The greatest enemy of correct Bible interpretation is mostly propagated by those who even author commentaries or Bible study series.
That enemy is the implicit assumption that God's logic or think process is different from man's. When one makes this assumption, no matter how honest or well-meaning, it already throws out the whole point of God's revelation!
If God's logic is different from ours, why would He even bother to even reveal Himself, much less communicate at all with man? Any and all revelation is not revelation at all but the seed of confusion. If the Bible is God's revelation and all we can say after diligent study of the Word is that no one can ever understand God, then God has utterly FAILED at revelation. The supposedly humble opinion becomes substantially an insult to the Greatest Communicator. The Bible which is God's revelation becomes something else, but it is NOT REVELATION at all since it is a failure at that objective.
Ah, but some would say, doesn't the Bible in Isaiah 55:8,9 declare that God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts? In response, we say, did Isaiah declare that God's logic is different from ours, or did he most simply mean that our thoughts are just a minutiae of the thoughts of God? God definitely has more thoughts than we can fathom, and since He is a logical God, he can declare the end from the beginning meaning that He simply knows how things will LOGICALLY (in contrast to foreknowledge, meaning God has actually seen the end of the issue) turn out.
One great hermeneutic principle for Bible interpretation should be SIMPLE COMMON SENSE LOGIC which should be applied to all passages without exception. If there is a common sense logical explanation, DO NOT ever go to any irrational, fantastic or Sci-Fi-like interpretation. This is the biggest fault of classical exegesis.
Here is a great example: Let us look at the phrase, "sons of God". Classical hermeneutics would normally lead you to look at cross-references (in the guise of "parallel passage"). So here is their take on this subject:
In Genesis 6:4,
"4 The Nephilim[b] were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown."
In Job 1
"6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan[b] also came among them. "
In Matthew 5:9,
9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons[a] of God."
Many classical commentators would assert that in Genesis, the sons of God refer to angels and they cohabit with humans to create giants. The use the cross-reference method by pointing to Job chapter 1. Well, there is a lot of negative things to say to this kind of interpretation. First, there are multiple other cross-references that show that "sons of God" may refer to the children of Israel or just Kingdom of God children as Christ pointed out in the Beatitudes. Second, it contradicts the statement of Christ in Luke 20 that angels are not given to marriage. Thirdly, and most importantly, it is an explanation that borders on Sci-Fi and is utterly ridiculous! No wonder Christians don't get much respect from the skeptics! When they say that we believe in legends, it seems that they could be RIGHT!
Now is there a logical common sensical interpretation? A resounding YES, of course!
The key to the whole puzzle is that these passages had different human authors and reasonably different contexts for using the same phrases. Don't we do that in everyday English anyway? Gay means happy and nothing else a hundred years ago. Now it can mean homo-sexual, or a guy who is not really a guy! What made the difference? CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT. There is the context of different time frames and the context of different authors. So why can't we use this simple interpretation with Bible stuff? Because God's thoughts are higher than ours? Hogwash! Bad reason for a bad interpretation!
So, in Genesis 6, in plain simple old-style language, the "sons of God" simply alludes to the fact that the male species represented by Adam was created directly from God and the "daughters of men" is a counter-allusion to the fact that women represented by Eve came from man, Adam. In other words, Genesis 6 was simply highlighting or emphasizing the wanton engagement in sex of the first human beings after Noah. Note also that these daughters of men came from Noah (because the whole world was destroyed by flood and only Noah's family survived, remember?). It is not unreasonable to declare that, likewise, the sons of God were descendants of Noah. There is nothing in logic and rationality that would prevent us from making this interpretation. God was also emphasizing that the human race was multiplying rapidly and in the process the probability of genetics creating giants was great. Why we even have 9 and 10 footers in the past 100 years!!! So what is wrong with that interpretation? The answer is NOTHING in ALL CAPS!!!
Now, let's go to Job. In the proper context, the "sons of God" are most probably the angels, so why did the author of Job use that phrase? Precisely because the angels were created directly from God in much the same way that Adam was created directly from God!!! Is there anything wrong with this simple interpretation? The answer is NOTHING in ALL CAPS!!! In fact, the interpretation is so simple an 8 year old kid with 15 years of English can interpret it (Andre Kole humor).
Now, what is RIGHT about this interpretations??? They are NOT Sci-Fi fantastic!!! They are so simple and logical.
Now let us jump to Matthew 5:9 and point out here one great benefit of logically correct honest-to-goodness simple common sense interpretation. When Jesus declared that "they shall be called sons of God" if God's children were peacemakers at heart and behaved according to that nature, He actually meant that they (the peacemakers at heart) are "created directly by God"!!! They are peacemakers precisely because they are Kingdom children. They are peacemakers because the have been born again with a new nature that comes from God. Imagine that. Here is an enhancement of John 3 being born again!
And, if you noticed, we did not claim anything outside of the passages, we were simple and logical in our interpretation, we were simple and logical in our explanation and we were simple and logical in our application. So check your true nature. Are you truly born again? How do you REALLY behave? What is your true nature at heart? Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. Out of the many things that come out of your mouth, what is the proportion that you would say is prompted by God, your love of God, your love of your neighbor? How much of it is of God? The answer will reveal your TRUE NATURE at heart.
That enemy is the implicit assumption that God's logic or think process is different from man's. When one makes this assumption, no matter how honest or well-meaning, it already throws out the whole point of God's revelation!
If God's logic is different from ours, why would He even bother to even reveal Himself, much less communicate at all with man? Any and all revelation is not revelation at all but the seed of confusion. If the Bible is God's revelation and all we can say after diligent study of the Word is that no one can ever understand God, then God has utterly FAILED at revelation. The supposedly humble opinion becomes substantially an insult to the Greatest Communicator. The Bible which is God's revelation becomes something else, but it is NOT REVELATION at all since it is a failure at that objective.
Ah, but some would say, doesn't the Bible in Isaiah 55:8,9 declare that God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts? In response, we say, did Isaiah declare that God's logic is different from ours, or did he most simply mean that our thoughts are just a minutiae of the thoughts of God? God definitely has more thoughts than we can fathom, and since He is a logical God, he can declare the end from the beginning meaning that He simply knows how things will LOGICALLY (in contrast to foreknowledge, meaning God has actually seen the end of the issue) turn out.
One great hermeneutic principle for Bible interpretation should be SIMPLE COMMON SENSE LOGIC which should be applied to all passages without exception. If there is a common sense logical explanation, DO NOT ever go to any irrational, fantastic or Sci-Fi-like interpretation. This is the biggest fault of classical exegesis.
Here is a great example: Let us look at the phrase, "sons of God". Classical hermeneutics would normally lead you to look at cross-references (in the guise of "parallel passage"). So here is their take on this subject:
In Genesis 6:4,
"4 The Nephilim[b] were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown."
In Job 1
"6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan[b] also came among them. "
In Matthew 5:9,
9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons[a] of God."
Many classical commentators would assert that in Genesis, the sons of God refer to angels and they cohabit with humans to create giants. The use the cross-reference method by pointing to Job chapter 1. Well, there is a lot of negative things to say to this kind of interpretation. First, there are multiple other cross-references that show that "sons of God" may refer to the children of Israel or just Kingdom of God children as Christ pointed out in the Beatitudes. Second, it contradicts the statement of Christ in Luke 20 that angels are not given to marriage. Thirdly, and most importantly, it is an explanation that borders on Sci-Fi and is utterly ridiculous! No wonder Christians don't get much respect from the skeptics! When they say that we believe in legends, it seems that they could be RIGHT!
Now is there a logical common sensical interpretation? A resounding YES, of course!
The key to the whole puzzle is that these passages had different human authors and reasonably different contexts for using the same phrases. Don't we do that in everyday English anyway? Gay means happy and nothing else a hundred years ago. Now it can mean homo-sexual, or a guy who is not really a guy! What made the difference? CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT. There is the context of different time frames and the context of different authors. So why can't we use this simple interpretation with Bible stuff? Because God's thoughts are higher than ours? Hogwash! Bad reason for a bad interpretation!
So, in Genesis 6, in plain simple old-style language, the "sons of God" simply alludes to the fact that the male species represented by Adam was created directly from God and the "daughters of men" is a counter-allusion to the fact that women represented by Eve came from man, Adam. In other words, Genesis 6 was simply highlighting or emphasizing the wanton engagement in sex of the first human beings after Noah. Note also that these daughters of men came from Noah (because the whole world was destroyed by flood and only Noah's family survived, remember?). It is not unreasonable to declare that, likewise, the sons of God were descendants of Noah. There is nothing in logic and rationality that would prevent us from making this interpretation. God was also emphasizing that the human race was multiplying rapidly and in the process the probability of genetics creating giants was great. Why we even have 9 and 10 footers in the past 100 years!!! So what is wrong with that interpretation? The answer is NOTHING in ALL CAPS!!!
Now, let's go to Job. In the proper context, the "sons of God" are most probably the angels, so why did the author of Job use that phrase? Precisely because the angels were created directly from God in much the same way that Adam was created directly from God!!! Is there anything wrong with this simple interpretation? The answer is NOTHING in ALL CAPS!!! In fact, the interpretation is so simple an 8 year old kid with 15 years of English can interpret it (Andre Kole humor).
Now, what is RIGHT about this interpretations??? They are NOT Sci-Fi fantastic!!! They are so simple and logical.
Now let us jump to Matthew 5:9 and point out here one great benefit of logically correct honest-to-goodness simple common sense interpretation. When Jesus declared that "they shall be called sons of God" if God's children were peacemakers at heart and behaved according to that nature, He actually meant that they (the peacemakers at heart) are "created directly by God"!!! They are peacemakers precisely because they are Kingdom children. They are peacemakers because the have been born again with a new nature that comes from God. Imagine that. Here is an enhancement of John 3 being born again!
And, if you noticed, we did not claim anything outside of the passages, we were simple and logical in our interpretation, we were simple and logical in our explanation and we were simple and logical in our application. So check your true nature. Are you truly born again? How do you REALLY behave? What is your true nature at heart? Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. Out of the many things that come out of your mouth, what is the proportion that you would say is prompted by God, your love of God, your love of your neighbor? How much of it is of God? The answer will reveal your TRUE NATURE at heart.
No comments:
Post a Comment