Reading the Bible Fairly

"For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little..."

- Isaiah 28:10

There are so many different doctrines out there. I'm hoping this train of thought can help clear some things up.

I once heard someone say that Moses didn't really talk to a burning bush, but that "the burning bush" was merely a symbol of the word of God, how that God speaks a lively, fiery message to us out of the scriptures. I've heard people say that the children of Israel didn't really cross over the Jordan into the promised land, but that the account we read was a prophecy of what would happen for God's people, to be applied in a symbolic sense. And I've heard so many different versions and interpretations about the "true" story of the garden of Eden. I've heard a lot of nonsense.

Now mind you, I think some of these things can be applied as shown above. For instance, I think it's beautiful to consider the Bible as a burning bush for us, because God does speak to us out of his written word, and his word truly is alive. But to say that Moses's account did not happen explicitly as written is a big mistake (we could also point out that Moses's account with the burning bush couldn't have been him reading the scriptures, because he hadn't written the scriptures yet).

There has to be a balance, a due process for interpretation. Otherwise... everyone could come to the table with their own opinion of every scripture, and everyone's interpretation could contradict everyone else's, and everyone would feel like their opinion was just as good as everyone else's. God is the chief author of the Bible, and he is not the author of confusion!

So, how do we settle it? How do we know what interpretation is true or not true? What's a method of Bible-reading that we should all be able to agree on?

We have to understand that there are different types of scriptures. Some scriptures are songs. Some scriptures are prophecies. Some scriptures are proverbs. Some are parables. Some scriptures are instructions to certain groups of people. And so on. And some scriptures are more than one of these at the same time. How we should view and apply a given scripture depends largely on what type of scripture it is. We shouldn't look at scriptures that are giving us clear instruction on how to live as though they're symbolic and unclear. Likewise, we shouldn't look at a parable that makes reference to agriculture as though Christ is simply trying to teach us about agriculture. How each scripture is to be applied depends on what type of scripture it is, and none of it is to be ignored.

All scriptures should be first considered in their historical placement, and must be taken at face value. If we can't take the Bible for what it says, then what can we do? If we can't say that Adam and Eve were in a literal garden, eating literal fruit, then what stops us from saying that Christ wasn't also just a figure? What stops us from saying that he didn't literally raise from the dead? What stops us from saying that there isn't literally a God at all, but that God is a figment of a psychological construct? We have to take the Bible for what it says, that's the only way to know that its power is real. Noah really did build an ark. Lot's wife really did turn into a pillar of salt. Daniel was put into a den of literal lions. And so on. Even dreams - though it is known that they are often symbolic - still have their explicit historical placement. Joseph and Pharoah's dreams were filled with symbols, which needed interpretation and assignment. But what doesn't need interpreted is the fact that they both literally had dreams. The same goes for prophecies: though the language in prophecies is often dark (thus requiring interpretation), the prophecies themselves were literally given. The figures used in parables are representative, but the telling of the parable was in fact an event in time; it actually happened. Understanding that is key.

Any other messages that we get from the scriptures in a different context are of necessity to be tempered and tethered by other scripture(s) in their original context(s). For instance, the Bible talks in Galatians about the story of Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, Ishmael, and Isaac. The apostle Paul calls this account an allegory, saying that each person and their actions are all representative of a larger-scale message. In this case, Abraham represents the Lord, the two women represent the two testaments, and it is shown that the New Testament is to replace the Old Testament. So, here we have a story in the Bible that we are to view and apply outside of its initial historical context. But notice that this revelation does not come without looking at other scriptures in their literal context, whether in the New Testament, or in the prophecies of the Old Testament which speak beforehand of the New Testament that was to come. That is, in order to say that Abraham represents the Lord, and that the women represent the testaments, Paul references the prophecy of Isaiah, saying, "For it is written..." Also note that the revelation of the allegory does not replace the historical account itself. There still was a real man named Abraham, and the others also truly existed. Paul does not dismiss this fact, he just shows an additional understanding.

For another example, we could consider the transition from Moses's leadership of Israel to Joshua's, and can clearly understand that this showed how that the law would only get the people so far, but that Christ would come, and usher in true righteousness and salvation. But that clarity is fostered by other scriptures (prophecies, New Testament events, doctrinal writings) which are all read in their literal context. That is the way to read scripture. As it says in Isaiah 28:10, "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little," and in verse 13, "But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little..." The scriptures must work together, and any further context must be supported within the original context(s) of other scripture(s).

When the Bible is not read fairly, there is nothing to ground its interpretation, which again leads to infinitely many ways that any given scripture could be interpreted, applied, preached, etc. And it therefore gives way to all the many, many doctrines that exist today, all claiming to be rooted in the same Bible. We must all be honest with ourselves when handling scriptures.

I'd dare to say that nearly all (if not all) false doctrines that claim the Bible have come about, or are supported, by someone simply reading the Bible unfairly. Someone says that the fruit of the tree in the garden wasn't literal fruit, and then therefore comes up with the serpent-seed doctrine. Someone else reads a psalm where David describes the pain of trials as if he's making his bed in "hell" as a literal expression, and thus gathers that we're already in hell, and that there's no afterlife to fear. This is an appalling doctrinal travesty. What David said is a poetic expression, and that is to be expected, since he's speaking in a song. But some have looked at that as a literal application, and have drawn the false conclusion that this experience on earth is the only hell to worry about, making the hell Jesus warned of simply figurative. It's a false doctrine, born from reading a scripture in an improper manner. And that's how so many false doctrines get started. The account of the garden in Genesis is a literal account, whereas the expression in Psalms is not literal. If we swap the applications around, we have a mess, and a false doctrine brewing. Make that two false doctrines...

People do this with scriptures about Christ. We have to see that there are so many things accomplished in the appearance of Christ in the scriptures; we must understand that not all scriptures about Christ accomplish the same purpose. How do we know what specific work a given scripture about Christ accomplishes? We have to look at other scriptures!

Some scriptures about Christ tell of his deity. Some scriptures are where he gives an example to us as humanity of how we should interact with God. Some scriptures about Christ give example to the ministry of how to handle situations in a leadership position. And some scriptures of Christ are Christ-specific, and cannot apply to anything else but his work as the mediator, such as his role as the High Priest, or the Lamb of God.

Someone may read about Jesus praying to God and therefore gather that Jesus is separate from God, that Jesus is a distinct deity. This is a misinterpretation. Note that 1 Timothy 3:16 says, "...God was manifest in the flesh..." See also Colossians 2:9, where it says, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Notice in John 1:1 that we're told, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." We're then told in John 1:14, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us..." The scriptures about Christ here quoted are scriptures speaking of his deity, that he is God, that his appearance on earth was none other than God taking on a body of flesh. Jesus is not a separate God from God. There are not two Gods. Jesus is God. We know this to be the case when we look at other scriptures in their literal context, such as Isaiah 43:10-11, where God said, "...before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." God was not lying, nor was he speaking mysteriously. There really is only one God, always has been, always will be. Only one.

So, the scriptures about Jesus praying, or resisting temptation... what are they, if not proof of a second deity? They are examples for us to follow, as human beings, of how we should draw nigh to God, and how we are to resist the devil. We know this from looking at other scriptures in their original context, such as Hebrews 2:17-18, "Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted." See also Hebrews 4:15, "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." God made himself a body, and showed us how's it done. As it says in 2 Corinthians 5:19, "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself..." If we swap out the application of scriptures that speak of Christ's deity with the application of scriptures that speak of his example for humanity, then rises a thought similar to the trinitarian dogma, which goes in direct contradiction to the literal application and understanding of Isaiah 43:10-11 (and Deuteronomy 6:4-5, and so many others).

For another critical example, let's look at Acts, the 2nd chapter. The Lord Jesus speaks 3 times in Acts chapter 1 about the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, that it was soon to happen to the disciples. This outpouring takes place in Acts 2:4, and is sealed by the disciples, all having received the Holy Ghost, speaking in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. This literally happened, and the apostle Peter goes on to say that this was not just an awesome phenomenon, but that this was prophesied about in the book of Joel, where the Lord says that he will pour out his Spirit, and those who receive it will prophesy. There could be many debates on the interpretation of what "prophesy" means here, but we're told in a strong literal context in 2 Peter 1:20 that "...no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation..." So, if Joel 2 is explained in Acts 2 (and it is), then that is its explanation; there are not two different ways to interpret the prophecy. And what the Lord was telling them in Joel's day was to come has now come, and has been in effect since the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:1-4. This is a literal event for believers. As the Lord said in John 3:8, "...so is every one that is born of the Spirit." It is not merely poetic, though it is beautiful. It is not simply a mystery, though the prophets desired to understand it. Those who take the Bible for what it says would have to agree that this takes faith, to believe that God's Spirit was poured out, and that there was a sign, and that these things are still in effect today. And those who are honest and fair would say that we should not dismiss this. Nor should we dismiss what was preached in Acts 2:38, when the apostle Peter said to, "...Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." That's not unclear; it's literal instruction, and the promise of its pertinence is given in Acts 2:39, to all that God will call.

We see this in literal context, and our understanding is confirmed by other accounts in their literal contexts (Acts 8, 10, 19, etc). The book of Acts is not much fun for people who love false doctrine, because it's so literal, and there's no reason to apply many of these scriptures in a secondary context. Miracles are literal. The moving of the Spirit of God is literal, and it is applicable to all that God will call, and it is available for whosoever will call on the name of the Lord. These events do not require interpretation, and we are not waiting for the fulness of time to come when they will apply... They apply today!

The epistles were written by the same men who literally walked with God in his earthly manifestation (except Paul, though his doctrine was confirmed by these same said men). In them is written instruction for the church, both for the Jews and for the Gentiles, on how we should live. Many principles are set forth, which are to be carried out and applied where appropriate. These things are ready to be lived. Church is necessary, preaching is necessary - that's how these things are given and received.

Beware the admonition of Moses in Deuteronomy 30:11-14, "For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it."

There are some things that are hard to understand in the Bible, but not everything. But we have to be honest with ourselves, and note, as it says in 2 Timothy 3:16, that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

Please read responsibly.