|
|
|
THE BIBLE CONTAINS BUILT-IN RULES OF INTERPRETATION: H.I.C.E.E
I) THE PROPER METHOD OF INTERPRETATION
1) THE BIBLE IS TO BE INTERPRETED MUCH IN THE SAME WAY ONE READS THE NEWSPAPER
There are many opinions and interpretations of what the Bible says - most do not reflect any truth at all. The proper method is summarized as follows:
a) THROUGH INDUCTIVE REASONING
c) WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF NORMATIVE RULES OF LANGUAGE & CONTEXT
e) AND INSTRUCTION FROM OTHERS
It is interesting to note that many people will read an article in the newspaper from beginning to end and interpret it on the basis of the normative meanings of the words, within the context, keeping in mind the who, what, why, where and when of it so as to discover what the writer is actually saying. But give that person a Bible and he will most likely trash this proven method of interpretation and deliberately violate God's intended message, imposing on each passage whatever he compels himself to believe. For upon careful examination of the Bible it is evident that the authors whom God inspired to write every word utilized normative rules of language & context. In the absence of evidence anywhere that God's Word is to be interpreted with a specialized set of rules outside of what man would normatively expect and in view of the evidence that a strict adherence to normative rules of language and context produces an inerrant and absolutely consistent interpretation, we must thereupon follow God's plan of how to interpret His Word which He holds in such high esteem - on a par with His holiness. So if God's truth is to be arrived at, then His sovereignly established method must be used, not one's own.
Objectors to this principle state that one cannot just take a particular passage to teach some Biblical truth such as the one which is contained in Ephesians 2:8-10 or John 3:16, both of which teach faith alone in Christ alone unto eternal life. Objectors state that there are other passages throughout the Bible that teach on salvation and add to what Paul and John say a man must do to be saved, (creating the inference that the passages in Ephesians and John are contradictory or incomplete with error of omission). But this is an approach to Scripture which would make the understanding of any passage in the Bible unreachable until one had completely mastered every passage and allowed for passages to be changed or modified into their 'final' meaning. And this would take more than a lifetime of careful consideration and study to arrive at any kind of determination, something which is beyond the capacity of any individual. Furthermore, what could the saints of old do before there was a completed Bible with the 27 books of the New Testament? Have Abraham, Isaac and Jacob perished into Hades since they were not provided with New Testament revelation? If this approach is valid, then Ephesians and the Gospel of John are wrong by leaving important information out - God is wrong by allowing His Word to be so indeterminate and contradictory, the Bible is untrustworthy and no one can truly know what Scripture teaches on any subject.
The context of a verse/sentence within a passage cannot be made to depend upon or changed by other verses/sentences in other passages, especially other verses/sentences from books by other authors written years, decades or centuries earlier/later. This demands that everyone throughout the ages have access to every book of the bible and be totally familiar with every verse in the bible and how it relates to every other verse in the bible, something that is not possible. For how can one master every verse in the bible when one cannot master the first verse to begin with which would depend upon a mastery of every verse in the bible beforehand!! Furthermore, to master the whole bible even in the proper manner is a task with man which would take more than one lifetime in any age given the availability to everyone of every book of the bible in ones native language.
The normative rules of language, context and logic with which the bible was penned limit the interpretation of a verse/sentence to its own context which lies within it's own book relative to what has been previously stipulated in that book and most specifically the passage of that book it is located in. That's how the normative rules of language, context and logic work - even in the Word of God. Otherwise, how is an individual going to know what a verse means and be held accountable by God for what it says? If the rules to interpret the bible have changed beyond the normative rules of language, context and logic without a clear declaration anywhere in Scripture as to what those changes are and to what each verse's meaning is dependent upon, then this puts the bible out of reach of mankind.
The truth of the matter is that just as a cook can follow the directions of a recipe in order to produce the stated result of, for example, an angel food cake, without having to go to another recipe like one for roast beef; so an individual can follow the direction of faith alone in Christ alone as enunciated in Ephesians 2:8-9 and John 3:16 in order to produce the stated result of eternal life without having to go to other passages which add corrections and/or directions, (even if there were any in the Bible, and there are not). Furthermore, just as adding roast beef will ruin an angel food cake; so adding anything that an individual must do to faith alone in Christ alone unto eternal life will utterly destroy one's chances for going to heaven. The truth of the matter is that one can quickly and easily discern the teachings and build an understanding of God's Word by studying one passage at a time, following the built-in rules of interpretation and without years of agonizing examination of the entire Bible and thereby determine what God is saying in His Word. Most passages in the Bible declare a clear message of what they mean by themselves or at times with the use of a few parallel passages. Further investigation of parallel passages often provides the same message without additional information to be gleaned for the understanding of the original passage; or those parallel passages may provide more information on the same or related subjects, but that information came from those parallel passages and offers no further help in the interpretation of the original passage. Furthermore, when properly analyzed in detail in accordance with the 'normative' method, there simply are no contradictory passages anywhere in God's Word, especially verses which contradict what is taught in Ephesians chapters one & two and John chapter 3.
3) THE WORD OF GOD IS TO BE INTERPRETED BY ITS DIVINELY INSPIRED MESSAGE AND NOT BY HOW IT IS APPLIED
God's Word is to be interpreted by the message as designed & inspired by God. This interpretation is to be a direct result of how the original words exegetically, grammatically and contextually fit together in a normative sense = the original and normatively expected word meanings, figures of speech, background of the times, etc. all contributing to what that exclusive interpretation is as opposed to how it may or may not be applied.
Furthermore, in the same way that a tool can be applied to any number of uses - some effective, some not and some a patent misuse of the tool, so when one applies truths from the Word of God to one's life, one verifies what that truth can and cannot do without changing the basic truth itself, i.e, its basic interpretation.
This is contrary to objectors who claim that there is no end to what a particular passage in the Bible teaches because each individual applies such truths to himself in a unique way, thus drawing the false conclusion that such unique applications add to the meaning of that truth in the Bible. However, when the passage is carefully examined one finds that this is not the case: any scriptural application simply verifies what the passage already teaches; and any unscriptural application contradicts what that passage teaches and must be rejected and not applied at all!
B) INDUCTIVE RATHER THAN DEDUCTIVE REASONING IS REQUIRED
Furthermore in order for Scripture to be properly interpreted and understood, inductive rather than deductive reasoning must prevail. Another way to express the point that inductive reasoning must prevail is to say 'Let the words say what they mean'. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam Co, Springfield, Ma, 1980, pp. 583 & 293 defines inductive and deductive as follows:
1) Deductive Reasoning Defined:
'capable of being deduced from [preconceived, external] premises...'
'deduce...to infer from a [preconceived] general principle..'
'inference...the act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow from that of the former.'
In other words, to employ a deductive procedure on Scripture is to approach a passage from an external point of view - with a preconceived notion as to what it should say and then to find evidence in that passage which verifies one's preconception.
2) Inductive Reasoning Defined:
'of, relating to, or employing mathematical or logical induction... reasoning...'
'induction..the act, process, or result or an instance of reasoning from a part to a whole, from particulars to generals or from the individual to the universal'
In other words, to employ an inductive procedure on Scripture is to use an internal approach and study what the words and grammar of the sentences actually add up to say, regardless of what one might understand beforehand.
3) A Deductive Approach to God's Word Means Presupposition & Often Bad Interpretation
To approach God's Word from the first mentioned standpoint of deductive reasoning is to maintain that what you already believe is true and then to look for support in the passage one is examining. This often results in selecting some parts of the passage to support one's presupposition, skipping over other parts that contradict it, redefining terms that conflict with the way Scripture defines them, and ignoring the context.
Critics often maintain that what the Bible says cannot truly be ascertained by finite fallible men. They point to supposed centuries of universal disagreement. And they further support their position by emphasizing the imprecision and ever changing nature of languages, especially over thousands of years. This is a classic example of deductive reasoning: deciding ahead of time that nothing absolutely true can be ascertained from Scripture in the light of ages of falsely presupposed universal controversy supported by the equally false presupposition that the meaning of what people wrote in the past cannot ever be accurately determined, even if God had something to do with it.
In defense of the Bible, one might ask if any of these critics bothered to faithfully and inductively follow the Bible's own built-in rules of interpretation. And then one might ask the critics if they are not presumptuous in concluding that no one has yet ascertained what the Bible teaches when facts indicate otherwise.
4) On The Other Hand, Approaching God's Word Inductively Means Taking A Risk
On the other hand it is often frightening for one to approach God's Word using the inductive way, i.e., putting all of one's understanding of what the Bible says 'on the back burner' and simply trusting in what the words actually say in each passage that is examined. Therefore, every time one studies God's Word, one is putting one's entire belief system to the test, letting the individual words, phrases and passages condemn or verify that belief system.
5) An Accurate Interpretation By And Large Must Be Done By internal Evidence, Not External
Accurate interpretation by and large must be done by internal evidence from the passage itself within its own context - established via a verse by verse examination; and not by any kind evidence from a corroborating passage - which is external. External evidence serves to corroborate what has already been determined by internal evidence of the passage at hand. There are some passages where one must go back to the original language to determine what it is specifically saying internally. This is so because the passage has been incorrectly or inadequately translated and offers more than one or no clear possibility of interpretation. The solution to these difficult passages is as follows:
1) Offer no interpretation if one has no resources to go back to the original language. This is not disastrous because the bible repeats itself all the time relative to the doctrines of the faith. So missing a doctrinal message in one passage, one can be assured will be clearly available elsewhere.
2) Offer a possibility or possibilities of interpretation and refer to other passages that corroborate each possibility based on internal observation of the corroborating passage.
Point number 2 is dangerous at best because it relies on external evidence from elsewhere rather than internal evidence from the original passage itself and its own context. Hence one must clearly stipulate that the passage at hand is not fully understood and then stipulate a possibility from another passage which appears to be telling the same message. This kind of honesty and proper exegesis is rarely done, however.
Point number 2 is further dangerous because it teaches one to go elsewhere to determine what a passage says often with the assumption that the ‘elsewhere’ passage is interpreted correctly, i.e., internally via the normative rules of language, context and logic. But such is rarely the case. Most interpreters use the external snippet, disregard the context, method to corroborate falsely deduced, human viewpoint interpretations of passages that are located elsewhere.
II) THE H.I.C.E.E. RULES OF INTERPRETATION
The Bible provides - from within - its own rules on how it is to be interpreted. A convenient way to remember these rules is to call them the H.I.C.E.E. rules of interpretation. The letters refer to the words
Hermeneutics, ('H"),
Isagogics, ("I"),
Categories, ("C")
Exegesis, ("E")
Etymology, ("E").
B) H.I.C.E.E EXPLAINED IN DETAIL
We begin with hermeneutics which is a Greek word which, relative to Scripture, means principles of interpretation which the Bible itself has established. Rule number one we can investigate:
a) LET THE WORDS OF SCRIPTURE SAY WHAT THEY NORMATIVELY MEAN
The most important principal of interpretation is: Let the words of Scripture say what they normatively mean, i.e., let the words convey their original normative meaning at the time that they were written.
Recall anytime man has an input into something, there is the inevitable contamination by the intrinsic sin nature which results in conflict and untruth:
(v. 21) "So I [the Apostle Paul and all believers from the contextual purpose of the book of Romans] find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me.
(v. 22) For in my inner being I delight in God's law;
[So Paul here must be born again having an inner man, (Eph 3:16)]
(v. 23) but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members.
(v. 24) Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?
(v. 25) Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin."
And this sin nature is easily influenced by the Devil and the world:
(v. 1) "And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,
(v. 2) in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, [the Devil, (Eph 6:12)] of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience."
"And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect."
"Do not love the world, nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him."
So the interpretation of Scripture outside of the structure of normative language which God has established through His inspired writers is no exception to being manipulated by the sin nature, the Devil and the world. Such subjective methods inevitably lead to error and the consequent misleading of others. Unsubstantiated symbollism, spiritualizing where literal is intended, arriving at multiple contradictory interpretations for the same passage, (even when the normative meaning on the same subject is clearly stated in more than one passage), are prime examples of approaches which produce error and sin.
In general, misinterpretation occurs because the sin nature creates in man an unwillingness to be structured into truths from the Bible. Even truths about God which He made evident from creation are purposely suppressed:
(v. 18) "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
(v. 19) because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
(v. 20) For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."
Objectors to being restricted to normative language principles of interpretation suppress the leading of the Holy Spirit, violate the normative rule, and impose their own viewpoint on God's Word instead. They even attribute their own false opinions to God Himself. But if it violates the normative rule which evidences itself as God's only established method, then it cannot be of God. So Scripture must be approached in much the same way as a newspaper article - from beginning to end, using normative word meanings, context, who, what, why, where and when, etc, so as to determine what the author is actually saying under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, (2 Tim 3:16).
Just as individuals who communicate successfully today in American English by following rules of language and utilizing meanings which have been established by the very people of today who use that language, so the successful and accurate communication of each Book of the Bible is done in much the same way: by following the rules of language and utilizing meanings established for that original language by the very people using that language at the time the particular book of the Bible was written. These rules of language and word meanings have been carefully documented through the efforts of innumerable individuals in countless hours of study and research of thousands of documents written in the original languages at the various times that each particular book of the Bible was written.
So normative is herein defined relative to Scripture as the normally expected meaning of the original language as it was established by usage of the people of the time when each book of the Bible was written. Since God is sovereign, consider that His system by which His Word is to be interpreted has been sovereignly established by Him and will be maintained by Him, especially in view of how highly regarded God holds His Word:
"I will worship toward Your holy temple, and praise Your name for Your loving-kindness and for Your truth and faithfulness; for You have exalted above all else Your name and Your word, and You have magnified Your word above all Your name!" Since the normative meaning of the authors' words have been frozen in time, the Bible cannot be influenced to communicate error by the sin nature, the devil or the world when it is normatively interpreted.
3) A Perspective Of The Normative Rule As The Method By Which Men Are To Understand The Bible:
The Holy Spirit intructs us within the framework of the normative meanings and rules of language which one finds in Scripture.
In Matthew chapter 24, our Lord is explaining in detail the scene of His Second Coming. He draws upon Scripture and interprets it literally according to the normative meanings of the words. Here are several examples:
(v. 29) " [Jesus says]: 'But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken,
[Note that this is a literal interpretation of a number of passages, some of which follow:
(v. 9a) "Behold, the day of the LORD is coming,
[i.e., His Second Coming, the subject of our Lord's discourse in Mt 24]
(v. 10) For the stars of heaven and their constellations will not flash forth their light; The sun will be dark when it rises, And the moon will not shed its light."
(v. 13) "Therefore I shall make the heavens tremble, And the earth will be shaken from its place at the fury of the LORD of hosts in the day of His burning anger."
(v. 7) " 'And when I extingtuish you, I will cover the heavens, and darken their stars; I will cover the sun with a cloud, And the moon shall not give its light.
(v. 8) All the shining lights in the heavens. I will darken over you. And will set darkness on your land, Declares the Lord God.' "
"Before them the earth quakes, The heavens tremble, The sun and the moon grow dark, And the stars lose their brightness."
(v. 30) [Jesus said] and the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.
"In that day there will be great mourning in Jerusalem..."
"And behold, with the clouds of heaven, One like a Son of Man was coming..."
The following passage refers to Isaiah chapter 53 which has been subjected to innumerable false interpretations. Our Lord Himself, however, interprets it as referring to the only one about Whom it can be interpreted:
HIMSELF.
(v. 37) "[Jesus said] For I tell you, that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS' for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.' "
"Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors."
In the next passage, our Lord takes the commandments in Scripture in a literal and absolute way, disallowing the tradition of men to impose itself upon and vary the meaning of Moses' commandments to suit the situation. In other words, He takes the Word of God in the absolute and literal sense of the language as author Moses intended - the normative way:
(v. 6) ''' "And He [Jesus] said to them, 'Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me.
(v. 7) But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'
(v. 8) Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men."
(v. 9) He was also saying to them, "You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
(v. 10) For Moses said, 'honor your father and your mother' and 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death';
(v. 11) but you say, 'If a man says to his father or his mother, anything of mine you might have been helped by is Corban" (that is to say, given to God),'
(v. 12) "you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
(v. 13) thus invalidating the Word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that." '''
b) Following The Normative Rule Results In A Single, Perfect, Non-contradictory Interpretation
And God has indeed communicated His Word in a perfect manner utilizing normative rules of language. For whenever the normative rule is strictly adhered to, what results is a 'single line' of interpretation with no contradiction, no confusion and perfect consistency throughout every book of the bible! This is especially evident in the area of prophecy relative to prediction of future events. Therefore, all men are without excuse. Every man is provided by God with the capability to understand the Bible through the normative use of their native language. It is a matter of their will when they do not. It cannot be a lack of opportunity - even for those without the indwelling Holy Spirit. For all men are given the opportunity to be led unto salvation by God the Holy Spirit, (Jn 16:7-11; Ro 1:19), and thereafter be led into the ever increasing knowledge of God's Word, (Jn 14:26; 1 Jn 2:27; Eph 4:11-13).
The fact is that the Bible can be clearly understood. As a matter of fact, in order to determine the meaning of God's Word, one does not have to be an expert in the ancient languages of the Bible because there are many resources available from the teaching of pastors, teachers and fellow believers to very accurate and reliable translations to dictionaries, commentaries, grammar books, concordances, study lessons, etc., etc.; all of which will enable the diligent student of God's Word to discern the full meaning of the Bible in his daily walk with God.
So, rather than imposing one's own predetermined meaning on a particular word or phrase in Scripture; instead, one merely has to use the inductive approach and let God's Word tell you what it means - by using the built-in rules of interpretation with the aid of all of the sovereignly provided study helps.
So we are to use the normative meanings established by the people and the author who used that original language at the time the words were written - which by and large is a literal meaning or a figure of speech which has a predetermined literal meaning. Furthermore, when the built-in rules of interpretation are faithfully followed, what results is an interpretation which never finds contradiction, error or omission - no conflict, no error, no omission. This testifies to the authenticity and absolute reliability of the normative interpretative method. The many many prophecies that have been perfectly fulfilled to the last literal detail testify to this rule of taking the Bible literally.
So there is no mystery as to the meaning of God's Word, except in the minds of those who do not wish to accept what God is really saying. They often impose their own version of rules and meanings by which the Bible is to be interpreted in order to establish their own particular agenda, rather than to abide by the rules of those who actually used the language thousands of years ago. Keep in mind that it was God's sovereign choice to select particular fallible individuals using particular languages during particular times in order to communicate His Word to everyone - such languages carrying with them rules of interpretation and established meanings as a result of the people who used them at that time. And in spite of fallible authors, imperfect languages and the passing of ages of time, His Word comes shining through to the mind of the believer time after time. One would ask the inevitable question: If God had something to do with the Bible could He not have seen to it that its meaning would be attainable to the average individual?
Otherwise men could plead ignorance at God's Judgment Throne because they would not have been able to understand God's Word from some unexplained, unknown framework.
d) Otherwise God Would Have Conspired To Restrict The Knowledge Of His Word To Only A Chosen Few
For if God's Word is not to be interpreted utilizing normative rules of language which are reflected in their language instruction, common, ordinary, man-produced dictionaries, grammar books, etc., then it must be concluded that God has conspired to restrict the knowledge of salvation and the rest of His written revelation to a chosen few enlightened ones.
But God's Word would not contradict itself and provide some with the one true meaning and permit the rest of mankind to be deceived by a contradictory meaning because they only knew the normative way. This would therefore condemn the great majority of humanity to the Lake of Fire without a chance. For if normative language cannot be relied upon to communicate what God has to say in His Word, especially relative to eternal life, then the great mass of humanity which would not have a special revelation has no chance to accept or reject the truth. This would speak ill of a God of love, justice and righteousness Who is not willing that any should perish:
"The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise [of His Second Coming, (v. 2)], as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."
So there is no mystical set of rules or supernatural communications from heaven needed to understand God's Word. The words are plain and clear in their normative sense as God intended them to be to every individual who will ever be born.
Without a universally known, consistent and sovereignly structured system of interpretation, the result would be what happens today when the normative rule is not adhered to:
multiple contradictory interpretations reflecting untruth which create a lack of confidence in the validity of God's Word when individuals trust in such subjective methods of interpretation.
Furthermore, in answer to objectors who insist upon:
imposing their own rules and word meanings on the Bible or
promoting multiple interpretations on God's Word even to the extent of creating a maze of contradiction and confusion or imposing 'today's' viewpoint on the Bible because viewpoints of the past are supposed to be obsolete, (and individuals of every age maintain this false concept);
...in view of all of the aforementioned objector viewpoints...
consider that if any of this were true, then there would exist the impossibility for billions of people throughout history of truly understanding what God intended to communicate in the Bible because the words would then NOT convey their normative meanings as everyday people understood them. If the Bible is supposed to be interpreted in such ways as objectors maintain then the average individual of any historical period would not know for sure what the Bible had to say. What would be the purpose or value of such a communication? What kind of God would communicate His Word to mankind in such an indeterminate way - not giving ALL individuals a chance to fully understand it?
People tend to make up their own rules, not willing to be structured into God's established and sovereign order of communication of His Word. Keep in mind that IT IS HIS WORD AFTER ALL. So it is not surprising to find so many denominations and other religious organizations maintaining that their particular interpretation is the one true one. Nor is it surprising to find millions upon millions of individuals who insist that their own personal speculations or interpretations are just as valid as anyone else's. Some even maintain that their personal interpretation is the only acceptable one.
(v. 21) "For even though they [mankind who is inherently unrighteous, (v. 18-19; Ro 3:23)] knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
(v. 22) Professing to be wise, they became fools..."
Furthermore one could not be led by the Holy Spirit and at the same time violate the grammatical construction, context or normative word meanings of God's Word.
God is a God of order and consistency, not of confusion and contradiction:
"For God is not a God of confusion but of peace..."
So any confusion, contradictory interpretations included, could not be of God. Subjective methods of interpretation will inevitably differ from and add private interpretations to the objective normative method and thereby contradict it, causing error and confusion - a result which violates God's clear command in His Word:
(v. 18) "I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book;
(v. 19) and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book." [Cp. 2 Pet 1:20-21]:
(v. 20) But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
(v. 21) for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."
So any interpretation of the Bible which violates the normative rule could not be what God intended to communicate.
Following the normative rule results in a perfect interpretation of God's Word every time reflecting the inerrancy of God's inspired Word. This is especially evident with 100% accuracy in prophecy passages and 100% absence of contradictions. A feat no other method or book can claim. So it is self-evident that it is the one and only true method of interpretation.
So the Bible is a work of 66 books extending over a period of hundreds of years by approximately 40 fallible men, utilizing normative fallible languages, providing an absolutely reliable, inerrant, perfectly harmonious communication from God Himself, something only God could accomplish.
And we can have confidence in the reliable translations that we have today because the words portray an accurate reflection of what the original authors intended in the original languages.
And in order to perfect and refine the meaning gleaned from these reliable translations we can frequently refer to the various study helps such as commentaries, lexicons, concordances, footnotes, cross references, dictionaries, etc. As one earnestly studies the Bible it becomes quickly evident that God communicated His Word in specific languages in specific times so that those meanings could be frozen in time and then translated accordingly into the languages of the world. Otherwise one could impose what he wished upon God's Word due to the ever changing nature of languages. So a particular word used in a particular time in God's Word in a particular context will only have one meaning and not be subject to change as languages change. Furthermore, the reliable translations are accurate. They reflect what the original authors wrote down in the original language. But one must keep an eye on the original languages since translations are not perfect because none of the translated languages perfectly coincides with any of the original languages. A good English translation, for example, is by and large all that is required to determine what a passage is saying. But it must be done by internal evidence from the passage itself within its own context and not by any kind evidence from a corroborating passage - which is external. External evidence only serves to corroborate what has already been determined by internal evidence of the passage at hand. I said a good English translation by and large because there are some passages where one must go back to the original language to determine what it is specifically saying internally. This is so because the passage has been incorrectly or inadequately translated and offers more than one or no clear possibility of interpretation.
The solution to these difficult passages is as follows:
1) Offer no interpretation if one has no resources to go back to the original language. This is not disastrous because the bible repeats itself all the time relative to the doctrines of the faith. So missing a doctrinal message in one passage, one can be assured will be clearly available elsewhere.
2) Offer a possibility or possibilities of interpretation and refer to other passages that corroborate each possibility based on internal observation of the corroborating passage. This is dangerous at best because it relies on external evidence from elsewhere rather than internal evidence from the original passage itself and its own context. Hence one must clearly stipulate that the passage at hand is not fully understood but here is a possibility from another passage which appears to be telling the same message. This kind of honesty and proper exegesis is rarely done. It is further dangerous because it teaches one to go elsewhere to determine what a passage says and assumes that the ‘elsewhere’ passage is interpreted correctly, i.e., internally via the normative rules of language, context and logic. This is rarely the case. Most interpreters use the external snippet out of context method to corroborate falsely arrived at human imposed points of view on passages that are located elsewhere.
Following this is a list of 28 of the hundreds of perfectly fulfilled prophecies in Scripture - predications which were made hundreds of years before the event occurred and which came to pass in every single detail that was foretold, testifying to the authenticity and absolute reliability of the normative interpretative method:
The Messiah is to be:
1) born of a virgin:
Isa 7:14 [prophecy]
Mt 1:18, 24, 25; Lk 1:26-35. [fulfillment]
2) born of the seed of a woman, i.e., not involving a man indicating a supernatural birth: Gen 3:15 [prophecy]
Mt 1:18 [fulfillment]
3) coming through the descendants of Abraham:
Gen 12:1-3; 22:18 [prophecy]
Mt 1:1; Gal 3:16. [fulfillment]
4) from the family line of David:
Jer 23:5-6; II Sam 7:12-16 [prophecy]
Mt 1:1; Acts 2:29-31
[fulfillment]
5) of the Tribe of Judah:
Gen 49:10; Mi 5:2 [prophecy]
Mt 1:1-2 [fulfillment]
6) in the family line of Jesse:
Isa 11:1,10 [prophecy]
Mt 1:1 [fulfillment]
7) born in Bethlehem Ephrathah:
Micah 5:2 [prophecy]
Mt 2:1-6; Lk 2:4-7; Jn 7:42.
[fulfillment]
8) called out of Egypt:
Hos 11:1 [prophecy]
Mt 2:14-15 [fulfillment]
9) a Prophet like Moses:
Dt 18:18-19 [prophecy]
Mt 21:11; Acts 3:19-26;
Jn 4:19; 6:14; 7:40-41. [fulfillment]
10) King:
Zech 9:9, Num 24:17 [prophecy]
Mt 27:37; 21:5; Jn 18:33-38. [fulfillment] [+ future also]
11) sending forth His messenger to "...clear the way before Me...":
Isa 40:3 [prophecy]
Mt 3:1-3; 11:7, 9-10. [fulfillment]
12) performing miracles:
Isa 35:5-6; 61:1-3 [prophecy]
Mt 9:35; 11:3-6.
[fulfillment]
13) a Teacher of miracles:
Ps 78:2 [prophecy]
Mt 13:3, 34-35 [fulfillment]
14) hated without cause:
Ps 69:4 [prophecy]
Jn 15:25 [fulfillment]
15) rejected by His own people:
Isa 53:3, Ps 118:22 [prophecy]
Jn 1:11, 5:43; 7:5; I Pet 2:6-8 [fulfillment]
16) entering Jerusalem on a donkey:
Zech 9:9 [prophecy]
Mt 21:6-11 [fulfillment]
17) betrayed by a friend:
Ps 41:9 [prophecy] Mt 26:47-50 [fulfillment]
18) betrayed for thirty pieces of silver:
Zech 11:12 [prophecy]
Mt 26:14-15 [fulfillment]
19) forsaken by His disciples:
Zech 13:7 [prophecy] Mk 14:27, 50 [fulfillment]
20) not defending Himself before His accusers:
Isa 53:7 [prophecy] Mt 27:12 [fulfillment]
21) physically beaten and spit upon:
Isa 50:6 [prophecy] Mt 26:67-68 [fulfillment]
22) crucified:
Ps 22:16-17; Zech 12:10 [prophecy]
Mt 27:29-44 [fulfillment]
23) crucified exactly 483 years after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem - to the day!:
Dan 9:25-26 [prophecy] Mt 21:1-11 [fulfillment]
24) forsaken by God the Father and God the Holy Spirit:
Ps 22:1a [prophecy] Mt 27:46 [fulfillment]
25) buried in a rich man's tomb:
Isa 53:9 [prophecy] Mt 27:57, 59-60 [fulfillment]
26) executed within a short time before the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple: Dan 9:26a; Gen 49:10 [prophecy] Secular history: 70 A.D. [fulfillment]
27) raised from the dead:
Ps 16:10, Isa 53:10-12;
Zech 12:10
[prophecy]
Acts 2:31; 13:33-37
Mt 28:5-6; Mk 16:6.
[fulfillment]
28) the God-man:
Isa 9:6 [prophecy]
Lk 1:31-33 [fulfillment]
ALL PASSAGES IN SCRIPTURE ARE INSPIRED BY GOD AND WORTHY FOR INSTRUCTION
One of the key principles of interpreting Scripture which we have already investigated is that all passages in Scripture are inspired by God and worthy for instruction - not just a select few, (2 Tim 3:16).
Since all passages are worthy for instruction and perfectly inspired by God unto righteousness then there are no contradictions in God's Word and the truths that are relayed in each passage are irrefutable. They are therefore not ever contradicted, modified or added to elsewhere in Scripture or outside of Scripture.
Objectors to this principle state that one cannot just take a particular passage to teach some Biblical truth such as John 3:1-18 which teaches faith alone in Christ alone unto eternal life. They state, for example, that there are other passages throughout the Bible that teach on salvation and add to what John 3:1-18 says, (creating the inference that the passage in John chapter 3 has an error of omission). They, for example, add more conditions than what John 3:1-18 states that an individual must meet in order to be saved. But this is an approach to Scripture, if valid, which would take more than a lifetime of careful consideration and study to arrive at any kind of determination. And if this approach is true, then John 3:1-18 is wrong by leaving important information out - God is wrong by allowing His Word to be so indeterminate - the Bible is untrustworthy and no one can truly know what Scripture teaches on any subject.
The truth of the matter, however, is that one can easily and quickly discern the teachings of God's Word by studying one passage at a time, following the built-in rules of interpretation and without years of agonizing examination of the entire Bible. Furthermore, when properly analyzed in detail, there simply are NO contradictory passages anywhere in God's Word, especially verses which contradict what is taught in John 3:1-18.
This leads to a corollary principle:
IF IT IS THE TRUTH HERE THEN IT IS THE TRUTH EVERYWHERE
If a truth in one passage of Scripture is taught then according to the doctrine of inerrancy one may then say, 'If it is the truth here then it is the truth everywhere'
For example:
"For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life."
John 3:16 says in plain language that God loved the world, (mankind), so much that He saw to it that His one and only Son was given to die and thereby in death suffer the penalty for the sins of the whole world, (1 Jn 2:2).....
and God plainly says in this passage that whosoever believes in His Son - this belief being a trust that God will make provision for one's eternal life exclusively and solely through His Son - having paid this penalty for their own particular sins - will then not perish but have eternal life with Him in heaven. Notice that the tense of the verb "have" is not in the future indicating a promise to come but it is in the present which says that at the point of believing the believer immediately - in the present - possesses eternal life forever, never to lose it no matter what. This well quoted verse in John chapter 3 is a complete 'if-then' statement that presents a complete message about how to go to heaven: believe alone in Jesus Christ alone and you immediately begin to have eternal life forever never to lose it. If this is the truth as stated in Jn 3:16 then it is the truth everywhere in Scripture.
SCRIPTURE DOES NOT CONTRADICT ITSELF
One of the most significant of these rules of interpretation which we have already investigated is that Scripture is without error and therefore does not contradict itself, (Jn 10:35; Ps 19:7-9; 2 Tim 3:16; Mt 5:17-18; 24:35; 2 Pet 1:20-21). Since Scripture testifies that it is without error, then another rule which follows is:
LET THE CLEAR PASSAGES IN SCRIPTURE DICTATE WHICH DIRECTION THE DIFFICULT PASSAGES SHOULD TAKE
Difficult passages often have several but conflicting interpretations, only one of which can be the correct one, the others to be ruled out by carefully utilizing the built-in rules of interpretation. So it is vital to the understanding of God's Word that one not derive an interpretation of a difficult passage which directly contradicts the interpretation of a clear passage.
For example consider the following phrase:
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved...."
This phrase when considered outside of the context has four possible interpretations at first glance: salvation by faith only, or by baptism only, or by faith or baptism or by faith + baptism be directed toward the one true interpretation by clear passages on salvation..............................
Dave Hunt comments on this verse, ('The Berean Call', Mar 1995 issue):
[This verse is saying that] "All who believe the gospel are saved, so of course all who believe and are baptized are saved; but that does not say that baptism saves or that it is essential for salvation. Scores of verses declare, with no mention of baptism, that salvation comes by believing the gospel:
'[I]t pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.' (1 Cor 1:21; see also Jn 3:16, 18, 36, 5:24; Acts 10:43, 13:38-39, 16:34; Rom 1:16, 3:28, 4:24, 5:1; 1 Cor 15:1-5; Eph 2:8, etc.). Not one verse, however, says that baptism saves.
Numerous verses declare that whosoever does not believe is lost, but not one verse declares that whosoever is not baptized is lost. Surely the Bible would make it clear that believing in Christ without being baptized cannot save if that were the case, yet it never says so! Instead, we have examples of those who believed and were saved without being baptized, such as the thief on the cross and the Old Testament saints (Enoch, Abraham, Joseph, Daniel, et al.) to whom Christian baptism was unknown..." [Cp Hebrews chapter 11].
Therefore let this phrase in Mark be directed toward the one true interpretation of the four possible ones by the interpretation of a clear passage such as the one which follows:
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this [being saved, i.e., salvation] not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast."
This very clear passage in Ephesians prohibits the contribution of any kind of human effort toward one's salvation which includes water baptism. So Mark 16:16 teaches that salvation is by faith alone. The water baptism which one later goes through then illustrates to mankind the condition of already having been saved by faith alone in Christ alone as Mark 16:16a indicates when correctly interpreted. Note that this is verified in the second half of the verse in Mark which most people fail to take into consideration. Thus we indicate another vital rule in interpreting Scripture -
TAKE THE ENTIRE PASSAGE INTO CONSIDERATION
Much damage is done to the communication of God's Word by simply not taking the entire passage into consideration. [Mk 16:16a]:
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved..."
This part of Mark 16:16 seems to say that one must express one's belief in Christ and then be water baptized in order to be saved. However, the rest of the verse sheds more light on what is being said:
"but whoever does not believe will be condemned."
Mk 16:16b indicates that the sole condition for being condemned is disbelieving in the gospel of salvation. Nothing is mentioned about being condemned for not being water baptized. Therefore, Mk 16:16b makes a strong argument for the fact that water baptism is NOT a requirement for salvation. But it is a requirement for believers in order to be obedient faithful Christians.
Compare a passage which is often misinterpreted because most individuals consider only a few verses, out of context, without comparison to parallel passages and thereby do not Rule out the nonessential:
Consider these passages of Scripture in light of the what was just stated:
" 'He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.' "
Notice that this passage indicates that if one believes and is water baptized one shall be saved. From the first half of verse 16, one can conclude that salvation is gained in one or more of three ways: either by faith alone, water baptism alone or faith plus water baptism. The second half of verse 16 strongly points toward faith alone in Christ alone and it definitely states that faith alone in Christ alone is at least one way to heaven and probably the only way. Verse 16b indicates that salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone because it states that the only way to condemnation is to never believe - to disbelieve. There is no mention that never being water baptized will result in condemnation. This would be a serious omission if water baptism were indeed essential to salvation. This verse establishes that the only basis for condemnation is unbelief.
The subject of Christian water baptism is a highly controversial one. Many insist that it is a requirement for being saved.
Dave Hunt states, ('THE BEREAN CALL' periodical, Bend, Oregon, March 1995 issue):
"Then what about Mark 16:16: 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved'? All who believe the gospel are saved, so of course all who believe and are baptized are saved; but that does not say that baptism saves or that it is essential for salvation. Scores of verses declare, with no mention of baptism, that salvation comes by believing the gospel: '[I]t pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.' (1 Cor 1:21; see also Jn 3:16, 18, 36, 5:24; Acts 10:43, 13:38-39, 16:341; Rom 1:16, 3:28, 4:24, 5:1; 1 cor 15:1-5; Eph 2:8, etc.). Not one verse, however, says that baptism saves.
Numerous verses declare that whosoever does not believe is lost, but not one verse declares that whosoever is not baptized is lost. Surely the Bible would make it clear that believing in Christ without being baptized cannot save if that were the case, yet it never says so! Instead, we have examples of those who believed and were saved without being baptized, such as the thief on the cross and the Old Testament saints (Enoch, Abraham, Joseph, Daniel, et al.) to whom Christian baptism was unknown... [Ref Hebrews chapter 11].
"For this is the will of My Father, that every one who beholds the Son, and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."
If one concludes that water baptism, (Mk 16:16) is an essential part of salvation, by extraction of a verse out of context then we must use the same extraction process in Jn 6:40, above, and conclude that only those living at the time of Christ, and that only those who actually saw Him can be saved.
Consider Mk 1:4 which, when taken out of context appears to teach that forgiveness of sins comes only through John the Baptist's water baptism - which was strictly for Jews, leaving the Gentile world totally condemned without a chance for salvation:
"John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins."
One might conclude that salvation - forgiveness of sins - comes through the water baptism of repentance of John the Baptism.
Or that only those who believed that the covenant of Abraham would be fulfilled within them - would be credited with righteousness - in order to be saved:
(v. 4) "Then behold, the word of the Lord came to him, saying, 'This man will not be your heir; but One shall come forth from your own body, He shall be you Heir.'
(v. 5 ) And He [God] took him outside and said, 'Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.' And He said to him, 'So shall your descendants be.'
(v. 6) Then he [Abraham] believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness."
One might take verse 6 out of context and conclude that salvation was through faith in God's plan through Abraham and only through Abraham. If this true then descendants of Abraham will therefore be the only ones who are eligible for salvation. Most Jews believe this way.
One might even falsely conclude that Our Lord supported the conclusion on the previous page when he said the following:
(v. 5) "These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them, saying, 'Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; [One might conclude here that salvation was exclusively for the Jews]
(v. 6) but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
(v. 7) And as you go, preach, saying, '''The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'''
(v. 32) Every one therefore who shall confess Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father Who is in heaven.' "
So by the method one uses in falsely interpreting Romans 10:9-10 in order to conclude that one must confess that Jesus Christ is Lord in order to be saved one must also conclude that one must be a Jew who saw the Lord Jesus Christ as a Man 2000 years ago, (Jn 6:40), and one must have been water baptized by John the Baptist himself, (Mk 1:4), and have been a believer in the Abrahamic covenant as well as a descendant of Abraham, (Gen 15:6), etc. etc. This is however only the beginning. There are dozens of passages which, one might conclude, add even more to what must be done in order to be saved. The truth is, however a different matter. Paul answered it best when the frightened jailkeeper in Philippi asked him:
"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?' "
[And Paul's simple and complete answer was]:
" 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved....;' "
So it is belief and belief alone in Christ alone as Savior that is the way to heaven - nothing else can be added. If anything else was required, then Paul was lying to the frightened jailer. Anything else such as confession of Jesus as Lord, water baptism, Lord's Supper, leading a repentant lifestyle etc. etc. may immediately accompany a person's first time expression of faith in Christ; yet these spiritually important things in a believer's life also contribute nothing toward that believer's salvation, (Eph 2:8-9).
All of the passages in Scripture relative to salvation might be likened to following a recipe. Many recipes contain nonessential instructions such as suggesting a number of ways to serve the results. Once a recipe has been followed and a successful outcome is obtained, further action such as serving it on a dish in some special way merely demonstrates what has already occurred. In like manner, once salvation has occurred by a single moment of trusting alone in Christ alone as Savior, (Jn 3:16, Eph 2:8-9), actions such as public confession, water baptism, divine good works, etc. serve to demonstrate to man what has already occurred. So the water baptism or the confession that Jesus Christ is Lord demonstrates the successful results of the faith which is exercised in Christ as Savior such faith resulting in salvation even before there is the slightest confession or any other deed.
CONSIDER ALL THE POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS AND RULE OUT THE FALSE ONES
The error that is taking place when false interpretations are arrived at is often that the false interpretation is the only interpretation that is considered for a particular passage.
So a corollary of ruling out the nonessential is:
Consider all of the possible interpretations
There are many passages which have more than one possible interpretation - the one correct interpretation and the rest which are not correct. One must honestly list all of the possible interpretations of the passage and then, by the H.I.C.E.E. method of interpretation which the Bible demands be utilized, the one correct interpretation ruled in while all the other false interpretations ruled out. For example, in Philippians 2:6 the word "robbery" is often misinterpreted because the correct interpretation is never considered:
"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
"robbery" = "harpagmon" = refers here to a treasure which is to be held on to. It is in a noun form which can have one of two basic meanings: An active meaning = robbery in the sense of a person taking something that doesn't belong to him and... a passive meaning = robbery in the sense of a prize or a treasure which one rightfully possesses but which is robbed from him.
The passive meaning must apply here because the first part of verse 6 states that Jesus Christ is Almighty God. So our Lord, Who is God, could not rob something from Himself. And God, being Who He is, cannot give up being Himself. He is eternal, (Ps 90:2; Isa 9:6), and immutable, (Mal 3:6). But He can sovereignly choose to humble Himself and not exercise His attributes as God:
i cont.) [Phil 2:6-7 AMPLIFIED cont.]:
(v. 6) "...Who [Christ] although He [continually] subsisted in the [internal and external] form of God, did not think this equality with God [with respect to expressing His attributes as God] was a thing to be eagerly grasped [held onto] or retained;
(v. 7) But stripped Himself [of all of His privileges and rightful dignity to express Himself as God] so as to assume the guise of a servant, in that He became like men and was born a human being."
So Jesus Christ voluntarily dispossessed Himself for the moment of His privileges and rightful dignity to express Himself as God. This is what the verse is saying: that He did not consider this to be robbery. He did this voluntary out of an infinitely great love for man. Objectors to the truth of the diety of Christ do not consider the passive meaning as a possibility even though the context, grammar and many other passages demand it! Thus they attempt to prove by these omissions that Jesus Christ is not equal to God nor is He God at all. Phil 2:6a however indicates that in eternity past our Lord always subsisted - existed - as God. So Jesus Christ would not be in an active position of robbing something He already had - that of being God. Rather, the passive meaning of "harpagmon" applies: that of having the expression of His Diety taken away, and not the essence since God is immutable and cannot lose His essence in any way. Compare Malachi 3:6.
So Jesus is spoken of as NOT thinking it robbery to not express the glory which is His, being God; and instead becoming a Man to die for the sins of the whole world.
CONTEXT: WHO, WHAT, WHY, WHERE, WHEN, HOW, TO WHOM DOES IT APPLY
Another principle of interpretation which is so often taught in journalism classes and emphasized in newspaper reporting is to determine who, what, why, where, when, how & to whom does it apply. Once these questions have been thoroughly answered, then one can begin to properly interpret the passage and determine to whom the passage applies. Another way of expressing this rule is to state the three most important terms to keep in mind when interpreting God's Word:
1) CONTEXT 2) CONTEXT 3) CONTEXT
For example, all the passages which refer to tithing are set in the context of a required tax payment in the form of animals and crops or a monetary substitute thereof which applies to Jews under the Mosaic Law system for the purpose of the support of the
Temple and the priesthoods of Levi and Aaron. (Compare: Lev 27:30-32; Nu 18:21, 24, 26, 28; Dt 12:16, 7, 11; 14:23-25, 28; 26:12; 2 Ch 31:5-6, 12; Ne 10:37-38; 12:44; 13:5, 12; Am 4:4; Mal 3:8, 10). Application cannot be made to the life of a Christian relative to tithing. Free and joyful giving out of abundance received rather than out of the firstfruits of one's labors is another matter which does apply to Christians, (2 Cor chapters 8 & 9).
Another example of taking a well known passage out of context is to apply the following verse to the way God operates throughout the ages:
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever."
It is often said of this verse that since Jesus performed miracles 2000 years ago He will continue to heal people today in the same way since He is the same yesterday, today and forever. Recall, however, that our Lord has operated in a number of different ways throughout the ages from the days of Adam and Eve onward through history. And recall that throughout the history of mankind, miracles came in certain periods of time - those periods being very short, few and far between: i.e., miracles are rare. So this passage is not teaching that the Lord operates in the same identical way throughout history. The previous verses confirm this:
(v. 5) "Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, 'Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.'[Dt 31:6]
[The context of our Lord's almighty power as God and His absolute sovereignty in a believer's life is established here. Therefore, as quoted above, a Christian can have absolute confidence in God's working in his life at all times] (v. 6) So we say with confidence,
'The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid.
What can man do to me?
(v. 7) Remember your leaders, who spoke the Word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.
(v. 8) Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."
So the context of verse 8 therefore does not teach that our Lord operates the same identical way throughout the ages. On the other hand it does teach of His eternality and consequent infinite capacity as God to continue to be the once for all time sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, (chapter 10); thus assuring believers of their salvation unto eternal life and of the Lord's unfailing sovereignty in their lives especially over the schemes of evil men, (v. 6).
If this passage were to say that our Lord operates in men's lives the same yesterday, today and tomorrow then we are all to operate under the same principles given to Adam and Eve: not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil - and under the temple and animal sacrifice system of the Law of Moses.
SIMILARITY DOES NOT PROVE IDENTITY
A corollary of the context * context * context rule is, similarity does not prove identity.
Rapture vs The Second Coming: The Rapture of the Church is not the same event as the Lord's Second Coming
For example, objectors claim that the Rapture of the Church and our Lord's Second Coming are part of the same event. One of their proofs is that both the Rapture and the Second Coming have a 'last trumpet' in them which announces each occurrence:
(v. 30) "and then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.
(v. 31) And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet [sound] and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one of the heavens to the other."
Compare this to three passages dealing with the Rapture:
(v. 1) "Do not let your hearts be troubled.
(v. 2) In My Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you.
[Our Lord is going to prepare a place for us in heaven where the Lord went on His ascension - not to prepare a place on the earth]
(v. 3) And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with Me that you also may be where I am.
(v. 4) You know the way to the place where I am going."
[So our Lord will come back and take His own back with Him to heaven and this coming of our Lord will also be announced by trumpets]:
(v. 51) "Behold, I tell you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
(v. 52) in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed."
[Objectors point to the phrase "last trumpet" here and demand that it be interpreted as the same trumpet in Mt 24:30-31 because this trumpet in Matthew comes after the 7 trumpets in Rev 8-11. They demand that there be no trumpets after this "last trumpet" in 1 Cor 15, otherwise they say it wouldn't be a last trumpet at all. Thus they ignore the dissimilarities between the Second Coming and the Rapture and they overlook the obvious interpretation of 1 Cor 15:51-52: That 'the last trumpet" in 1 Cor 15:52 is the last in a series, not the last heard from heaven on earth to end the age.
A conductor might tell his orchestra, for example, 'Lower the volume of the last trumpet call' referring to a particular musical piece. This would not be saying that this was the last time the trumpets would play that evening; only the last for that piece of music. Likewise, "the last trumpet" in 1 Cor 15 is the last in a series to announce the rapture.
(v. 16) "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first.
(v. 17) Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord."
There are other trumpets in Scripture which also announce occurrences which are unrelated to one another with respect to not being part of the same event, (cp Isa 27:13; Ez 33:5; Rev 8:7-8, 10, 12, 9:1, 13; 10:7).
The same kind of argument is made by objectors when referring to the term Second Coming. Objectors ask how the rapture could not be part of the Second Coming otherwise, in their minds, the Second Coming would be the Third Coming. They likewise ignore the differences between the two events. The obvious interpretation is that the Second Coming refers to our Lord's Second Coming to set down on the earth in order to bring in His Millennial Kingdom. During the rapture, our Lord does not set down on the earth, so it would not qualify as the Second Coming. Nor is He at that time purposing to bring about His Millennial rule as He did in the First Coming and will accomplish in His Second Coming. Incidentally, there were a number of comings to the earth of our Lord in Old Testament times as the Angel of the Lord which would not apply as the First or the Second Coming either, (cp. I Cor 10:1-4). Finally, comparison between the Rapture and the Lord's Second Coming follows, which shows that the two are in fact two separate events in the Day, (i.e., the end time events of), the Lord:
Let us review systematically the differences between the Rapture and the Second Coming. John Walvoord summarizes the differences between the translation (the rapture) and the Second Coming on pages 101-103 of "The Rapture Question":
"The preceding discussion has offered many inherent contrasts between the translation of the church and the second coming of Christ to establish the millennial kingdom. These contrasts are such as to make any harmony of these two events an impossibility. Those who attempt it must resort to wholesale spiritualization of details that clash and avoidance of striking differences in general character. These contrasts can be stated by comparison of details of the translation designated (a), and details of the second coming designated as (b).
(a) At the time of the translation, the saints will meet the Lord in the air...
[The Mount of Olives will remain unchanged. I Thes 4:13-18]
(b) At the time of the second coming, Christ will return to the Mount of Olives which on that occasion will undergo a great transformation, a valley being formed to the east of Jerusalem where the Mount of Olives was formerly located [Zech 14:1-15; Mt 25:31-46; Rev 19:11-21].
(a) At the coming of Christ for the church, the living saints are translated...
[and given immortal bodies. I Cor 15:35-54; I Thes 4:13-18]
(b) At the coming of Christ to establish His kingdom, there is no translation whatever.
[nor transformation into immortal bodies]
(a) At the translation of the church, Christ returns with the saints to heaven.
[i.e., believers go from earth to heaven. Jn 14:2-3]
(b) At the second coming, Christ remains on the earth and reigns as King.
[i.e., believers of the Church age and previous ages go from heaven to earth. Rev 19:11-21]
(a) At the time of the translation, the earth is not judged and sin continues.
[Church age believers will be judged in heaven relative to their divine good work production for rewards in heaven. II Cor 5:10; I Cor 3:11-15]
(b) At the time of the second coming, sin is judged and righteousness fills the earth.
(a) The translation is before the day of wrath from which the church is promised deliverance...
[This principle is illustrated in Scripture in such historic cases as the deliverance of Lot from Sodom, Noah and his family from the flood by the ark and Rahab at Jericho from the doomed city.
In 2 Thes 2:3, the phrase 'falling away' referring to what must happen before the 'Man of Sin' is revealed, (and therefore before the Tribulation), can be more accurately translated 'the departing away' (of the saints in the rapture) since the Greek word 'aphistemi' is used that way in the New Testament 11 out of 15 times.
Finally, there is no evidence in passages on the Tribulation which describe the Church Age saint as being present on the earth at that time. Rather, the purpose of the Tribulation is expressly and repeatedly stated as purging and judging Israel and punishing and destroying Gentile power - leaving no reason for the Church Age saints to be present. (Dt 4:29-30; Jer 30:4-11; Dan 9:24-27; 12:1; Mt 24:15-31; Rev 4-19; I Thes 1:9-10; 5:9; Luke 21:36; Rev 3:10; Rom 5:9; 2 Peter 2:6-9]
(b) The second coming follows the great tribulation and outpoured judgment and brings them to climax and culmination in the establishment of the millennial kingdom. [Dt 4:29-30; Jer 30:4-11; Dan 9:24-27; 12:1; Mt 24:15-31; Rev 4-19; I Thes 1:9-10; 5:9; Luke 21:36; Rev 3:10; Rom 5:9; 2 Peter 2:6-9; Mt 25:31-46]
Rapture vs. Second Coming, (cont.)
(a) The translation is described as an imminent event.
[1 Cor 15:51-57; 1 Thes 4:13-18; Jn 14:2-3]
(b) The second coming will follow definite prophesied signs...
[It will constitute a series of events that will take many hours, (Rev 19:11-21), with many signs which as yet are to be fulfilled, (II Thes 2:3-12; Mt 24:3-31; Rev 4:1-19:10)] (a) The translation of the church is revealed only in the New Testament.
(b) The second coming of Christ is the subject of prophecy in both Testaments
(a) The translation concerns only the saved of this age.
[1 Thes 4:13-18; Jn 14:2-3; 1 Cor 15:51-57]
(b) The second coming of Christ deals with saved and unsaved.
[Mt 25:31-46]
(a) At the translation, only those in Christ are affected.
[1 Thes 4:13-18; Jn 14:2-3; 1 Cor 15:51-57]
(b) At the second coming, not only men are affected but Satan is bound.
[Rev 20:1-3; Mt 25:31-46]
While it is evident that there are some similarities in the two events, these do not prove that they are the same. There are similarities also between the first and the second coming of Christ, but these have been separated by almost two thousand years. These similarities confused the Old Testament prophets but are easily deciphered by us today. Undoubtedly after the church is translated, tribulation saints will be able to see the distinction of the coming for translation and the coming to establish the kingdom in a similar clarity."
DISTINGUISHING FULFILLMENT IN DETAIL FROM POINT OF IDENTITY COMPARISONS
Another corollary rule of context, context, context is the rule of point of identity comparison rather than fulfillment in complete detail. Determining whether a passage is a complete fulfillment in detail or whether it is simply making a point of comparison depends upon the examination of the context of each of the passages concerned.
The literal fulfillment possibility is ruled in or ruled out by comparing the passages concerned in order to see if the setting, all of the details, and the chronological order of the events match up perfectly - if not then we are looking at a point of identity comparison.
Acts chapter two points to a similarity in Joel chapter two and is not a fulfillment of it
For example, let's examine Acts 2:4-16 which has often been grossly misinterpreted:
(v. 4) "And they [the disciples] were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.
(v. 5) Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men, from every nation under heaven.
(v. 6) And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were bewildered, because they were each one hearing them speak in his own language.
(v. 7) And they began to be amazed and to marvel, saying, 'Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans?'
(v. 8) And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born?
(v. 9) Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,
(v. 10) Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes,
(v. 11) Cretans and Arabs - we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.
(v. 12) And they continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, 'What does this mean?'
(v. 13) But others were mocking and saying, 'They are full of sweet wine.'
(v. 14) But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: 'Men of Judea, and all your who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give heed to my words.
(v. 15) For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day;
(v. 16) but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel."
Notice that in verse 16 above, Peter states that "this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel" and not 'this is what is being fulfilled as spoken of through the prophet Joel' The word "this" refers to the occurrence of the disciples' "declaring the wonders of God in...[the] tongues" [of all the people from foreign countries, (vv. 11-12)]. Peter then says, "this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel." Then Peter quotes Joel 2:28-32a which is part of a chapter which begins with the description of the horrors of God's judgment on the world:
(v. 1) "Blow a trumpet in Zion, [Israel]
And sound an alarm on My [God's] holy mountain! Let all the inhabitants of the land tremble, For the day of the Lord is coming; surely it is near,
["the day of the Lord" = that period of time beginning with the rapture of the church, (1 Thes 4:13-18; 2 Thes 2:1-12; Jn 14:1-4); then the 7 year tribulation, (Isa 2:12, 19; 13:9-11, 13; 26:20-21; 34:1-2, 8; Ezek 30:2-3; Joel 1:15; 2:1-3; 2:30-32; 3:12-16, 18; Amos 5:18, 20; Obad vs. 15-17; Zeph 1:14-15, 17; Zech 12:2,9,10; 14:1-5, 8-9, 20; Mal 4:1-3; 1 Thes 5:2-3; 2 Pet 3:8, 10; Mt 24:1-28; Rev 6:1-19:10) and then the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring in His Millennial Kingdom, (Rev 19:11-20:4; Mt 24:29-25:46), and finally the Great White Throne Judgment and eternity future with a new heaven and a new earth, (Rev 20:7-22:21)]
[Compare Joel 2:1-2; 28-32a cont.]:
(v. 2) "A day of darkness and gloom,
A day of clouds and thick darkness.
As the dawn is spread over the mountains, So there is a great and mighty people; There has never been anything like it, Nor will there be again after it. To the years of many generations."
[The rest of this passage up to verse 18 continues to describe the future horrors of the tribulation period before Jesus Christ appears at His Second Coming. Verses 18-27 then describe our Lord's coming and His setting up of the millennial kingdom. This brings us to the part which the Apostle Peter quoted in Acts 2:17]:
[Compare Joel 2:1-2; 28-32a cont.]:
(Joel 2:28) And it will come about after this, that I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind, And your sons and daughters will prophesy,
Your old men will dream dreams,
Your young men will see visions."
["And it" = The Kingdom with the Lord ruling, (vv 18-27).
"And it will come about after this" = And the Millennial Kingdom will come about after the tribulation period and our Lord's Second Coming which were described earlier. The phrase "after this" is located in the text such that it tells us that the Rapture, the 7 year tribulation period and our Lord's Second Coming must occur before the pouring out of the "Spirit on all mankind"]
(v. 28 cont.) And it will come about after this, that I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind, And your sons and daughters will prophesy,
Your old men will dream dreams,
Your young men will see visions."
(v. 29) And even on the male and female servants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days.
(v. 30) And I will display wonders in the sky and on the earth,
Blood, fire, and columns of smoke.
(v. 31) The sun will be turned into darkness,
And the moon into blood,
Before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes.
(v. 32a) And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the Lord Will be delivered..."
Notice that what is described in Joel 2:28-32a has not occurred yet.
For example:
"I will pour out My Spirit on ALL mankind" = God's Spirit has not yet been poured out on ALL people - not at that 'first' Pentecost and not throughout history.
"The sun will be turned into darkness,
And the moon into blood,
Before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes." = All of this which is just preceding when our Lord comes in glory in His Second Coming in the clouds of heaven, (Dan 7:13-14; Mt 24:30-31), has not occurred yet.
So these events as described by the prophet Joel having not happened yet raises the question about Peter's statement: "This is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel". Since Joel 2:28-32 cannot be a fulfillment in every detail of what was going on that day of Pentecost when Peter preached, then one must rule out a prophecy in detail and review the contexts of both passages to determine the points of identity that Peter is referring to. The main point of context in both passages is the working of God the Holy Spirit. In Acts chapter 2, Peter is referring to the Holy Spirit's working in the believers' the gift of speaking "in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them." So Peter says to the "utterly amazed" bewildered crowd:
i cont.) [Acts 2:4-16 cont.]:
(v. 15) "These men [who are speaking in other tongues supernaturally] are not drunk, as you suppose. It is only nine in the morning!
(v. 16) No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel..."
[Notice that Peter does not say that this is a fulfillment of what was spoken by the prophet Joel. Instead, he says "this is what was spoken [about] by the prophet Joel..." And what was it that Joel spoke about that is a common point of identity? It was the working of God the Holy Spirit:
"And it will come about after this
That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind;..."
It is God the Holy Spirit Who will be acting in the future time of the Day of the Lord and Who acted at the time in the past on that day of Pentecost 2000 years ago. The point of identity that Peter is making is that just as God the Holy Spirit will work in all men beginning at the time of the millennial rule of our Lord, so the disciples were expressing the working in them of God the Holy Spirit when they "began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance."
So the prophecy of Joel whi