Seriously — You’ve Got Mail

Another piece written by my husband:


Imagine, for the sake of illustration, that you’re cleaning out a drawer and come upon a letter that your father wrote to your sister. You read it and find it very interesting. You learn some things about your father that you didn’t know. You find a bit of advice he gave her regarding a choice she had to make and are able to fit that advice to a situation in your own life. Reading the letter is beneficial, but while you’re reading it, there’s something you can’t lose sight of — you’re reading somebody else’s mail. Not everything in that letter will apply to you directly, and there may be some things that it would be very foolish to use in your life.

That’s the way we need to read a lot of Scripture. It is all God’s Word, and, as such, is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16). But not all of it applies directly to us. Before you react too strongly against this, I would suggest that you already view Scripture this way.

For example, how many of the following verses have you applied to your life?

• Make yourself an ark of gopherwood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and outside with pitch (Genesis 6:14).

• Every creditor who has lent anything to his neighbor shall release it; he shall not require it of his neighbor or his brother, because it is called the Lord 's release (Deuteronomy 15:2).

• Or if a person swears, speaking thoughtlessly with his lips to do evil or to do good … he shall bring his trespass offering to the Lord for his sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats as a sin offering (Leviticus 5:4, 6).

“Yea,” you say. But that stuff’s from the Old Testament. What about the New Testament?

• He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one” (Luke 22:36).

• And all who believed were together and had all things in common.  45 And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need (Acts 2:44-45).

• From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none (1 Corinthians 7:29).

So the issue isn’t whether or not all Scriptures apply directly to us — we know they don’t. The issue is which Scriptures do apply directly to us. Which books of the Bible are our mail?

I’ve learned that one of the most important keys to understanding a portion of Scripture is figuring out to whom it was written.

The vast majority of the Old Testament — from Genesis 12 through the end of Malachi — has to do with Israel. It was written by Jews to Jews and about Jews. During the time of the Old Testament, for a non-Jew to be saved, he or she had to become a Jew. Everything in this portion of Scripture must be viewed through that lens.

The four Gospels relate the Lord’s ministry while He was on earth. That ministry was to the Jews. That’s exactly what He told His disciples — Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 10:5-6).

Everything Christ did during His ministry on earth was part of the prophetic program of Israel.

What about Acts? Acts can be a tricky book if you don’t keep all of this in mind. The beginning of Acts, certainly through chapter 7, is all Jewish. From that point on, when the Jews reject the Holy Spirit, the book is a history of the continued rejection of God’s plan by Israel and the concurrent offering of reconciliation by God to the Gentiles. Without Acts, we’d go immediately from the Lord’s instructions about ministering only to Jews to Paul’s offering of salvation to everyone without explanation.

Paul was chosen by God to be the example of salvation by grace through faith to all who believe, Jew or Gentile. That’s us. Paul’s letters are our mail — although even those we must read with an eye on the specific audience.

What about the rest of the books in the New Testament — those written by James, Jude, Peter and John?

In Galatians, we read this: When James, Cephas [Peter], and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised (Galatians 2:9).

Nowhere in Scripture are we told that this decision was rescinded. The letters of James, Peter and John were written to an audience of Jews. We aren’t told specifically about Jude, but as he was James’ brother, we can figure this is the case with him also.

James probably wrote his letter in AD 46 which was probably five years before Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the first of his letters. In addition, James makes it very clear who his audience is in the first verse — To the twelve tribes (James 1:1).

Peter and John wrote later, after Paul’s message to the Gentiles was widely known. Their letters, while written to and about Jews, reflect the progression of revelation. Peter, in particular, credits Paul with some of his information — as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:15-16). But we need to remember who they were writing to.

That leaves Hebrews, which the title and contents clearly mark as also having been written to Jews.

This post is already a lot longer than I intended it to be, so I’ll end with this. I believe the entire Bible is God’s Word. I believe that He wants us to be familiar with all of it and understand all of it and to gain benefit from all of it. My point is only this — in order to understand it and gain benefit from Scripture, we have to interpret it correctly. And to interpret it correctly, we need to know who the audience is.

Seriously — Hermeneutics

Here's another piece that my husband wrote:


Hermeneutics is a Greek word meaning “I’m smarter than you.”

Seriously, it’s from the Greek word for “expert in interpretation,” which, in turn, is from the Greek word for “interpret.” It is primarily used to define different methods of interpreting Scripture.

There are two basic ways to interpret Scripture.

1. The wrong way
2. The right way

I have no idea how many ways there are to interpret Scripture, but the only way that makes sense to me is the literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic.

In short, I believe the Bible means what it says. The writers sometimes use types, symbols and figures of speech, but it’s usually obvious when they’re doing this. To insist that these devises somehow open the door to a non-literal interpretation is ridiculous because every one of us uses symbols and figures of speech every day …

“My headache is so bad I think my skull is about to explode.”

“Their serving sizes are so large, they come on a plate the size of Kansas.”

“If he makes that noise again, I’m going to shoot him.”

… and yet we expect to be taken literally.

All the Bible prophecies that have already been fulfilled have been fulfilled literally.

Isaiah 7:14 prophesied that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. In Matthew 1:22-25, we read that the Messiah was born of a literal virgin.

Zechariah 9:9 prophesied that the King would enter Jerusalem riding on a donkey. In Luke 19:30-35, we read that the King entered Jerusalem riding on a literal donkey.

Psalm 22:18 prophesied that the Lord’s clothing would be divided by casting lots. In John 19:23-24, we read that literal soldiers cast literal lots for the Lord’s literal clothing.

So it only makes sense that prophecies that haven’t yet been fulfilled will also have a literal fulfillment — especially since, as I wrote in my previous post, the Lord wants us to understand Scripture.

I think the biggest issue I have with a symbolic, spiritualized (call it what you will) interpretation of Scripture is this: If it doesn’t mean what it says, who gets to decide what it does mean?

Take, for example, Paul’s clear statement in Romans 11:25-30 that Israel will be saved.

For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; for this is My covenant with them, when I take away their sins." Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

If that doesn’t mean that God will keep all His Old Testament promises to Israel and restore the nation to His favor, what does it mean? If it doesn’t mean what it says, who gets to decide?

Each of us as individuals? What if we don’t all agree?

Theologians? Pastors? Which theologians and pastors?

There isn’t anything approaching a consensus out there. If we can’t find the truth by taking Scripture literally, then the only way to find truth is to pick which among the many voices has the correct answer. And we’re left with no basis for doing this because any support from Scripture for this view or that view, for this theologian or that theologian, can’t be taken literally.

Again, the Holy Spirit makes it clear that we are to study Scripture until we understand, so it only makes sense that the meaning of Scripture can be found. And that can only happen if Scripture means what it says.

Seriously

Over the next week or two I will be posting some articles that my husband has written. He's a better writer than I am and explains difficult subjects much more clearly than I do. But I guess that stands to reason, since editing/writing is his occupation. Anyway, here's the first one:


Few things bother me a lot. I’ve become much more patient as I’ve grown older.

But it really disturbs me to hear Christians say that we can’t know for sure about doctrinal issues and that it really doesn’t matter as long as we have the basics right. This has happened several times in the past few years.

“Even the theologians don’t agree, so there’s no way we can know for sure.”

“The Bible teaches both sides of the issue, so we can’t possibly take a stand.”

“I don’t care what somebody believes, as long as they believe the basics.”

I disagree. More than that — I disagree vehemently.

Why do I think we can know for sure? Because the Bible clearly tells us that we should.

Consider.

When Paul preached in Thessalonica (Acts 17), the Jews gathered a mob and chased him out of the city. He traveled to Berea and preached the same message. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so (Acts 17:11).

Notice that the Bereans listened to Paul eagerly. They wanted to hear what he had to say and they valued it. But also notice that they didn’t stop there. They examined the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was true — and for that they were called noble.

They were noble because they were eager to learn and examined the Scriptures to see if what they’d heard was true. They didn’t think it was impossible to know for sure.

And then there was Nicodemus. He was a Pharisee, a member of the Sanhedrin. He went to Jesus and asked Him questions about how to enter the Kingdom. Jesus answered his questions, but he also chided him for not already knowing the answers: "Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?” (John 3:10). How was Nicodemus supposed to have known? From Scripture.

In 2 Timothy 2:15 Paul challenged Timothy to handle the Word carefully and not to deviate from the truth. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

2 Timothy 3:16-17, he wrote: All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

• Teaching — doctrine, information
• Rebuking — pointing out and correcting errors
• Correcting — from a word that means “straightening something that is crooked.”
• Training in righteousness — education and discipline of character

Paul explains that using Scripture in this fashion will create in a believer the foundation for being useful in ministry.

And finally, in 2 Timothy 4:2, Paul wrote: Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.

I find it difficult to believe that the Lord expects us to know the truth and to teach it to others unless He also expects us to be able to understand it.

(Please don’t take this to mean that I think I understand it perfectly. My understanding is very much a work in process. But it’s also my goal.)