since the divine author is ultimately God, the critical guiding factor when explaining Scripture will be how God shines light on one passage through the related and pertinent lens of other passages. Without using God's basic principle that "interpretations belong to Him" (Genesis 40:8; Genesis 41:16) and therefore must sourced from Him through the veracioust exegesis of His word, there will be no accurate interpretation. Allowing God's word itself to reveal, define, and interpret, is not optional for the church, it is mandatory. This is because God's interpretation is always in conformity with the intent of the word that He has placed there, and this cannot be said for the vain (even well-intentioned) interpretations of men. The authority and truth of the written word is the key to any sound, harmonious system of explainability. Indeed, the divinely inspred text is of such consequence and import that God declares:

    Psalms 138:2

His word is magnified above His name because it is the foundation upon which all Christian doctrines are built (Matthew 7:24-25), including His covenant, prophecies, dark sayings, cryptic revelations, and our understandings of them. Christ Himself said that the Scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:35) illustrating the absolute certainty, defining character, and charge endowed in it to authoritatively correct, instruct, and interpret the meaning by direct link to the source. It is the sure word of the divine author, God. Declarations from it are not from man's private interpretations, feelings, or personal opinions, it comes directly from the mouth of the author. Therefore, the first duty of the faithful Christian should be to make sure that their presuppositions conform to what the Scriptures say. Nevertheless, there are those who hold these statements suspect regarding the just system of interpreting, as one conscientious Christian made that clear when he asked:

"all theologians think that they are practicing sound hermeneutics when they come to
conclusions about what the bible says about any particular subject. This is all subjective
so how do you determine or define what is a sound system of interpreting Scripture?"

The keyword in that question is "think." All sides may think that their system of interpreting is sound, and they may even insist that it is based upon Scripture. But simply claiming something is true is "proof by assertion." And insisting that our findings are firmly based upon Scripture is a far cry from them actually being firmly based upon scripture. A base is the underlying fundamental part upon which everything else is built. It is the substratum or solid foundation that supports everything that is laid upon it. For example, a Pastor may claim that Scripture teaches that we can get a divorce for any perceived cruelty, and he will inevitably say that he bases that conclusion upon Scripture. However, those are just empty words! And in particular, they are his words, not the word of God. This is precisely why God instructs His people to try or "test" every man's words by the infallible word of God, to see if they are true or not. Because ultimately, the Scriptures themselves are the interpreter, the supreme authority over what is true or not.

    1st John 4:1

Here we see the reason we have to test every teacher's words by comparing them with the word of God. Because there are many false prophets or teachers in the world and without faithfully standing upon this God-authored principle, no one would know which ones are preaching the truth. God's word itself is the divine truth upon which we test men's words. This is the first principle of a sound hermeneutic. The essential "system" of letting the scriptures themselves define, interpret, and explain themselves. As it is written, "interpretations belong to God." By contrast, an unsound hermeneutic or system of interpretation is most often illustrated by theologians filling up space with extra-biblical declarations and the logical fallacy of proof by assertion "as if" this confirms what they are claiming is true. For example, when someone retorts that John Calvin said this, Pat Robertson said that, John Walvoord says the other, or the Roman Catholic church teaches this, that is biblical proof of nothing but their opinion. In our day, this is often what passes for a scholarly rebuttal, but it's nothing more than name-dropping. We can base our teachings on God's word alone, or we can defer to following man's teachings, traditions, and personal opinions. Regardless of if the person is a Godly man or not, he is not the source we must look to for correct understanding of Scripture, the divine author of it is. He alone speaks with perfect infallibility through His word, which is confirmed truth by the Holy Spirit that is within us. Thus, "Scripture interpreting Scripture" is merely our way of saying God's wiord is the arbiter of what is the truth. It must harmonize with itself or else we are missing something. If our view is that the Bible is the word of God and without error, then when we seek an interpretation, the passage in question must be approached with an eye to its harmony with what the whole Bible says about that topic. Because as the more noble Bereans (Acts 17:11-12), we know that interpretations belong to God and so it is from His mouth, His word alone, that we will find the interpretation. Again, as the more noble/honest Bereans understood, God has given to us to honorable in searching it out the mysteries or secrets from His word.

    Proverbs 25:2

It is to the glory of God that He has given us this privilege, as kings and Priests (Revelation 1:6) to receive His Revelation. And it is to our copious bounty and virtue to obtain the benefits in the honor of searching it out.

Another example of a sound hermeneutic is rejecting theologians who read what a particular passage "actually says," and then proceeds to explain to you why the passage "actually means" something other than what is written. In other words, the example of a preacher attempting to explain how being chosen by God doesn't really mean that God chooses, or how being translated into Christ's kingdom doesn't really mean Christ has a kingdom yet, or how branches that are cut off from a wild olive tree and grafted into the natural one, doesn't really mean that they actually become part of that natural tree. This is the difference between receiving what God says, and receiving man's word in denial of these Biblical facts. Those having a sound Hermeneutic will always receive what is written, while there will always be systems that make excuses why we cannot simply receive the written truth of what is clearly written. Of course, the reasons given for this declension will be varied, but the motive is always the same. To avoid "receiving" the truth of what is being said. A Biblical example of this avoidance is recorded in the self-serving reasoning of the chief Priests and Elders of the congregation of Israel:

    Matthew 21:23-27

They were not noble or honest with themselves as the Bereans were (Acts 17:11-12), because they were not really seeking the truth. They were seeking to justify themselves and their views before men, and they knew that to answer either way would confirm their hypocrisy and deceit. They didn't want to receive the truth in love, they wanted to appear correct and wise Priests and Elders to the people. This is a perfect example of the dishonesty of denial, the refusing to receive the truth even though it was clearly right before their eyes. Therefore, Christ told them that He would not reveal the truth to them, and thus there was no revelation for them, it was a mystery that was hidden from them. Their deceitfulness is why they never did learn from Christ the authority of the word of God by which He was doing those things. The moral of the story is that God is under no obligation to enlighten any deceitful man. He will have mercy on whomever He will have mercy, and man is in no position to argue with God's choices. The responsibility for His position in darkness is his own, and God is not to blame. It is man's own sin that keeps him from communion with God where He would reveal the truth of Christ's authority to do these things. The germane point here is that these ministers of the congregation of Israel were not rewarded for their deceits. Indeed, because of it, they didn't have the truth of authority revealed to them.

There are many theologians that deal with the Scriptures honestly and are to be commended, but we would be remiss if we didn't contrast them with the methodology of so many others that attempt to get around essential passages by means of manipulating the Hebrew and Greek so that it appears to support their ideas about certain words. They will speculate without evidence that the Greek or Hebrew is actually misunderstood, or that a tense shows that it is pointing to a different meaning, or that in that particular culture, it "could" mean something different than how we understand the word, or how (without proof) they think the translation could have been different or wrong, etc., etc. In our day, this is the "most popular" way of attempting to get around what God's word actually says. It's used to negate everything from God's precepts against homosexuality, divorce, remarriage, edicts against women Pastors, all the way to God's sovereign right to choose to have mercy and compassion on whosoever He wants. Their system of interpretation is based on a carnal nature and fundamental lack of the fear of God that characterizes so many of today's modern-day church leaders. When we have no true respect or reverential fear of God, we have no spiritual inclination to faithfully "keep" or retain His word as it was originally intended.

    Ecclesiastes 12:13

A duty that (I'm sorry to say) many in the church today have forgotten. Without this reverential fear of God, there is no spirit to retain, guard that word from loss, or keep His commandments. Be that as it may, God's laws are still not subject to man's fearless twisting or manipulation so that they conform to his own private interpretations.

Nor should Christians attempt to pit one Scripture against another. This is evidenced when people are confronted with clear scripture that unambiguously declares something, and in retort someone will quote another that appears to refutes it. We cannot righteously quote another verse that "seemingly contradicts" the one that the servant of God has given testimony to. This the disingenuous practice of "dueling scriptures." It is a system that effectively allows professing Christians to ignore one verse and apply another that they believe supports what they believe. Thus, they feel justified in taking this liberty of forcing the Bible (by exclusion) to conform to their own judgments, conjecture, and presuppositions. A sound hermeneutic starts off with a sound foundation and will never chip away at it by attempting to negate one scripture by the use of another. The truth is that both Scriptures are absolutely true and thus must be harmonized as intended, not pitted one against the other. A case in point is the Bible prophecy of Christ coming as the prince of Peace, while in another Scripture Christ says He didn't come to bring peace. eg.

    Isaiah 9:6

    Luke 1:78-79

Here we understand Christ came to bring Peace to mankind.But then we read:

    Matthew 10:34

The faithless theologian pits the second scripture against the first and declares how he is correct and the first testimony is wrong. In reality, the truth is found in receiving their harmony by comparing Scriptures with Scriptures. Then we understand that Christ is both the Prince or ruler of peace, and He also didn't come to bring peace on earth. Because He didn't come to bring world peace, as in the cessation of physical wars, physical peace in Israel, or peace between brothers or family. He came to bring peace between God and the elect. Christ plainly said so as He declared that families would war against each other for Christ's sake. The solution or answer of how both are true is right in the authoritative word that Christ Himself taught. The peace He brings isn't peace "as the world understands it." In that regard He brings the sword of warfare as the world is at enmity with God. But He did come to bring spiritual peace between God and His chosen people (Isaiah 40:2-3), in acknowledging that their spiritual warfare with the Lord is over. He came to reconcile His people to God. Thus the apparent contradiction is negated with certainty. It's not peace as the ubeliever would understand it without comparing Scripture with Scripture.

    John 14:27

Christ, the Living Word of God, harmonizes His own word. He didn't come to bring peace as the world understands peace, but spiritual peace with God (Ephesians 2:13-15), as His people understand it so that they are not troubled.

In this we learn that the Bible is our ultimate authority and can never be wrong or contradictory. No passage should ever be ignored, twisted, molded, or changed so that it will conform to our own personal beliefs. When we start out with that firm and immutable foundation, then what is built upon it will stand the test of time and be structurally sound. It should be obvious that there has to be more to legitimate interpretations than theologians simply asserting that their interpretations are Bible-based. There are principles and guidelines. Remember, all will think that they are interpreting Scripture correctly. So there must be some hard and fast rules that faithful Christians can agree on regarding critical explanations or exegesis that we can hold to. Some of the more basic rules for coming to a God breathed understanding and study of scripture are:

The Mountain Retreat
Some Inalienable Rules To Follow  
As God Interprets His Own Word

  1. The Bible is not a book of good or useful sayings, it "IS" the wholely inspired infallible word of God
  2. Every passage of Scripture means what it says, either literally, Spiritually, or allegorically (No passage is to be denied)
  3. God's word alone is the "only divine authoritative" explanation, and thus is self interpreting through comparison with itself
  4. As the divine word of God from the mouth of God, it must be the ultimate "authority" that governs our hope, interpretation, doctrines, faith, and practice
  5. As its own interpreter, the Bible is not subject to private interpretation or opinion.
  6. The Bible is its own dictionary, and thus will often defines its own terms.
  7. One scripture can qualify another, but no passage of scripture can make another passage untrue (there are no contradictions)
  8. Understanding comes by the Spirit, through the word of God, line upon line, by comparing scripture with scripture, spiritual with spiritual, symbolism with symbolism
  9. Scripture will not conform to the ideas of men, the ideas of men must be conformed to scripture.
  10. The earnest desire to reverence, obey, love, and do the will of God is evidence of the working of the Spirit of God
  11. The Bible is pure, true, and trustworthy, even when we don't understand how
  12. Christians must surrender to the authority of what is inspired written, rather than church doctrine or traditions
  13. Inconsistency is the hallmark of error

 
 
Of course, there are some who will reply:

"how can we say that it is God interpreting His own word when man is involved--since man is often biased and fallible."

Man's bias or fallibility does not mean that God doesn't give clear direction. No one ever said that all men would be faithful to God's rules of instructions and/or corrections. Would we say that since some professing Christians do not believe in the virgin birth, this implies that no one can know for sure or that God was not clear in His word concerning it? That doesn't follow. Can no Christian say authoritatively that there indeed was a virgin birth? Of course we can. God never ordained that everyone would understand the mysteries of His kingdom. Again, would we say that because some professing Christians believe in Premillennialism rather than Amillennialism and man is often biased and fallible, this means we cannot know for sure? We wouldn't justly come to that conclusion because that would make the whole Bible suspect. We can know because God is not the author of confusion--man is! Did the Jews of Berea take the Apostle Paul's curious (to them) witness of the kingdom of Christ and throw up their hands and say, no one can know for sure? No, on the contrary, they studied the scriptures, compared Paul's words with God's words (Acts 17:11-12), and as a result, believed the gospel truth. They knew for sure Paul's exegesis was correct exegesis by the Spirit and through the word of God that they examined. Considering His testimony, compared with the Scripture as the authority, they understood that it wasn't Paul's private interpretation, it was God's word of truth.

    1st Thessalonians 2:13

There are some professing Christians who effectively recieve the testimony of the word of God as simply man's interpretation, despite it being quoted word for word. But God's word is pure and immutable, and so regardless of man's untenable ideas that the divinely inspired writings of Paul, John, Peter, etc., were tinged, shaded, or affected by the "customs of the day," or because of "events taking place during their lifetime," the written word is just as applicable today as it was over two thousand years ago. God is as immutable as the scriptures that have spaned time. In other words, if God inspired men to write that women are not to be the head of the church two thousand years ago, this truth of God (not of Paul, Peter, Etc.) are still applicable today. His law has to do with the spiritual nature of the creation order and the order of original sin (1st Timothy 2:12-14), not with inherent bias. Times and laws don't change because the mores and customs of men do. For God (not men) was the author of the inspired text, but not of the confusion.

Is our knowledge of Christ evidenced by our keeping (guarding from loss) the commandments of God (1st John 2:3-5)? Are they spiritually broken before the word of God that they will "surrender" to its authority absolutely, or are they arrogant and prideful in their own perceived knowledge, denying every scripture put forth to them, unable to receive the truth in love? That is to say "real Love," not the emotionalism, sentimentalism, empathy, and social infatuation that passes for Christianity and love today. Are we to find our own way of negotiating around the scriptures, or are we to take the straight and narrow paths toward them?

    Joshua 23:6

Those who don't turn to the right and left to avoid what is right before them (the word of God) are the true servants of God who are inclined to practice sound hermeneutics. These are people of God who have the Spirit of the perfect fear of God in them. These are the people of God who have undying love (charity/benevolence) for the unsaved so that they desire for them the very same gift that they have been given. We will never find understanding in telling the wicked that "they shall have peace," or that "God loves them" in their sins. This is not agape love, or charitable love, this is uncharitableness, the deceiving of the spirit of this world.

Sound hermeneutics involves faithfully and religiously following God's word, rather than attempting to lead it. When you ask faithful theologians where scripture says what they are declaring, they should direct you to scriptures that say declare it. Either by firm Biblical implication in context, or explicitely teaching it word for word. By contrast, those who are merely professing to be basing their teachings upon scripture, when you ask them to show you scriptures that say or teach something they are purporting, they will instead digress, give Scripture out of context, or more likely quote another popular author, a confession, or distract by elucidating about another passage altogether. Either that or they will insist a unrelated passage actually "means" this, even though it doesn't say it.

Some theologians tend to imply it is difficult to understand the importance of sound hermeneutics, but it's actually rather simple. Don't blindly believe or follow any man's word, whether than man be me, you, John Wesley, John Calvin, Billy Graha, Pat Robinson, John Bunyan, or anyone else. Believe only what theologians can show you is written of God "word for word." Not what we say is written, but what you can actually see or read word for word from the Scriptures. Because when you make the word of God your ultimate authority, you cannot go wrong.

 

An Unsound Hermeneutic

Having a system of interpretation that is Biblically unsound is akin to building a house upon a foundation of sand. It's an unsupportable infrastructure that cannot withstand careful inspection or a reasonable academic review. This faulty methodology of unrighteously dividing (partitioning or in effect judging) the scriptures is sometimes done without the person even realizing it. But often it is done deceitfully with the full knowledge that the rationale and exegesis behind it is unsound. There are many in this world who do not have an earnest desire to face the truth and so deliberately choose to ignore relevant and applicable Scriptures leaving them with no excuse for their private interpretations. That has been demonstrated vividly many times over the years. The rule of thumb is that when someone blatantly and "repeatedly" denies, ignores, and twists scripture in order not to receive its truth, it is decidedly not an honest misunderstanding, but a lack of the Spirit of truth whereby he might discern the difference between receiving the word honorably (Acts 17:11-12) and a lack of faith and trust in it. Those with an adversarial relationship to the word of truth, cannot also be those who have been blessed with faith in it. It is this Holy Spirit that brings us to understand what is true and what is not by our sanctification drawing us to receive the truth.

    2nd Thessalonians 2:13

Here, we see the necessary relationship between Christ's sanctifying Spirit and our belief in the truth. It is a cause-and-effect relationship. Receiving and discerning the gospel truth of God's word and having the power to do so is by the Spirit of God, and are inseparable companions. That's why God says He damns those who will not receive the love of truth (2nd Thessalonians 2:10-12). Because it is their "responsibility" to receive the truth, and He is the righteous judge who must in His holiness condemn those who won't. The question might arise, "why wouldn't they receive it?" The answer is that they are unrepentant sinners who have not been sanctified by the Spirit (John 14:17-18) of truth to be open to it.

Often characterized by reliance upon extra-biblical citings, unsound systems of interpreting Scripture relies heavily upon traditions, opinions, and popular authors and writers. You'll hear them quote what this vaunted book author said, or what a respected theologian of the past taught, or what seems to make sense in their eyes. What the divine Scriptures themselves actually say and teach seems secondary what they have been taught. But if our foundation is not the word, then what we build upon it will not be a house whose builder and maker is God. Even as Christ informed us that all who call themselves Christian arenot truly His followers, and the test is the foundation upon which they build:
 
 
Matthew 7:21-29
  • "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
  • Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
  • And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
  • Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
  • And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
  • And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
  • And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
  • And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
  • For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

 
Upon what we build will ultimately determine if our house will stand. If we build upon the Rock of the living Word of God, our house will never fall. For His word is the only true authority and foundation of the church. We cannot form an adversarial relationship to the written truth by leaning to man's fallible understanding instead of the teaching authority of the word of God. When we are seeking to defend truth, we must have a God-authored system to do so. No sound system built upon the word of God will ever support erroneous or false doctrines. Therefore, we cannot prove by Scripture that the Bible teaches something that it does not. Sure, anyone can say that the Bible teaches this or teaches that, when it does not. However, they cannot demonstrate its solid foundation upon God's word.

For example, we cannot prove by sound exegesis that God permits divorce if a husband does not have the means to provide enough monetary support, or that Ezekiel's wheel is a flying saucer, or Scripture saying Christ had hair like wool proves he was an African, or that the war in Revelation speaks of Russia attacking the nation of Israel, etc., etc. Of necessity, all false doctrines and pseudo-gospels are formulated and supported by some form of this same unsound hermeneutic.

The bottom line is that all false doctrines in the church are born of unsound hermeneutics. Unsound hermeneutics are usually the symptom of a root problem "of the heart" of man, not the cause. The problem that is so pervasive with today's Christians is sloppy, haphazard, apathetic, careless, exegesis. Professing Christians will often just throw out a few verses of scripture, and then argue for days how the written truth witnessed word for word to them that contradicts their understanding, is just opinion and thus not relevant. How the word of God testified word for word is just an opinion I have never been able to understood, but that is the defense they take. I encourage everyone to take joy in God's precepts and start taking the word of God seriously. We must ponder or meditate on it with a mind that is open (Acts 17:11) to its truth, rather than our own perceived state of verity.

    Psalms 119:47-48

To delight in and meditate on God's laws means to take joy in and commune with them. We are to give serious thought and investigation to His precepts and rules. It means to have the fervent desire to do His will unto obedience. Not just give lip service to the word, but to actually love and desire God's truth rather than our own perceived state of knowing truth. This is the only way to rightly come to understand what God is actually declaring in His word, versus what man in his carnal nature "wants" God to be declaring. In other words, God's will versus man's will.

The error of an unsound hermeneutic is also often demonstrated in the shell game of proof-texting. That is to say, proof-texting versus "proving from the text." Prooftexting we might define as simply throwing out a lot of scripture without regard to context, harmony, or other passages that speak to the issue or parts of the Bible that relate. Proving from the text would be honestly understanding the text in the light of the whole Bible. As the old adage has said, "The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed." That is just another way of saying that "the Bible is its own interpreter." It is one cohesive whole, not to be chopped up and handed out Piecemeal or viewed with tunnel vision so that we can personally interpret it any way that we see fit.

 

Literal Versus Allegorical Interpretation

The Literal versus allegorical debate is interesting in that those who say they follow the literal approach insist that we must always seek out the “plain meaning” of a biblical text first. By this they don't mean or imply that every passage of the Bible should be interpreted literally or physically, but that this should be the first inference. However, in practice this man-made rule chills Christians from searching out the deeper spiritual meanings of passages. Just to be clear, the folks who hold to the so-called literal view "do" themselves allow for symbolism, spiritual meanings, imagery, allegories, similes, hyperbole, and metaphors first. For example, no one is going to look at the harlot womnan of Revelation riding on a beast with seven horns literally "first," but that's their untenable slogan anyway. Yet they attempt to paint those of us who are not Premillenarians, but who believe the exact same thing about symbolic imagery as somehow making out-of-control wild interpretations based on our own whims. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I see it, the problem for literalists is that not one of them is a strict literalist. And since no one is by definition a strict literalist, no one can define what the term of "consistent literalism" actually is. Perhaps it should be called, "inconsistent literalism." Because there is no such thing as a consistent literalist. Likewise, those of us from the Reformed Christian perspective are Bible-believing conservative Christians who have the utmost respect for the sanctity of God's word. Our real argument against what is called the Literal View is in their hermeneutical approach. It's in their flawed system and methodology of interpretation where we find fault. While we certainly agree that looking at the plain sense of Biblical text is a good thing, it is also true that God's laws, prophecies, parables, proverbs, and historical narratives often have multiple layers of meanings. For example, thy shalt not kill, thy shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery, etc., all have deeper meanings and layers. They apply to ways to kill that aren't physical (Matthew 5:21-22), stealing that is of a spiritual nature (Malachi 3:9), or adultery where you never physically touched a woman (Matthew 5:28). The moral interpretation is in the literal sense of the word, but not the physical. In other words, if you look upon a woman to lust after her, you are very literally guilty of adultery. It's not hypothetical or terminological guilt, you are actually guilty of that sin before a Holy God. Because the word adultery has many layers. We can thank a merciful God that He paid for "all" our sins, else no one would be saved. I believe that the moral principles that govern a Christian's life and practices are the laws kept by the Spirit of truth through the Lord Himself. Many Premillennialists insist that we must accept the plain meaning of words as truth, but I believe that this denies or neglects the deeper layered spiritual truths. Indeed, how can we even know the full extent of what adultery is before God without digging deeper into the Spiritual? One of the literalist's favorite adages is:

“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.” by David L Cooper

And by literally, most mean physically as in a city means a city, a horse means a horse, a tree means a tree, etc., because the literalist seeks to understand what limitations the human writer may have experienced, what the historical happenings of the time had to do with it, and the prophet's attachment to, or comprehension of the topic. This is so that they can better assess what meaning to give to the text today based on what the writer knew or was familiar with. This "plain sense of Scripture" motto will get very complicated if we believe that the (practical) author of the text was the author of it. He wasn't, God was (every single word). More than that, the logical inference of such a methodology would be for us to conclude that likewise, we must not read into the Old Testament text any later New Testament Revelation that the early prophets would not have been privy to. In other words, since a writer didn't know that what He was writing spoke of the coming Christ, we cannot then say that the Old Testament writer spoke of Christ because he couldn't have known that. Of course, it's a tangled web because it's not a legitimate way of interpreting Scripture. Because there are many difficult passages in the Bible that are not to be taken physically and that need to be interpreted by later revelations. By interpreting Scripture by Scripture, we allow God Himself to interpret things that may appear implicit by other Scriptures that will shed light on it, explicitly. In other words, there are many Scriptures that by themselves are dark sayings (Psalms 78:2; Proverbs 1:6) or written in cryptic language and unknown to the writer. That's when we interpret the unknown of God's word by the known, the writing that seems cloudy through the lens of the clear Scriptures in the New Testament that explains it. For example, Scriptures that may at first glance appear to be speaking about one thing, when compared with other Scriptures demonstrate they refer to the man Christ (e.g. (Isaiah 49:2-3; Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:15; Revelation 1:16). That's an example of the cloudy made clear by allowing the Scriptures to interpret themselves, rather than following man-made arbitrary rules about literalism or the private interpretations and opinions of men. The clear passages of Scripture that speak of Christ as the Israel of God, the one with a sword protruding from His mouth, interpret the more difficult or cryptic passage of Isaiah that were unknown to the writer, but were authored by God and revealed to us to prefigured our Lord.

    Ephesians 1:17-18

There's no magic formula or man-made adage of what makes sense that rules over God's revelation of truth, there is just the Spirit and the word. For example, Genesis chapter three clearly speaks of natural things such as Adam and Eve being naked and hiding from God because of the shame of it. Yet this also has a deeper, simultaneous spiritual meaning that was hidden from them concerning the nakedness and shame of sin (Revelation 3:17-18). The narrative of Genesis chapter three paints an allegorical portrait of how God in His favor acted to clothe Adam and Eve with the skins of a sacrifice to cover their nakedness. The plain sense of this episode made perfect sense, but the fact is that this is all God's masterful design using words specifically chosen to synchronously reveal a greater spiritual truth than mere concern for modesty, through the usage of metaphors.

    Genesis 3:20-21

The first animal sacrificed used to clothe Adam and Eve from their nakedness is a type pointing forward to the great atoning sacrifice of Christ to clothe man from the nakedness of his sin. Just because the plain sense of the act of God made sense, doesn't mean that there isn't another sense that the act was representing. The idea that if the plain sense of the passages makes sense, go no further is untenable considering the divine nature of the mystery of Scripture. We are Spiritually constrained to take the text as God intended us to take it, not as a popular man-made idiom instructs us. What do we do if the plain sense makes sense "but" the context, in harmony with the symbolism of other scriptures, or the revelation of cryptic imagery, compared with all other instances of such visuals or similes in scripture, illustrates something should "not" be taken literally? We would be foolish to follow this man-made adage simply because it makes humanistic sense. It may come as a shock to some Christians, but literalism is not a test of orthodoxy. We can't institute our own private dictums for interpreting, instead we follow God's construct and compare His word with His word to come to understand what He meant. When we are led by His Spirit rather than our own, we will compare the Spiritual with the spiritual to discern what is His truth. Not what is our personal perception of what is truth, but what actually is. This way of exegeting the Scriptures is based upon the biblical principles of divine authority that we have addressed:

    1st Corinthians 2:9-14

Seeking a literal or allegorical interpretation is not the question in sound hermeneutics, the only question is, how God intends for us to understand what He has inspired written. Instead of mankind becoming wise in his own conceits, he should compare the Spiritual with the Spiritual, not with man's wisdom or worldly values, but in the wisdom of God to to open to receiving what the Holy Spirit teaches. Because as Scripture plainly says, he that is spiritual judgeth all things, and yet he himself is judged of no man. The only way to know the mind of the Lord that we may be instructed of Him, is to worship Him in the Spirit of truth, having this mind of the wisdom of Christ. Selah. For example, how do we understand the prophecy that Elijah must come before the coming of Christ (Malachi 4:5-6). Were the Israelites meant to first take that passage literally? Not at all--because that would send them down a rabbit hole of confusion and erroneous expectations. That passage was a mystery to be revealed at a later time, but it was always intended to be taken Spiritually as someone coming "Not" as Eliha incarnated, but coming in the same Spirit and power that Elijah came in. Speaking of John the Baptist, God's word reveals that He indeed is the God-authored fulfillment of Malachi's prophecy:

    Luke 1:17

    Matthew 17:10-13

The common sense reading of this passage of Malachi would have certainly "made sense literally" to the children of God, but anyone taking it that way would have been in error because that is not the way God intended it to be understood. Thus this man-made rule of taking what seems a common sense literal interpretation first, is found wanting. Moreover, if that was not the true interpretation, then it is a false interpretation or a personal opinion that is not based upon God's word, but on man's personal interpretation of God's word. That is an example of an flawed system of interpretation, an unsound hermeneutic.

In actuality, there really is no dichotomy between the literal and the allegorical because the literal encompasses the allegorical because every correct allegorical interpretation is in fact Scripture's literal meaning. It may not be tactile or physical, but it most certainly is to be taken very literally. As John the Baptist was "literally" the fulfillment of the prophecy that Elijah must come first and fulfill the law of preparing the way for Christ. But He didn't come physically as Elijah. Allegorical interpretation is simply when certain texts of Scripture are layered, such as cryptic imagery, or have a deeper spiritual meaning pertaining to something that may appear physical. It can be simply representative, rather than physical. Again, see the instance of the seven stars or messengers, and the seven lampstands of Revelation chapter one. These aren't to be understood as physical stars or lampstands or candlesticks, but as "literal" representationss of God's messengers and of God's churches (Revelation 1:20) as revealed by God Himself. The stars "represented" angels (messengers) that are in God's hands, and the candlesticks "represented" the churches that God dwells in the midst of. How we undersrtand this allegorically depends upon God's words and His Spirit, not upon man's beliefs, sayings, or imaginations.

As another example, did the children of Israel know or understand that the water they drank from the rock at Meribah was an allegory representing Christ? No, because it was a mystery to them, but it is revealed to us through comparing Scripture with Scripture in the New Testament (1st Corinthians 10:4). You see neither the children of Israel of the time, nor the writer who penned those old Testament texts, had to know that it was ultimately speaking about Christ in a Spiritual or allegorical manner. The fact is, the writer wasn't the true author of those words that God placed in his mouth. What people sometimes do not fully comprehend is that "this" is the only way that it could have been the unadulterated, infallible word of God. Those words were all divinely inspired (every single one), by God Himself. And it is only God Himself that could give us the revelation of this glorious truth as we compare that text with the New Testament testimonies, the spiritual with the spiritual. This is God interpreting His own word. Allegory is not putty in the exegete's hands as has been charged, it is the mystery of the gospel truth revealed to have a deeper Spiritual meaning by God Himself. The faithful exegete is merely a witness to the testimony of Christ through His word. Whether physical or allegorical is confirmed by Christ, not by the whims of antagonists or the slogans or platitude of men.

Yes, nearly every teacher will say they are against private interpretations, but in practice, that's all many of them routinely do. They hypothesize that divorce doesn't really mean divorce, that chosen doesn't really mean that God chose, that messenger doesn't really mean a messenger, that hate doesn't really mean hate, hell doesn't really mean hell, regenerated doesn't really mean regenerated, etc., etc. They have their own private rules regarding interpretation and they are often contrary to what scripture actually says. To them, scripture cannot really mean what it says because it will contradict what they have traditionally been taught. Just as the fellow who reads the Scripture declaring that some of man's prayers are an abomination to God, and yet he steadfastly insist that this cannot be because prayers are always heard (Jeremiah 7:16). They believe that this is a contradiction of God's word and thus cannot be true (despite what is written). There are some people whom God has no intention of hearing prayers for, as God is truly sovereign and they are those who are ordained unto destruction. What is not readily understood is that it is this select hearing of God's word that is the root of their hermeneutic problem. Because unless we start out with the first principle of sound hermeneutics, which is that the Bible is the supreme authority direct from the mouth of God, we can never ever come to acceptance of that truth. Because without this faith, our judgment is skewed and our hermeneutic will be unsound and flawed from the start. Interpretations "MUST" come from God. Any interpretation, whether literal or allegorical, that comes from "outside" of the scriptures are a private interpretation. The "true" interpretation of a Biblical matter must be found "inside" the scriptures. Sadly, many teachers today concentrate on the humanistic and superficial outward appearance, and think that everything is as simple as accepting the physical narrative and doing what they think is right in their own eyes while placing the onus of their decision on Christ. We have to handle the scriptures more nobly than that. In other words, approach it with the clean slate of an open mind, not a predisposition to make it say what we want. We must read what it says, and receive that text as the absolute truth no matter whether we know what it means or not. Whether we think it is literal or allegorical, it is true and cannot be gainsaid or resisted. No one can speak against it or resist/contend with what it says. e.g.

    Matthew 11:13-15

...this IS Elijah that was prophecied to come. This is Christ's authoritative word so do not attempt to gainsay or resist this truth. And Christ says, "if you will receive it," because He knows that (like even today) there will be those who will resist and speak against this. Those who will not receive this truth and will continue to look for Elijah to come physically and fulfill Scripture. Why does Christ say "he that hath ears to hear, let him hear?" He says this because He knows that not everyone will hear His words of Spiritual truth as God always intended. Not everyone will receive this truth that the prophecy of Elijah coming spoke of John the Baptist and not of a physical reincarnation of Elijah to go before Christ. It doesn't matter that we may not fully understand that this prophecy spoke of John, what matters is that we must "first" accept this Biblical fact as authoritative and absolutely true. This system is imperative. John the Baptist was the Elijah that was prophesied to come. From there we can go on to search out and discover just "HOW" he was the Elijah prophesied to come. But without that first principle, we will never come to the truth that it never spoke of a reincarnated Elijah going before Christ. It spoke of John coming in the Spirit and power of Elijah (Luke 1:17).

Again, Christ demonstrated this literal versus allegorical interpretation when He went into the Holy Temple and threw the buyers and sellers out of it. When asked by the Jews for a "sign" that He had the authority to do this, He answered them saying, "destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Pay close attention that the Jews asked for a "sign" and He unambiguously told them what the sign would be--that they would kill him and He would rise again from the dead in 3 days. Yet how did they understand His words, and how did he actually intend those words to be understood? They were thinking carnally as the world thinks of a Temple, but Christ's thoughts were Spiritual as God's thoughts of the temple they would destroy. As faithful Christians, we understand how He meant it by comparing Scripture with Scripture to understand that He spoke of His body as the Temple. Their destroying His body, and His subsequent resurrection of it in three days is God's interpretation of His prophecy and its miraculous sign. That's the truth we come to when we allow the Scriptures to interpret themselves. And Christ also makes it clear that not everyone will understand what He reveals to His Apostles.

    John 2:18-21

Let us reason together and think seriously about how any unregenerated man would understand this. Since Christ had just unceremoniously thrown the merchants out of that very physical Temple, it was rational for them to think He spoke of the physical Temple. Moreover, it made perfect sense and was very logical and reasonable for the Jews to think that He was talking about that Temple. Indeed, it was this Temple and His actions that they spoke of asking Him of what authority He had to do this. And yet Christ wasn't talking about that physical Temple. Proving once again that this man-made rule of accepting the common sense understanding of God's word, is found wanting. To these Jews, what Christ said was unambiguous and clearly about the Temple they were addressing, but they thought it was foolishness since it took forty years to build that Temple. In like mamnner, many Christians neglect to remember that God's word is inspired written to seem foolish to the wicked in order to shame or confound them in their worldly wisdom (1st Corinthians 1:18). Therefore, it is not written in simple terms so that everyone (even a child) can understand it. Rather, it's written in a mystery that is only revealed by the Holy Spirit of God. Thus it can be understood rightly "only" as God intended, and not necessarily as a common sense literal narrative. As with the prophecy of "Elijah coming first" was never written to be taken literally as a reincarnation of Elijah Himself, in the same way this prophecy of the rebuilding of the destroyed Holy Temple in three days was never about that physical Temple, even though by any common sense understanding at the time would have rationally thought so. And that is precisely how the religious leaders of His congregation understood it. No doubt because they thought as men (Isaiah 55:7-8) because their understanding not elightened by the Spirit. Thus they held this same erroneous view of the literal sense, making sense, and thus thought of no other sense.

    Isaiah 49:2-3

    Hosea 11:1     Matthew 2:14-15

Again, how do we understand the prophecy that "out of Egypt have I called my Son?" Or how do we understand God saying that in Israel "He" will be glorified? What Israel is it that was called out of Egypt, and we along with Him? Was it a plot of land labeled Israel, or was it the Godman Christ, the true Son Israel in whom all the children of God shall receive the promised land? Again, it's a question of sound interpretation by allowing God to interpret His own word. The basic underlying interpretive style of the Literalist View is that we must seek to understand the author (whom they imply is the one who authored the text) and seek the meaning that "he" intended as he wrote to the original recipients. And though they will surely deny this, this indeed is akin to denying that God is the actual author of every single word, jot, and title (Matthew 5:18) of the Scriptures. That is precisely why every single word down to its jot and tittle will all come to pass. Because God Himself divinely authored every single word, down to the very tiniest jot and tittle. The literalist is building upon their own foundation of sand in believing that we have to understand what the writer who God used to pen this was saying to the original recipients. Truly, it is this view that is the very reason that they come to so many errors. Because errors spring from this root belief system of presuppositions that result in their personal interpretations. While seeking to understand the limitations of the perceived author, they fail to grasp that the true author had no limitations, and He was not only writing to the local recipients, but also to those of us who exist today. A common refrain of the Literalist is that not following their methodology of interpretating will lead to a orderless, careless handling of Scripture. One such theologian wrote:

“The Bible treated allegorically becomes putty in the hands of the exegete.” -John Walvoord

This author's quote necessarily implies that there should be no allegorical interpretation. Because if it is by nature putty in a theologian's hands, then all allegorical interpretations are man's own personal opinions. This is implied even though they themselves understand that some of the Scriptures are allegorical, and so it makes no sense. It is also antithetical to a sound system that doesn't usurp God's authority but allows God to interpret His own word. It is a system that no conscientious teacher of the Scriptures should ever take because the Scriptures clearly and routinely have a decidedly deeper allegorical meaning. Indeed, what is typology but historical allegories, metaphors, similes, representations, and spiritual patterns that prefigure some future thing. To claim that the Bible treated allegorically is putty in the hands of the exegete is to refute or ignore some of the most important revelations in the book. In reality, these deeper allegorical, symbolic, or representative meanings are seen from the beginning in the Garden of Eden with the serpent, and Adam and Eve being clothes from a sacrifice by God to cover their nakedness, to the end in Revelation where there are 24 elders sitting around the throne. The Bible treated allegorically is not putty in the hands of the exegete, it is the solid foundation upon which God has structured His narrative of the redemption of man from before the foundation of the world. It is how God divinely inspired and used man to pen Scripture from beginning to end. Take for example the historical event in the Bible of Abaraham's two sons, one by a bondwoman and one by a free woman:

    Galatians 4:22-26

Abraham, his two sons, and their mothers didn't know their lives were an allegory orchestrated by God, but that didn't change the fact that it was. This allegory of these people's lives aren't putty in anyone's hands but God's (Romans 9:21). Because I reiterate, God is the interpreter of His own words, they are not determined by the maxims of men. The proponents of these humanistic dictums like, "If the literal sense makes sense, seek no other sense," are simply making up their own rules. Did the literal sense of Abraham having a son by a bondmaid, and having another by a freewoman make perfect sense? Yes, but God opens up the curtain in the New Testament dispensation to reveal to us that despite what the writers knew when they penned this historical event, God had ordained and intended it to be an allegory in His Holy word. We could have actually gleaned this from Old Testament Scripture without this verse in Galatians by a careful study and comparison of all pertinent Scriptures concerning them, and the covenants, but God makes this mystery known plainly here in order to "demonstrate" that Scripture interprets Scripture, not by today's Authors, Ministers, or Pastors who may or may not understand the very symbolic and Spiritual nature of the Bible. Indeed the Biblical framework for study is specifically structured by God to force us to defer to the Scripture as the final arbiter of what is correct.

    Deuteronomy 29:29

Since for all practical purposes, the Literalist looks upon Old Testament Scripture as a human work that the Spirit might have helped out with, his methodology will always view the work as primarily limited to the human writer's area of competence. They make it seem as if God's divinely inspired authorship is secondary to the writer's knowledge and expertise. Indeed, the Literalist's way of exegesis seems an arbitrary method of interpreting or deciphering the word of God which, if carried out consistently, would make havoc of God's sacred orchestration and unity of Scripture. The faithful exegete cannot be beholden to man-made rules of a literal or an allegorical understanding, they defer to God for taking all prophecies as God Himself intended, by searching it out to see if these things are so (Acts 17:11), comparing Scripture with Scripture, the inspired Spiritual with the Spiritual (1st Corinthians 2:13). The often unpalatable fact is that there is one harmonious, synchronous, symmetric, theme running throughout all of the books of the Bible and binding the history of Israel, the Jews, the proverbs, the types, the prophecies, characters, and allegories, into one magnificent salvific plan of redemption. There are no magic words like "literal" or "allegorical," there only the rule that interpretations belong to God (Genesis 40:8; Genesis 41:16) . Unless God's infallible word demands it, we cannot attempt to place Him in a box where He can't go beyond man-made rules or confines of what is deemed of men acceptable about interpretations. This view is often contradictory to many passages of Scripture. Can we accept the plain meaning of (Matthew 24:15-16) as only to the Jews and a place of their physical safety? According to God, what safety is there in mountains, except they be the Spiritual mountains (Psalms 121:1-2) representing the Spiritual sanctuary of Israel? The plain meaning would be that God's people are to run away and hide in the physical mountains for safety when they see an abomination stand in the Holy place. But that has never been God's instruction to His servants. He says a horse is a vain thing for safety, and so also are the mountains (Jeremiah 3:23).

Likewise, when Christ spoke and declared that Christians are the light of the world, He was speaking allegorically. Therefore, we wouldn't believe that Christians are literally or physically glowing with illuminating light, even if it did make sense or seemed a reasonable interpretation. Again, the number one rule is that interpretations belong to God. Therefore, it is from God's word that we learn that light represents Christ, who allegorically is the light of the world.

    John 8:12

Christ is the light that takes us out of spiritual darkness, and because we are representatives of the body of Christ, we are as candlesticks or lampstands, reflections bringing His light to the world.

    Matthew 5:14-16

Every interpretation has to be firmly seated upon the word of God, or it is not God's interpretation, it is our own. The Literalist (effectively) believes that the Bible is written by men and therefore is limited by the knowledge that was available to men at the time. This view completely ignore the fact that God is the true author of the Scriptures, and though man know nothing, God knew the end from the beginning. (Ecclesiastes 8:16-17). So we can follow the mapmaker's directions and study what He has shown there as the path to enlightenment, or we can think we know more than God and defer to personal opinions trusting that our conscience will guide us into truth. The problem with the later is that often Christians mistake their conscience for the Holy Spirit. There is a difference.

 

Sola Scriptura (The Bible Alone)

There are many Christians who do not believe in "Sola Scriptura" or the so-called "Bible Alone" hermeneutic. They argue that the Scripture does not explicitly teach this principle. Nevertheless, when God records plainly that interpretations are not from men and that they belong to God, that necessarily means that interpretations must not come from man but exclusively from Him. That's the portrait that the texts explicitly paints. When theologians say that the Bible was not written in a vacuum, they are actually implying that it needs some type of extra-biblical explanation, assistance, direction, or guidance that was somehow not included in the word itself. Or that we need more instruction than the word and the working of the Spirit can supply. The unpalatable truth is that God's own words refute this humanistic reasoning for reading our own thoughts and opinions into the Scriptures through some sort of eisegesis.

    2nd Timothy 3:16-17

Scripture is given so that the man of God may be perfect (completed), being thoroughly or literally exartizo [exartizo] or "fully" furnished, completely equipped unto all good works. The completed/perfect Bible, in conjunction with the Holy Spirit, is all that mankind needs to understand what God has inspired written. We aren't required to take into account secular history, the mindset of the human prophet who penned it (as if we could know), the surrounding influences, the existing knowledge of who penned it, or the presumptions of book authors or theologians. Scripture alone is sufficient for us to rightly elucidate, qualify, understand, and interpret other scriptures. It alone is the sole measure for judging the church's faith and practice. The truth is, this is the very reason that the Bible was designed and created by God. To make known to blessed men so clear a revelation of his will, and of the principles upon which they must stand in order to rightly glean the truth in understanding it.

    Psalms 25:14

What secret? It's the mystery of His divine will and purpose that is hidden from all, unless and until it is revealed by the Holy Spirit after Regeneration. The Bible was developed by God in a perfect and completely isolated manner so that it alone would define what He means on any subject, what is "His" interpretation of any text, and the deeper spiritual meaning incorporated into his words, types, symbolic imagery, and figurative or representative language. Who better to explain what God means--than God? He does so through His word, the only revealed truth directly from His mouth. Some seem to believe that we need more information than God provided within the Bible to interpret His word, or that without such extra-biblical knowledge we are for all intents and purposes in the dark and unable to navigate its meaning. Not so, for the Bible alone fully equips the man of God so that He may be able to come to the truth of what is written. God does not keep us in the dark, and this principle runs throughout Scripture.

    Amos 3:7

What secret? Again, the mystery of His divine will and purpose for His people that has been hidden from man since His fall in the beginning. He reveals it to us not by dropping physical manna from the sky, but by the Spiritual Manna of the word of God. If the gospel truth is hidden, it is hidden from those who are lost, and that by their own sins and trespasses. It is hidden from those who defer to men for their doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. While to those who defer to the word of God to define and interpret the word of God, the revelation of Christ is opened unto them as seals on a book are opened and the mystery within (Mark 4:11) is made known. The Bible teaches a Scripture-only system of interpreting by referring to the use of Scripture to understand and interpret Scripture without any reference to any outside influence or sources that muddy the waters. Indeed, the Bible does show this Bible-only hermeneutic by having us defer to it alone for truth. It points to no other source because it is the only method of interpretation that is confirmed within it. It is confirmed explicitely by stating that it is given directly from God, totally true, profitable for doctrine, sufficient, and infallible. It is suficient for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness. When it comes to the scriptures:

    Romans 3:3-4

Let God be true and every man a liar means that you're not ever going to be justified by the erroneous opinions of man, but by the infallible words of God. Therefore, place your trust not in the words of men, but in the words of God alone. All necessary doctrines, rules, and teachings for Christian life, faith, and practice will be found solely within its pages.

 

Practical, God-Given Reasoning

Some have mistaken their own personal reasonings about Scripture, based on what they think is practical and God-given reasoning, with the Spirit leading them. This is a very dangerous point of view to take. What does mankind's personal opinion of practical living have to do with a sound hermeneutic? Absolutely nothing. God does not create His word, rules, and principles based on whether mankind finds them practical, feasible, likely to be followed, successful, or effective in our real-life application or circumstances. God creates rules and laws based upon His Holiness and what He requires man to do, man not to do. Thus He knows that it is both feasible and practical because God "requires" man to abide by them under penalty of death if he doesn't. While some Christians chose to partake in this diffusion of personal responsibility to respect and comply with God's divine directives, God is not mocked (Galatians 6:7-8) because man reaps what he sows. Make no mistake, we all are responsible for our own choices and transgressions. We cannot righteously excuse ourselves by claiming that it's not practical or feasible to be obedient, for we are "required" to be obedient. Even in our fallible society, we know that ignorance of the law is no excuse. And if we do not comply, the wages of that disobedience is death (Ezekiel 18:4; Romans 6:23). We cannot attempt to blame God for our ignorance and lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6), we don't know because deep down we don't want to know. We stray from the righteous path not because we're ignorant of the right way of handling Scripture, but because we want to do our own will, have our own personal opinions, and do not receive that the ultimate authority is the word itself. By foolishly saying that we are dealing righteously with Scripture when injecting extrabiblical ideas and opinions, we are implying that we can only be wrong if God is the author of our confusion (James 1:13-15) by insisting that it's not practical to be obedient. Nor can we claim it's impractical to believe that God's word fully equips us to rightly understand the mystery or secret of the word of truth. Yes, it is practical that we can know what God's word means by allowing Him to interpret it Himself through our study (2nd Timothy 2:15) of it. Unfortunately, for some, practical reasoning means assuming, presumption, and private interpretations (2nd Peter 1:20). The Apostle's point is not how we are to read and understand God’s messages, it is that the prophets didn't give their own private interpretations, these were God's authoritative words, and thus profitable for understanding what is true and what isn't. This rightly dividing Scripture is specifically designed to steer believers away from deferring to human teachers, personal theological tendencies, or opinions that would hinder the Scripture’s ability to have God's word be the final authority over our understanding. Private interpretations is just another way of saying personal opinions. In this declaration we learn that Scripture wasn't subject to the prophet's own private interpretation, nor is it subject to it for us today. Because the correct interpretation of any scripture is not found in anyone's own opinions, rather it is gleaned from the wholly inspired words, which were authored by the Holy Spirit. As laborers in His word to study, comparing Scripture with Scripture is how we find ourselves unashamed and fully approved of God. THAT is truly what being practical is. How likely we are to succeed, or how effective our serving God is, will be the work of the Holy Spirit through His word and will not be dependent upon our own opinions of how feasible His methodology may seem to us.

    Luke 21:14-15

What is the deeper Spiritual meaning of this encouragement to all saints? The meaning is that the answers are not in us, so we are not to attempt and pre-think or pre-imagine how to answer our adversaries. Rather, we speak to them from the mouth of God (Genesis 40:8; Genesis 41:16) by bearing witness to the authority of His word. You see God's word alone is the "only" authority that these false servants of God cannot gainsay (speak against) nor resist. Because it's not your own words, it's the revealed word of God. Do not fear what they can do to your body, as long as you speak the authoritative word of God, you are fully secure in your person. This is the only way an interpretation is not a private interpretation, but God's own interpretation. It's how God gives us a mouth and wisdom that all our adversaries will not be able to gainsay nor resist. How does an alleged servant of God righteously speak against the word of the very God that they are claiming to serve? Selah.

    John 16:13

When we receive the Spirit of God, we don't defer to extrabiblical proclamations, opinions, or teachers, but to the teaching of the Spirit through the authoritative word of the living God. That's how the Spirit guides us into all truth. It is not in us, the truth is REVEALED through the word of the Holy Spirit that has been given to us. As it is written:

    1st John 2:27

If it is not in us, and we don't need any other man to teach us, then this necessarily means that the divinely inspired Scriptures alone teach us, through the anointing Spirit. Everywhere in Scripture, this principle of God interpreting His own word is confirmed continually. Who better to know what God's word means than God who authored it? Being the very word of God in written form, we as conscientious Christians should inherently know that Scripture interprets Scripture, meaning that the Bible is its own interpreter. In retort to this belief, some professing Christians have said that I seem to be against man using his mind with the ability that God gave him to reason with. While I certainly don't disagree that God gave man a mind to reason with, it's man's carnal "reasoning away" what God has plainly spoken that I have a problem with. For God did not give us a mind to reason by what seems right in our own eyes, but to reason together with His Spirit the truth from out of the scriptures. It is rampant "humanistic reasoning" that many professing Christians use that determines their doctrines that I object to--not the sound Biblical reasoning with God's Spirit that is required when exegeting Biblically. The Reasoning that God requires is ౾ [yakach], meaning to judge, be convinced, perfected, to come to agreement, to examine and be corrected by His word. Not that God is going to agree with our own sin-tainted reasoning, but that we through the Spirit and judicial consideration of His Holy word will come to agree with His.

    Isaiah 1:18

God's reasoning means for us to make "right judgments," (Nehemiah 9:13) to "rightly divide," (2nd Timothy 2:13) to "nobly" or honestly search the scriptures (Acts 17:11-12) in faithful consideration of God's word. That is quite a bit different from humanistic reasoning, which is all about man deciding for Himself what is law and then justifying himself.

For example, I was in a discussion forum dealing with the subject of Predestination and was told that it was "within reason" to believe that we have free will so that we can seek God without restraint. The participant accused me of being closed-minded to practical reasoning and of teaching that we are like robots or slaves without free agency. Since the authoritative word of God "specifically" and unambiguously declares that we cannot come to God freely (John 6:44) and that according To God who looks down upon the earth and sees that there is no one on earth that will freely seek (Psalms 14:2-3; Romans 3:10-12) after God, how is that interpretation within reason except we completely ignore the pertinent passages and replace the Spirit of Biblical reasoning with the spirit of the worldly reasoning founded upon disobedience to what is actually written? Sound reasoning is when we reason from out of the Scriptures in a sound biblical-based exegesis of what is written, not from reading our own opinions into scripture. This is exegesis versus eisegesis. Which reasoning does Christ's true servants have?

    Acts 17:2-3

Paul didn't reason with them by inserting worldly humanistic reasoning into God's word. We are told that he reasoned with them from out of the scriptures. He opened the Bible and read God's word "explaining to them the spiritual nature" of the Old Testament prophecies that spoke of the salvation of Israel coming through their propitiation by the death and resurrection of Christ. That's sound reasoning using a sound hermeneutic or system of interpretation that allows God to explain His own terms. By contrast, it's not sound reasoning to suppose personal opinions or private interpretations of men are sound. It is not sound Biblical reasoning to give emotional essays on why free will, lies, or divorce is practical or necessary, or to claim that foreknowledge is the same as Predestination. That's not the reasoning together that God speaks of, that is the rationalizations of men masquerading as Christian reasoning. Sound reasoning is deferentially and unpretentiously examining and researching the Scriptures to demonstrate that we are earnest laborers approved of God (2nd Timothy 2:15), having no reason to be ashamed. The man of righteousness will humbly acknowledge God as the authoritative ruler and lawgiver over the church. By contrast, the man of sin will, in effect, only acknowledge Himself as ruler and lawgiver of the church, usurping the divine authority of God by his private interpretations. Do we lean unto our own understanding, or defer to God's word alone? Because where our trust is, there is where our hearts will be. Thinking that we are smarter than God to know more about what He "means" in His word is the path to destruction.

    Proverbs 3:5-7

In their confusion, rather than acknowledging God as the "authority" and lawgiver, today many professing Christians, Pastors, and Theologians have unwittingly placed man in God's seat of authority, surmising that they are wise enough to adjudicate right and wrong "apart" from what scripture commands. The Spirit of Christ is not the author of confusion among God's people, but the spirit of Antichrist (Ephesians 2:2-3), the spirit working in the children of disobedience, most surely is. And they are among us, not having overcome the flesh, but still held in spiritual captivity and ruled by it. Ruled by what they call practical reasoning, instead of God's servants Spirit-led, God-authored reasoning. Interpreting Scripture by way of isegesis instead of exegesis.

 

Conclusion

The bottom line is that we believe that all the avenues of Biblical exploration lead us to one inescapable conclusion--interpretations indeed belong to God. And if that is true then all other extra-biblical interpretation besides "Scripture interprets Scripture" is a false assessment of rightly divide the word of truth (2nd Timothy 2:13). A sound hermeneutic is simply the method of interpretation that is God inspired and approved wherein the steward of the gospel can rightly assess and consider the meaning of God's word, by its explanation by God's word. This is the administration where Christians humbly, honorably, and without dissimulation surrenders to the authority of the author who inspired it written.

The first principle of a sound hermeneutic is the rule that interpretations belong to God. The first principle of an unsound hermeneutic is that there is no "rule of interpretation." That is to say, the theologian does not set down an unbreakable principle of prophetic interpretation whereby he is not hypothesizing, assuming, or making suppositions. This sloppy exegesis will most often rear its head in the form of continually "name dropping" in lieu of a Scriptural defense. Whenever someone is always quoting what some other theologian or author has said on the subject as evidence, confirmation, or proof of his assertions, rather than leaning upon and quoting from what the Bible actually says, that is a red flag. Again, interpretations belong to God, not the writings of men. We use the Scriptures to confirm the teachings of men, not men to confirm other men's teachings. eg.

    Acts 17:10-12

These noble or honest men did not go to other teachers, other authors, or the leaders of their day to confirm the interpretation that the Apostle Paul was teaching, they went directly to the source, which was the infallible word of God. And as a result, many of them came to faith. That is our example. The reason that I keep getting back to this is because so many theologians miss the mark on establishing so momentous and immutable a foundation upon Scripture. Making sure that our conclusions are "actually" from Scripture and not unconsciously formed from tradition, our teachers, or extrabiblical authors. That should be our first and most important security check.

Nor should Christians consciously or subconsciously avoid their solemn duty of a workman or laborer by rationalizing that it is impossible to be sure about the right interpretation, or by implying that we cannot correctly outline absolute principles of prophecy in detail. As the Lord did for His disciples, He has also given to us of His Spirit to know the secrets or mysteries that are hidden within His Holy word

    Matthew 13:11

I can fully appreciate those who are concerned with the corruption of the perspicuity of the scriptures, but we cannot allow such concerns to stifle or repress God's edict that we study His word "carefully" and allow it to interpret itself. God has not inspired the whole of the Scriptures to be easily understood, else Christ wouldn't have spoken about its mysteries or how we must be diligent and earnest in our study of it (2nd Timothy 2:15). This tells us that there will be those ashamed, and there will be those unashamed, and the difference is study of the Scriptures that we come to God's absolute truth rather than our own perceved truths.

It is a sad commentary on the church today that many theologians have so elevated themselves as to believe that our 21st-century increased knowledge, education, and advanced interpretation skills are perceived to somehow be more enlightened than in previous generations. What should unify all faithful Christians in their earnest desire to yield to a sound system that concedes that interpretations belong to God. In our love of truth, we should be united and in agreement that God alone is the ultimate arbiter of what is a God-sourced, Christ-centered exegesis of Scripture. Unvalidated methodologies, traditions, and rules will come and go, but the earnest desire of God's people to receive truth, do the will of God, and honestly keep His word as the key to faithful interpretation, is forever. Our desire is for the testimonies of God's word be confirmed by the testimony of God's word. Just as the Bereans did when they nobly (honestly), rather than deceitfully, handled the Word of God in order to try (test/prove) the apostle Paul's words. That is how they discerned that what he said was the truth. There God gave us a very simple demonstration of how to practice sound hermeneutics. Listening with all readiness of mind, and then going to the scriptures to search it out and see if the word we have heard is "accurate" and in total agreement with "the authority," the Bible. Our justification will only be as we rely on His word rather than the words of men. Because we know that fallible man cannot be trusted to interpret God's word faithfully, only God can (Romans 3:4). So anything outside of the divinely inspired word is to be deemed suspect. Be that my word or any other man's word. Our duty is to study to show ourselves approved of God, rightly dividing or judging the word of God as a faithful steward that will not need to be ashamed. We test what man says God says, against what God actually says, and we do that nobly (Honestly) rather than in a self-serving, vain manner. And if the two don not agree, then we have no reason to believe what man says is true. As it is written, "Let God be true, and every man a liar." Words of wisdom from the God of truth. We cannot defer to go beyond God's word to that which is outside of the Scriptures. Scripture interpreting Scripture is the only verified practice for sound exegesis that we will find in the Bible. In all of Scripture, there is not one single instance where anyone defers to his own understanding, consults alternative sources, or yields to human wisdom to understand Scripture.

"nosce te ipsum"

Amen!

Peace,

printer Print Page

Copyright ©2024 Tony Warren
For other studies free for the Receiving, Visit our web Site
The Mountain Retreat! https://www.mountainretreatorg.net/
-------------------------*---------------------------
Please feel free to duplicate, print, archive, display or distribute this publication in any format, provided the copyright notice remains intact, there are no changes made and you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. This publication can be distributed only in its original form, unedited, and without cost.

Created 6/6/24 / Last Modified 12/14/24
The Mountain Retreat / twarren10@aol.com
[ Top | Eschatology | Theology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Other Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | F.A.Q. | Forum ]

Home