There is a science of revelation (which is a subset of communication) and a philosophy of revelation (as applied to the revelation from God) that we need to accept and conform to in order to make real sense from God's vehicle for revelation, the Bible. When such standards are violated whether intentional or not, aberrant and cultic interpretations immediately arise as this is the work of the busy enemy who is the master of Scripture distortion.
The following are key passages in this treatise. There may be others that will be mentioned or even quoted but we will use these as our springboard.
Isaiah 55:8-9
For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Isaiah 46:9-11
9 remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me,
10 declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,’
11 calling a bird of prey from the east,
the man of my counsel from a far country.
I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass;
I have purposed, and I will do it.
Jeremiah 9:23, 24
23 Thus says the Lord: “Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches, 24 but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the Lord.”
While the science of revelation deals with methods, context, hermeneutics and acceptable and reasonable hermeneutic rules. This subject alone would take a whole semester in university if I were to discuss it but I will attempt to bring it down to as few unchallengeable principles as I can by explaining the above passages in the light of Scripture, history and synthesized hermeneutics (by synthesized, I most definitely mean that our interpretation of these passages will FIND NO CONTRADICTION with ANY OTHER part of Scripture nor the true nature of God.
The philosophy of revelation, on the other hand, deals with WHY the speaker or writer said it and why he used such words or phrases or idioms to express it, with the end of deriving the best interpretation possible of a communicator's message. Successful communication can be illustrated by a communicator's thought picture being exactly the same as the listener's thought picture. The communicator having a 16 room mansion and the listener having a 5 room bungalow does not make for good communication. The communicator has basically FAILED at good communication.
The following are key passages in this treatise. There may be others that will be mentioned or even quoted but we will use these as our springboard.
Isaiah 55:8-9
For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Isaiah 46:9-11
9 remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me,
10 declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,’
11 calling a bird of prey from the east,
the man of my counsel from a far country.
I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass;
I have purposed, and I will do it.
Jeremiah 9:23, 24
23 Thus says the Lord: “Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches, 24 but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the Lord.”
While the science of revelation deals with methods, context, hermeneutics and acceptable and reasonable hermeneutic rules. This subject alone would take a whole semester in university if I were to discuss it but I will attempt to bring it down to as few unchallengeable principles as I can by explaining the above passages in the light of Scripture, history and synthesized hermeneutics (by synthesized, I most definitely mean that our interpretation of these passages will FIND NO CONTRADICTION with ANY OTHER part of Scripture nor the true nature of God.
The philosophy of revelation, on the other hand, deals with WHY the speaker or writer said it and why he used such words or phrases or idioms to express it, with the end of deriving the best interpretation possible of a communicator's message. Successful communication can be illustrated by a communicator's thought picture being exactly the same as the listener's thought picture. The communicator having a 16 room mansion and the listener having a 5 room bungalow does not make for good communication. The communicator has basically FAILED at good communication.
Such are the expectations and concepts that we need to diligently and even strictly apply to the revealed communication of God to man. If man can pass through that test and be assessed as good communicators, what more with an omniscient, super-intelligent and super-logical God! If the words of God are truly sacred, then extra care should be exercised by any learner or teacher in ACCURATELY DIVIDING the word of truth under the assumption that this is God's revelation: THE GOAL OF REVELATION WHICH IS TO REVEAL MYSTERIES AND NOT TO CONFUSE AND CREATE MORE MYSTERIES!!! Quite unfortunately, unintentionally and even with noble motives, most of today's theological frameworks tend to do the latter and not the former. In fact, this is precisely the reason why students who are on fire when they enter seminary end up renouncing their faith after or prior to graduation.
Can We REALLY Understand God?
This is the MILLION DOLLAR question! If we believe the classical proposition that we can never really understand nor know God, then what is the point of even studying, much less reading, the Bible?
Theological pursuits should never limit itself to knowing ABOUT God. Instead, it should pursue know God in a personal intimate way such that his revelations take clear, vivid and personal meaning, relevance and application to the hearer.
Classical Theology, more often than not, points us to the first passage quoted above which, more than anything, declares that God's thoughts are too infinite in magnitude for man to digest, much less absorb. They insist that there will always be a huge gap between God's thoughts and man's thoughts. If what they mean is that man's brain is vastly inferior to God's brain, I could not agree with them more. However, as I listen intently to what they mean, it seems that they actually declare that no matter how much man strives to understand God, he will never succeed because of his inferior mind. Clearly, that is true if one simply wants to know ABOUT God.
With that kind of implication, most especially if that is their explicit declaration, I would vehemently disagree with such a premise for the following clear Biblical reasons:
The Bible as God's Revelation of Himself to NO OTHER than Man
In the process of divine revelation, God is the sole communicator. We have to make assumptions as to what kind of communicator he is based on an accurate Biblical Theology of his nature that are most relevant to effective communication:
b. He says what he means
c. He does not make mistakes
d. He can explain Himself if there are apparent ambiguities or contradictions through other parts of Scripture or by plain common sense.
Can We REALLY Understand God?
This is the MILLION DOLLAR question! If we believe the classical proposition that we can never really understand nor know God, then what is the point of even studying, much less reading, the Bible?
Theological pursuits should never limit itself to knowing ABOUT God. Instead, it should pursue know God in a personal intimate way such that his revelations take clear, vivid and personal meaning, relevance and application to the hearer.
Classical Theology, more often than not, points us to the first passage quoted above which, more than anything, declares that God's thoughts are too infinite in magnitude for man to digest, much less absorb. They insist that there will always be a huge gap between God's thoughts and man's thoughts. If what they mean is that man's brain is vastly inferior to God's brain, I could not agree with them more. However, as I listen intently to what they mean, it seems that they actually declare that no matter how much man strives to understand God, he will never succeed because of his inferior mind. Clearly, that is true if one simply wants to know ABOUT God.
With that kind of implication, most especially if that is their explicit declaration, I would vehemently disagree with such a premise for the following clear Biblical reasons:
- Man was created in the image of God. This means more than anything that we are like God in many ways. At the very least, we should have the same reasoning and logical or thinking processes that God has. Otherwise, we are indeed a POOR IMAGE of God and God is NOT glorified at all. In fact, if we disagree with this premise, we shame God by implicitly saying that he is either a poor creator, or what he means that we were created in the image of God is utterly false or misleading. If .we claim that our minds were corrupted by the fall, that is a cop-out. Our corruption affected only our ability to be perfect in God's sight. ALL OUR OTHER faculties are intact. Otherwise, we insult the Creator for bad quality of work. There was a time people distinguished between products made in Germany vs. made in Taiwan. For those who could afford the cost difference, they would go for quality. Quality means that if something goes wrong with the product, it would only be minor and can be fixed and restored to brand new even if refurbished. The products made in Taiwan during those days we could throw away as useless once they stop functioning. God created similarly, when man fell, it did not destroy or corrupt man entirely, only the spiritual part. Even John Calvin's defintion of "Original sin" had it right.
- The concept of divine revelation. The Bible is God's divine revelation of himself to man. If man gets a false picture of God after thoroughly and honestly reading and properly interpreting Scripture, then God has failed to reveal or Satan has succeeded at his job of distortion. The first option is explicitly saying that God has failed at his job of communication and revelation while the latter option IMPLICITLY states the exact same thing but is just more, say, "politically correct". Bottom line is: God who is supposed to be all-intelligent and all-powerful and sovereign has failed anyway at his purpose for writing Holy Writ. I echo Paul's expletive, "May it never be!"
So the only rational answer to the above question, "Can we really understand God" is a resounding YES!!!. Jeremiah 9:23-24, in fact, confirms it both in word and context. For any exegete to interpret this passage as God's sarcasm misses the point of of the passage and the whole point of divine revelation.
The Bible as God's Revelation of Himself to NO OTHER than Man
In the process of divine revelation, God is the sole communicator. We have to make assumptions as to what kind of communicator he is based on an accurate Biblical Theology of his nature that are most relevant to effective communication:
- God is most intelligent if not the most intelligent being.
- God is perfect at communication, meaning:
b. He says what he means
c. He does not make mistakes
d. He can explain Himself if there are apparent ambiguities or contradictions through other parts of Scripture or by plain common sense.
3. God's purpose for Scripture is to reveal mysteries and not to confuse or create more mysteries.
In the process of divine revelation, Man is the sole listener. There is no other creature that is the intended listener of God's message. Although this seems obvious, the profound implication of this is that man has the assumed inherent ability to understand the revelation of God. Without such assumption, revelation is irrelevant, futile, irrational, ridiculous in fact and man should not waste time trying to understand the revelation of or from God. This is but logical. Common sense dictates that this is unquestionable.
As a good communicator, nay, in fact, as THE GREATEST Communicator or the PERFECT Communicator, God has to make sure that the thought pictures in his mind are properly and effectively translated into the same thought pictures in his audience's or his listener's mind. If that is not accomplished, then EITHER God is not the perfect communicator, nay, God is NOT EVEN a GOOD communicator, or, man is NOT listening or understanding the message correctly!!!
For Man to be a Good Listener...
Simply stated, how can man be a good listener? There are many seminars available today as to how a person can be a good listener. It is a reality that many professional managers, salesmen and account officers who take this course actually are able to execute or implement this satisfactorily or with, at least, a significant degree of effectiveness.
How does the average or even serious listener of God's word fare against these common and easily graspable standards?
It is a universal fact that anyone who can teach what they learned have MORE THAN an average understanding of the subject matter. The best way to learn any subject is to figure out how to teach it. This puts a bigger burden on the brain and thought processes but triggers enough adrenaline or hormones, among other things, to enable a learner to master the subject matter at hand.
This is where we come up with our basic hermeneutics or rules of interpretation. The most basic questions are:
This is where we come up with our basic hermeneutics or rules of interpretation. The most basic questions are:
- What is the speaker's CONTEXT for his message? Where is he coming from? This is probably the most important element of understanding. If you are passing through a corridor where there are conversations already going on and you hear the statement, "That person is a total nerd!", can you say that you understand the message without getting the context of the conversation? Of course, not! For example, are they talking about you or someone else? Without context, the WORDS MEAN NOTHING!
- Is the speaker qualified or an expert, to make the statements he just made?
- What is the speaker saying?
- What does the speaker mean?
- Does the speaker have an agenda? a bias? What is the goal of the speaker's message?
- How does the speaker's message affect me? Is it relevant to my present circumstances?
- Does the speaker simply want me to be informed? or is there some action that he wants me to do or get involved in?
The BIGGEST Problem with Bible Heremeneutics!
We don't apply the same scientific and philosophical principles to the interpretation of Scripture. Here are the basic flaws of "modern" Bible interpreters, causing some kind of spiritual blindness and giving Satan the victory over Bible distortion and twisting:
We don't apply the same scientific and philosophical principles to the interpretation of Scripture. Here are the basic flaws of "modern" Bible interpreters, causing some kind of spiritual blindness and giving Satan the victory over Bible distortion and twisting:
- Ignorance of Bible History or Church History (Therefore, ignorance of CONTEXT or the bigger picture). This is why we debate about mode of baptism, whether or not women should be Senior Pastors of churches, slavery, is it sin to drink wine, smoke tobacco, attire in church, hair length yadda yadda yadda, ALL USELESS and TRIVIAL debates when we see these in the context of God's Purpose for Creation and History.
- Too much focus on Greek words at the expense of overall context of Scripture. This is why we have aberrant (but common) misinterpretations about predestination, election, Sola Gracia, the sovereignty of God, the timelessness of God, the impassivity of God, yadda yadda yadda ALL HAVING NOTHING to do about our lives being pleasing to God.
- Personal Bias or Hidden Agenda. Are we truly listening to what the Bible is saying? or are we just trying to push our personal opinion, and forcing the Bible to support it?
- Doctrinal Bias or too much Indoctrination about non-Scriptural additions. This has a great bearing on Historical Context. What was the concept of election before John Calvin? Does his view of election and predestination confirm what the Old Testament and apostles were saying? or is it a grand aberration of a truly great concept?
- Revisionism. Preachers force to interpret the Word of God to mean what it DOES NOT. A famous preacher speaking about the life of David commented that Saul was the people's choice for king while David was God's choice for king. Makes me wonder what version of the Bible he is using. Some conservative denominations talk about "unfermented wine" and there is no such thing other than a revisionist linggo to support a bias.
- Intellectual Honesty. This is so far the worst. We already know what the Bible says but we cannot honestly believe it and put it to test on our lives! You may claim to believe that someone is a good salesman, but have you believed enough to buy everything he sells? True belief is testing by applying it personally and right away as soon as you are convinced that this is what God is truly saying.
A Footnote on Progressive Revelation
I hope we know what progressive revelation is all about and that God Himself declares in Hebrews 1:1-3 and, in fact, the whole of chapter 1, that this is his method of revelation where He progressively reveals or uncovers truths to his people.
A subtle area of Bible interpretation is to follow progressive revelation. Hence, when we interpret the Gospels, we have to assume that the epistles, especially Paul's epistles, were NOT YET WRITTEN and we have to use these cross-references sparingly. Otherwise, we lose the flavor and the blessings of just sitting at Jesus feet. Furthermore, to interpret the gospels properly, our main and major cross-references should be the Law and the Prophets, not Paul or the apostles. This brings in a more Jewish flavor to the interpretation compared to the more Hellenistic bias in interpreting the gospels. This is more of a suggested approach than the "only right way". We will not make such a mistake. We just want to remind the Bible audience that much of Christendom has forgotten the Jewish flavor and bias of New Testament Scripture. In so doing, we miss a lot on revelation and the subsequent blessing that is derived.
I hope we know what progressive revelation is all about and that God Himself declares in Hebrews 1:1-3 and, in fact, the whole of chapter 1, that this is his method of revelation where He progressively reveals or uncovers truths to his people.
A subtle area of Bible interpretation is to follow progressive revelation. Hence, when we interpret the Gospels, we have to assume that the epistles, especially Paul's epistles, were NOT YET WRITTEN and we have to use these cross-references sparingly. Otherwise, we lose the flavor and the blessings of just sitting at Jesus feet. Furthermore, to interpret the gospels properly, our main and major cross-references should be the Law and the Prophets, not Paul or the apostles. This brings in a more Jewish flavor to the interpretation compared to the more Hellenistic bias in interpreting the gospels. This is more of a suggested approach than the "only right way". We will not make such a mistake. We just want to remind the Bible audience that much of Christendom has forgotten the Jewish flavor and bias of New Testament Scripture. In so doing, we miss a lot on revelation and the subsequent blessing that is derived.
No comments:
Post a Comment