PDA

View Full Version : When the plain sense of Scripture make sense, seek no other sense.



markdrums
Oct 10th 2008, 08:50 PM
My question for this particular method of interpretation is this:
There are MANY MANY MANY places in the Bible where the "plain sense" seems to be ignored.... ESPECIALLY by those who prescribe to this viewpoint. Why is that?

A couple examples would be:
John, in Revelation, says he is writing TO the seven churches in Asia, and is warning them of thnigs that must SOON take place, for the time is AT HAND. The "plain sense" of scripture would be, exactly that. How does this get turned into 2000+ years in the future?

Jesus said the following things TO his disciples: (From Matthew 24)
"Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down."
"....you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled..."
"Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name's sake...."
".....Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,...."
"Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There!' do not believe it......"
"Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near--at the doors! Assuredly, I say to you, THIS generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

So, I'm puzzled.
Because to me, the "plain sense" of the text indicates exactly what is being said, & does not indicate a far-future generation. There should be NO confusion as to whom Jesus was speaking, & what the context is / was.

How & why is there a need to "Seek another sense," or interpretation, in these instances?

:hmm: :confused

Emanate
Oct 10th 2008, 09:13 PM
because sometimes "plain sense" disturbs our predefined comforting theologies.

markdrums
Oct 10th 2008, 09:16 PM
because sometimes "plain sense" disturbs our predefined comforting theologies.

:lol:

Elloquently stated, I must say!

Literalist-Luke
Oct 11th 2008, 12:44 AM
My question for this particular method of interpretation is this:
There are MANY MANY MANY places in the Bible where the "plain sense" seems to be ignored.... ESPECIALLY by those who prescribe to this viewpoint. Why is that?

A couple examples would be:
John, in Revelation, says he is writing TO the seven churches in Asia, and is warning them of thnigs that must SOON take place, for the time is AT HAND. The "plain sense" of scripture would be, exactly that. How does this get turned into 2000+ years in the future?

Jesus said the following things TO his disciples: (From Matthew 24)
"Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down."
"....you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled..."
"Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name's sake...."
".....Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,...."
"Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There!' do not believe it......"
"Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near--at the doors! Assuredly, I say to you, THIS generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

So, I'm puzzled.
Because to me, the "plain sense" of the text indicates exactly what is being said, & does not indicate a far-future generation. There should be NO confusion as to whom Jesus was speaking, & what the context is / was.

How & why is there a need to "Seek another sense," or interpretation, in these instances?

:hmm: :confusedWhat does "soon" mean to God? Or "at hand"? Then please go over the things that Jesus et al said were "at hand" and would happen "soon" and explain how whose things were fulfilled using the "plain sense" of Scripture. Jesus said the sign of His return would be the sun and moon going dark and that all the nations would mourn when they see him. When has that happened? I don't recall anything about any abnormal celestial events associated with 70 AD.

So the "plain sense" of those passages is that our understanding of "soon" and "at hand" is flawed.

Dani H
Oct 11th 2008, 12:56 AM
Instead of trying interpretation, why not ask God for revelation?

Literalist-Luke
Oct 11th 2008, 01:09 AM
Instead of trying interpretation, why not ask God for revelation?Why can't the revelation come through proper interpretation?

Ethereal Spark
Oct 11th 2008, 01:53 AM
In light of eternity, where Jesus came from 2,000 years would be a drop in a bucket. People in the OT used to live hundreds of years... so to them, being 100 would be like us being teenagers by comparison.

It used to be before modern transportation, "soon" was to get from one city to the next within days, rather than hours.

And as I heard someone say once, "Jesus may not come soon to get everybody, but He may come soon for you." :cool:

I have no idea if any of this is plain sense but... it's a thought.

*Hope*
Oct 11th 2008, 02:03 AM
Why can't the revelation come through proper interpretation?

Exactly. Most people are too lazy to put for the effort to properly study scripture. Biblical hermeneutics is a dirty word to some. You can't read Scripture prima facie, and claim you've properly understood it (much less applied it). If we did that with all Scripture, we'd be literally plucking out people's eyes, and thinking Jesus was going to sprout leaves (since He did claim to be The Vine, lol). The gospel may be a "simple" message, but the truth of Scripture is vast and deep and deserves our diligent study to be properly understood and applied.

vinsight4u8
Oct 11th 2008, 02:17 AM
The wars and rumours of wars time was a section of time that was to come to pass - but the end was not yet.
That whole section was to be a be not troubled time.

I see this as
World War I
World War II

then a time of no world wars

and then the time of the beginning of sorrows
as in nation against nation and kingdom against kingdom - for World War III

Iraq against - Egypt - Israel
all before the time of the man of sin


Revelation I see as being given - as a whole bunch of information -so as to reveal the parts of the end within it that will happen quickly.
such as -the third woe
earthquake
Jesus is coming quickly


On the mount Jesus referred to the words of Daniel. We are to tie what He said into the prophecy that Daniel wrote.
We must read the book of Daniel as to the abomonation of desolation time.


Jesus told His generation that they would not see a sign from heaven - and would only see the sign of Jonas, yet the endtime people will see signs in heaven and on the earth.

HisLeast
Oct 11th 2008, 02:34 AM
I'm going to ask something in all honesty. Not to cause division, not to sound smart, and not to show a lack of faith.

What does the plainest interpretation of the Old Testament say about Jesus?

Dani H
Oct 11th 2008, 03:10 AM
Exactly. Most people are too lazy to put for the effort to properly study scripture. Biblical hermeneutics is a dirty word to some. You can't read Scripture prima facie, and claim you've properly understood it (much less applied it). If we did that with all Scripture, we'd be literally plucking out people's eyes, and thinking Jesus was going to sprout leaves (since He did claim to be The Vine, lol). The gospel may be a "simple" message, but the truth of Scripture is vast and deep and deserves our diligent study to be properly understood and applied.

Who says obtaining revelation doesn't require studying? Or that it means taking things at face value?

I used to believe in "Scripture interprets Scripture." Until I ran up against its obvious limitations (and you can see readily what those are by the way people go around and around and around arguing about certain texts).

I now believe that Scripture confirms Scripture, because God's Word never contradicts itself, and His principles and truth do not change, and they are woven throughout His whole Word. When I study something, and I find a passage that I do not understand, and ask God, and He explains it to me, then I can usually find Scripture after Scripture after Scripture that confirms it, and backs it up, and deepens it, plain as day. It's digging up treasure after treasure out of the riches of His Word. That is life to me. And isn't that what His Word is? Spirit and life?

That's just my :2cents:

And maybe that just doesn't work for everyone, but it certainly works just fine for me. :)

BrckBrln
Oct 11th 2008, 03:12 AM
Exactly. Most people are too lazy to put for the effort to properly study scripture.

'No verse of Scripture yields its meaning to lazy people.' Arthur W. Pink

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Literalist-Luke
Oct 11th 2008, 03:13 AM
What does the plainest interpretation of the Old Testament say about Jesus?Can you be more specific? That question is extremely open-ended the way you worded it. :o

Dani H
Oct 11th 2008, 03:19 AM
Can you be more specific? That question is extremely open-ended the way you worded it. :o

I'd be interested in that myself ...

Literalist-Luke
Oct 11th 2008, 03:22 AM
Who says obtaining revelation doesn't require studying? Or that it means taking things at face value?My problem with "revelation" is when somebody comes along and claims "the Spirit showed me thus and so" and they offer some outlandish stuff that they seriously expect the rest of us to just accept at face value because it "comes straight from God". Never mind if it contradicts a plain-English (or Greek or whatever) reading of the Scriptures that they just didn't get around to bothering with. "Revelation" is too open-ended. Now, if somebody receives extra information that does indeed conform to the Scriptures, then I'll give it consideration. But when God has already spent thousands of years carefully giving us His unchanging Words for us to study 24/7 anytime we decide to get out of our recliner and crack the Bible open, I see no reason why He's going to give somebody a shortcut to avoid having to study and then expect the rest of us to just blindly accept it.
I used to believe in "Scripture interprets Scripture." Until I ran up against its obvious limitations (and you can see readily what those are by the way people go around and around and around arguing about certain texts).Other people being wrong about the Scriptures doesn't have to come between me and my Bible.
I now believe that Scripture confirms Scripture, because God's Word never contradicts itselfI can agree with that. :yes:
and His principles and truth do not change, and they are woven throughout His whole Word. When I study something, and I find a passage that I do not understand, and ask God, and He explains it to me, then I can usually find Scripture after Scripture after Scripture that confirms it, and backs it up, and deepens it, plain as day. It's digging up treasure after treasure out of the riches of His Word. That is life to me. And isn't that what His Word is? Spirit and life?OK, if that's what you're calling "revelation", to me that's just good, solid studying. I'm certainly not trying to diminish your approach, the way you just described it sounds perfectly sound to me. We might just have a different understanding of what you meant by "Revelation".
That's just my :2cents:

And maybe that just doesn't work for everyone, but it certainly works just fine for me. :)As long as Scripture is the plumb line for everything else, then we're just fine. :thumbsup:

By the way, I have had very similar experiences, where one passage of the Bible after another keeps shedding more light on an issue at hand. It's an exhilarating experience. I experienced it last spring about the Rapture, and I also experienced it regarding Islam almost two years ago. There have been other issues as well, but those are the two biggest ones.

Dani H
Oct 11th 2008, 03:29 AM
I can agree with that. :yes:OK, if that's what you're calling "revelation", to me that's just good, solid studying. I'm certainly not trying to diminish your approach, the way you just described it sounds perfectly sound to me. We might just have a different understanding of what you meant by "Revelation".As long as Scripture is the plumb line for everything else, then we're just fine. :thumbsup:

Yeaa. The bit you first mentioned is a scary approach indeed.

That reminds me of a story my pastor told about someone who would randomly open the Bible to get "revelation from God" about what he should do that day. The first Scripture he read was about Judas hanging himself. The next one he flipped to said "Go and do likewise."

Obviously not the smart thing to do.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

P.S. OP: I didn't mean to derail your thread. I'll be quiet now. :)

HisLeast
Oct 11th 2008, 03:35 AM
Can you be more specific? That question is extremely open-ended the way you worded it. :o
No, unfortunately its as specific as I can pose it.

VerticalReality
Oct 11th 2008, 04:00 AM
I could be wrong, but what I think HisLeast is trying to say is that if you are only going to take the "plain text" interpretation away from Scripture then you really aren't going to see anything deeper like the examples in the Old Testament. There were many prophecies of the Lord Jesus Christ that didn't come right out and say, "This is the Messiah who will go by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." Those Scriptures required that you see a deeper meaning than what was just on the surface.

I could be wrong, but this is what I take away from HisLeast's statement.

*Hope*
Oct 11th 2008, 04:36 AM
Who says obtaining revelation doesn't require studying? Or that it means taking things at face value?

Well, that is what the original post seems to suggest.


I used to believe in "Scripture interprets Scripture." Until I ran up against its obvious limitations (and you can see readily what those are by the way people go around and around and around arguing about certain texts).

Well, the reason people go around arguing about certain texts is because someone is wrong :) It doesn't mean that the Scripture is inadequate or fails to reveal something, or that the truth cannot be discovered. It means someone has failed to study it properly.


I now believe that Scripture confirms Scripture, because God's Word never contradicts itself, and His principles and truth do not change, and they are woven throughout His whole Word. When I study something, and I find a passage that I do not understand, and ask God, and He explains it to me, then I can usually find Scripture after Scripture after Scripture that confirms it, and backs it up, and deepens it, plain as day. It's digging up treasure after treasure out of the riches of His Word. That is life to me. And isn't that what His Word is? Spirit and life?

That's just my :2cents:

I certainly advocate praying and asking the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth to us as we read and study the Word. My caution would be (as Literalist Luke pointed out), that "revelation" must itself be measured against Scripture as well. In that sense, it serves as confirmation not really "revelation".


And maybe that just doesn't work for everyone, but it certainly works just fine for me. :)

I would have to disagree with this statement somewhat, because we shouldn't take a pragmatic approach to Scripture. We shouldn't look at it as "what works for me" or "what works for you". Scripture can be interpreted clearly and rightly divided, therefore we honestly shouldn't even approach it with the attitude "how does this work for me". Our first endeavor should be to find out what it means, find the truth in what it states and then proceed to discover how to apply it. Instead of study groups that take verses and say "what does this verse mean to you", the proper way to look at it would be "what does this verse mean", period.

What I'm against is something called eisegesis, which is essentially reading into Scripture; taking your biases, and preconceived ideas and trying to make Scripture fit into that mindset. On the other hand, exegesis seeks to discover the truth of a verse by studying it's historical, cultural, linguistic and overall context. It goes deeper than that, but that's the jist of it. Unfortunately, many people spend more time studying a menu or the words on their bank statement than they do studying the words in the bible. :)

Dani H
Oct 11th 2008, 05:13 AM
What I'm against is something called eisegesis, which is essentially reading into Scripture; taking your biases, and preconceived ideas and trying to make Scripture fit into that mindset. On the other hand, exegesis seeks to discover the truth of a verse by studying it's historical, cultural, linguistic and overall context. It goes deeper than that, but that's the jist of it. Unfortunately, many people spend more time studying a menu or the words on their bank statement than they do studying the words in the bible. :)

Well, we can certainly both agree on that. :)

Literalist-Luke
Oct 11th 2008, 08:11 AM
No, unfortunately its as specific as I can pose it.Then I have no idea what you're looking for. Sorry.

HisLeast
Oct 11th 2008, 01:40 PM
Then I have no idea what you're looking for. Sorry.

VerticalReality figured out what my brain couldn't put into words yesterday:
"I could be wrong, but what I think HisLeast is trying to say is that if you are only going to take the "plain text" interpretation away from Scripture then you really aren't going to see anything deeper like the examples in the Old Testament. There were many prophecies of the Lord Jesus Christ that didn't come right out and say, "This is the Messiah who will go by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." Those Scriptures required that you see a deeper meaning than what was just on the surface."

Literalist-Luke
Oct 11th 2008, 02:44 PM
VerticalReality figured out what my brain couldn't put into words yesterday:
"I could be wrong, but what I think HisLeast is trying to say is that if you are only going to take the "plain text" interpretation away from Scripture then you really aren't going to see anything deeper like the examples in the Old Testament. There were many prophecies of the Lord Jesus Christ that didn't come right out and say, "This is the Messiah who will go by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." Those Scriptures required that you see a deeper meaning than what was just on the surface."Oh, OK, I see what you mean. :yes: Just speaking for myself, that's no problem using a literal approach to the Bible, because Paul told us in Colossians 2:16-17 - "Do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ."

So the Bible itself invites us to find a deeper, richer meaning for those very things as you say.

We also find a similar statement in Hebrews 10:1 - "The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves."

In my experience, most people assume too narrow an understanding of "literalism". Or at least what it means to me, anyway. To me, literalism simply means to not inject symbolic meanings into Scriptures where none is called for.

For example, we're told in Revelation 8:7 - "The first angel sounded his trumpet, and there came hail and fire mixed with blood, and it was hurled down on the earth. A third of the earth was burned up, a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up."

There is nothing anywhere in the Bible that suggests that we should not simply take that at its word. I mean, "1/3" of the trees and "all" the grass is getting pretty specific.

Yet for centuries, people (including some of the most influential believers who have ever lived, I do recognize) have not been able to accept the idea that something so catastrophic could actually happen, so they take it upon themselves to choose a different meaning for that passage, when the Bible gives us no direct reason for doing so. That's what I mean when I claim to be a literalist.

Now, in other passages where a symbolic interpretation is clearly called for, such as Revelation 12, just for one example, we obviously should not attempt to take a literal view in the face of symbolism explicitly being used.

"Literalism" does not mean that we blindly and stubbornly take an absolutely black & white face value meaning of every single passage in the Bible. It only means that we allow the Bible to interpret itself and that we do not inject meanings into passages that the Bible itself does not give us license to do.

Dani H
Oct 11th 2008, 03:14 PM
One more thing:

"In [Christ] are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3)."

I believe this is the approach that ought to be taken as we study Scripture. If everything is hidden in Christ, then so is the Bible. He is the Word of God, no? Again, His words are Spirit, and they are life.

There will be no revelation if you look for something other than Jesus as you study Scripture. Even the last book of the Bible, isn't a revelation of the future (even though it contains glimpses of it) and of some set order of events we think we need to be looking for, but a revelation of Jesus Christ.

So, you see, it doesn't only matter how you study, it very significantly matters why you study, and to what end. :)

And this is why I can say that this approach "works for me" ... because if you're looking for something other than Jesus in your studies, and answers outside Himself, then it will surely not work for you.

Falconcheff
Jun 1st 2018, 03:03 AM
My question for this particular method of interpretation is this:
There are MANY MANY MANY places in the Bible where the "plain sense" seems to be ignored.... ESPECIALLY by those who prescribe to this viewpoint. Why is that?

A couple examples would be:
John, in Revelation, says he is writing TO the seven churches in Asia, and is warning them of thnigs that must SOON take place, for the time is AT HAND. The "plain sense" of scripture would be, exactly that. How does this get turned into 2000+ years in the future?

Jesus said the following things TO his disciples: (From Matthew 24)
"Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down."
"....you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled..."
"Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name's sake...."
".....Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,...."
"Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There!' do not believe it......"
"Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near--at the doors! Assuredly, I say to you, THIS generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

So, I'm puzzled.
Because to me, the "plain sense" of the text indicates exactly what is being said, & does not indicate a far-future generation. There should be NO confusion as to whom Jesus was speaking, & what the context is / was.

How & why is there a need to "Seek another sense," or interpretation, in these instances?

:hmm: :confused

Let's say that I, like Paul, was writing a letter of inspiration. The letter I am writing is to a friend of mine who is in a wheelchair. In my letter, I advise him to "keep his wheelchair clean and well-oiled."

Now, 2,000 years later, my letter is being read to the Church. Does my letter infer, literally, that everyone in church should run out and purchase a wheelchair, that they might keep it clean and well-oiled? Or does it more properly infer that, as a rule, one should keep their possessions well taken care of?

The Book of Hebrews was written to the Jewish people; does that mean there are not gleans of Inspired Truth that the Gentile Church cannot learn from?