Hermeneutics for Bible Eschatology

[Hermeneutics - The science of interpretation, especially of the Scriptures. The branch of theology that deals with the principles of Biblical exegesis.

Exegesis - Critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, especially of the Bible.]

Since I started studying the Bible with the intention of understanding the true meaning of its words, I had to encounter the concept of hermeneutics (defined above). It might seem plain to some 'laymen' that you just read the words and there's your meaning. However, as in the study of any written material, it's more complicated than that. Unless one knows the ancient languages used to record the Bible-- Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek-- you are reading a translation. Every translation is, necessarily, an interpretation. Moreover, the Bible is a collection of literature written over a vast span of years, by numerous authors, in various social circumstances and cultural milieus.

The point is that a student of scripture should keep these factors in mind when reading the Bible. Additionally, other specific principles can be applied to the text with the aim of attaining a correct understanding. Whether one recognizes it or not, we are always applying some kind of hermeneutics when reading scripture. If you simply take the words as written, then one can say that literalism, or a literal hermeneutic is being used. This is, in fact, the approach used by those known as 'fundamentalists,' who insist that 'every word was dictated by God!'

Yet, given the influences noted above, a correct understanding of scripture requires an approach beyond the literal. The question then is, what principles should be applied? As expected, there are different answers to this question, depending on things such as the student's religious, cultural, and educational background, and even-- I contend-- on his/her personality. For examples of what I'm saying, one has only to do a short bit of searching on the Internet on the subject of scriptural interpretation (broadly stated) and then prepare for a bewildering assortment of understanding on almost any topic.

The matter of hermeneutics is particularly important in the field of eschatology-- the study of the 'End-times.' In this case, the scriptures are prophecies-- statements of events that are to occur in the future. There are, in this new century, many earnest predictions based on the same familiar Bible scriptures, yet they all come to radically different understandings of events. How does this happen?

The answer is that differing interpretations of the same texts are caused by differing background assumptions-- different hermeneutics. How then, can one define accurate hermeneutics that will lead to correct interpretations? Ah, yes; that is the issue!

There is no magic formula, dear reader, for defining unerring hermeneutics. Each student must determine what rings true, allowing the Holy Spirit of God to guide and enlighten. Ultimately, it is God's Spirit that will give you understanding, and will give you the discernment essential to recognizing truth when you see it.

With that introduction, I will describe my own hermeneutics that I've used in the essays and Bible studies presented in my web-log.

1. Especially for eschatology, my first principle of understanding is one that, as far as I know, is uniquely mine (I've never seen it stated anywhere else). That principle is that the prophetic scriptures pertaining to the End of the Age are deliberately, purposefully obscure! I'm saying that there is confusion over the understanding of Revelation because it was intended to be ambiguous and confusing; at least up to the time when its meaning would become obvious to the serious reader... and (presumably) when it was needed to be known by believers.

Why would God want to hide the truth? Because, dear reader, humanity is so corrupt and self-serving, is why. If those persons in authority could have simply read the scriptures and then know what was coming-- perhaps even identifying specific individuals and places-- then you can be sure they would have tried to leverage that knowledge for personal gain of some kind. Perhaps they would try to disguise the truth, subvert it, and even alter the words of scripture.

Instead, since the texts have been so controversial and their interpretation quite convoluted, it was impossible for such tampering to occur. Certainly, some persons have attempted to twist the scriptures towards specific ends. This happened blatantly with the Scofield Reference Bible which uses 'study notes' designed to lead readers to particular conclusions. Another example is the New World Translation of the Jehovah Witnesses, that changes certain words to reflect their theological presumptions.

But overall, the meaning of eschatological prophecy has been shrouded in sufficient 'doubt factor' that the End-times have been able to arrive on our threshold with very few people becoming aware, including many 'scholars.'

2. Without a global overview of the Bible, it is virtually impossible to correctly interpret prophecy. So often, we see pundits collecting isolated verses of the Bible and assembling them into some fanciful scenario that they assure us will soon take place. (For good examples, just peruse the best-selling books of the well-known evangelical writers). That is not responsible exegesis. So often, I read critics' dismissal of the Bible because, they assert, it doesn't make sense; or, it contradicts itself. To profane eyes, these accusations appear reasonable. But the Bible is not ordinary writing; it doesn't yield its secrets to any arrogant, cursory perusal.

When you gain some insight into the grand scheme of Biblical exposition, you start to understand how the pieces fit together. Anomalies exist; but they merely serve as part of the camouflage I allude to in principle no. 1. Once you get the major themes, the odd inconsistency, if such really exist, can be recognized and handled accordingly. You can't find the truth by focusing on the obstacles, but by following the golden threads that progress from Genesis to Revelation, alpha to omega.

3. Context is vital. As one wise scholar put it: a text without a context is nothing but a pretext! Just as a global purview is essential, so it is necessary to examine any individual verse within its neighborhood. If a passage is talking about a named city, in a specified time span, you can't pull out one verse and claim that it refers to the future. It seems self-evident; yet this kind of thing is done by so-called experts all the time.

4. Some things are literal, and some are symbolic; don't mix and confuse the two. The problem, naturally, is how do we know which is which? This is where spiritual discernment is handy. Generally, the context will provide clues to help us determine when a passage is literal or else allegorical. See point 5, below.

5. Given a chance, scripture will usually explain itself. Instead, too often, pundits will see something tantalizing and will impose a meaning that appeals to their current interest or level of knowledge. Specific words conjure up certain 'objective correlatives' in our minds, ones that ring familiar in our cultural conditioning; yet they can be completely wrong when applied to a Bible text. We should always use cross-references and other textual links to discover what the Bible itself probably intends, before imposing supposed meanings.

6. Some prophecies may have more than one fulfillment. The first fulfillment is 'local and literal;' while a second occurrence would be figurative and universal. For example, Jeremiah's prophecies of doom on Israel were enacted during those OT centuries; but it's possible that a future event could occur that symbolically reprises the abstract features of those events, involving God's true people everywhere on Earth.

7. Sometimes, we just don't know! There will be some passages that will be ambiguous or opaque despite our best efforts to decode. In the case of prophecy, the picture will often become clearer as we get closer in time to the event. (e.g. The 'Mark of the Beast will likely become evident, once it's accomplished). Other references will likely remain vague until all truth is revealed by God (e.g. Who the Nephilim really are).

These are my primary principles of Bible interpretation, a.k.a. hermeneutics. These are the mental tools I use when exploring the scriptures. We are fortunate today to also have at our disposal computer technology which allows anyone to perform sophisticated exploration of the Bible. Using an on-line Bible, you can quickly compare many alternate translations of the same passage, giving a better idea of what the text was attempting to convey. You can search for every occurrence of a word or phrase to see how it's used, and where; and to find cross-references. You can study specific topics; compare Old and New Testament themes, and so on. It's a very handy tool... when used under the guidance of God's Spirit.

Holy scripture is the stuff of genius. To scoffers it is opaque, senseless. To the humble, sincere student, it offers the gift of life. You can't explain this to anyone; they have to experience it themselves.

Spiritual Gifts- Use Them or Lose Them?

"Pray and give yourself anew to the Lord and His work. Then look around at what others are doing in your church and ask if you can join in. ... Your church needs you.
For a healthier church, exercise your spiritual gifts." [RBC ministries]

The above advice was recently presented in a 'thought for the day' by a popular Christian organization. The author obviously assumed first, that any Christian reading it would be a member of a church, and secondly, that 'your church' will be happy to have you exercise your spiritual gifts in their environs. Yes, it all sounds perfectly reasonable, and quite normal assumptions by most readers. Well, the surprising news for all those gullible readers is 'It ain't necessarily so!'

Take the first assumption-- that all Christians 'belong' to a church. Not! The current generation of Christians no longer simply takes it from tradition that they must belong to a recognizable church to be saved... not at all. Why should some self-generated body of people decide that they are authorized franchisees for God? Why should any believer have to subscribe to some man-made corporation to appropriate the blessings of the Creator? Why do we need professional clergy to spoon-feed religious truth to us? These are all burning questions that stick in the spiritual craw of a growing number of modern believers, and so far, there is little evidence that the mainstream churches, and also splinter groups, have any idea of how to respond.

Looking at the second assumption, we find that it is equally glib. Accepting for the moment, that one is a member of a duly constituted church, it is my experience that there is no guarantee whatsoever that either the pastor or other members will be pleased to have you 'exercise your spiritual gifts' in their midst. Far from it. Oh sure, if you are willing to just do whatever the pastor or church board wants you to do, then they'll be happier than clams. But that is hardly using your God-given gifts, is it? If your 'gift' happens to be something like spiritual discernment, or understanding the signs of the times, (perhaps fancy terms for 'BS-detecting') then you stand a high chance of being rebuffed by your church. You will be accused of being a disturber of the sheep, of not being a team player, and in the extreme, of being a pawn of Satan. If you are in a conservative church, they will ensure that you don't exercise those gifts for long, and if you don't submit to suggestions, they will impose sanctions of some kind, restricting your ability to exercise those gifts or influence anyone else in the company. If you are seen as persisting, you will end up disfellowshipped.

In a 'progressive church,' a person who upsets the doctrinal or spiritual apple-cart in some way will probably undergo more subtle, marginalizing treatment. You will be re-assigned to more suitable roles, like baby-sitting the toddlers, or making coffee for visitors, but not leading a Sunday school class, certainly. Faithful church apparatchiks will keep a wary eye and ear on your verbal or written comments, to provide early intervention in sticking to the doctrinal line. In such an environment, only the most docile continue to put in an appearance on a regular basis.

Those with an aptitude for finding discrepancies in matters of official dogma, or of voicing alternative interpretations of scripture, will eventually find themselves on the margins of their church. There's little point in fighting the system to try to convince the powers that be within the organization to change their views. Organizations do not change their official articles of faith easily, if at all. And individuals do not take kindly to suggestions that their cherished views are in need of adjustment, or that their organization needs reform. The leaders may make all the positive statements possible about encouraging diversity and promoting renewal, and so on; but, mark my words, it is pure hog-wash! Such progressives may actually believe what they are saying... at the moment. But, upon sober reflection-- and serious reprimand by the rest of the establishment-- they will find a convenient way to let hierarchical nature take its course and extirpate any and all attempts at genuine reformation. It's not a problem with churches-- it's a universal problem with all human structures.

So, in conclusion, I have to temper the enthusiastic and well-meaning advice of the writer for the electronic ministry. Within a church structure, you will be welcome to work to advance the goals of the management board-- in fact, they'll love you for it. But, dear Christian, harbor no illusions about exercising your spiritual gifts if they involve any call to seriously change the basic outlook of the organization. For that kind of exercise, you will most likely have to leave the company and operate independently. Don't lament; that's just the way things work in the realm of 'sinful flesh.'

Hostile towards Freedom-- What Gives?

A recent radio program had an interview with a Jewish writer whose latest book details his lifetime of neurotic fears of a vengeful, capricious Ogre in the sky, the God of his childhood, based on common perceptions of the Old Testament. This view, of course, is perhaps the one most popular among both religious people and, curiously, atheists too. In this essay, I don't intend to explore that warped outlook, except to look at one unfortunate consequence of its inherent legalism. I will illustrate what sounds like an abstract concept with a recent, true-life anecdote.

In mid-winter, a friend asked for my help in moving to another city. She wanted me to drive a truck with her furnishings across the mountains to her new abode. I was available, and so agreed. Besides, I thought it would give me an opportunity to re-establish contact with a former friend that I hadn't seen for several years. I telephoned said friend-- let's call him Tom-- and he seemed happy to hear from me, even letting me stay in his home for the few days I'd be there. Things really fell into place, and a drive that can be a horror in winter snow squalls turned out to be a cake-walk. The move went smoothly, and the visit with Tom seemed to go well, too... despite a few awkward moments that we quickly passed over. Obeying an inner voice, I waited till the morning I departed before telling him that I'd left a set of books that I thought he'd find very interesting to read.

Once home, I sent an e-mail message to thank my hosts for their hospitality. Tom's wife-- the official e-mail communicator-- replied very quickly, asking for my mailing address. Hmmm... okay, I sent her my address... with a slight apprehension mixed with curiosity. Was he sending me a book for my perusal? Several days later, I got a notice in the mail that a package was waiting for me at the post office. I walked down and picked up the package. It was a large envelope that had torn and was re-packaged by the postal service; but I could feel several books inside, and then noticed that they were, in fact, the same ones I had left him. He's a speed-reader, you may be thinking. Not! He was giving those books the bum's rush back to me; but as I intimated, I wasn't completely surprised at this. Tom is a man of stubbornly-held beliefs, and doesn't brook dissent lightly.

Something did surprise me, though. It was a hand-scribbled note he had included with the books, and it was probably the rudest letter I'd ever received, even from enemies. In it, he called me a deluded fool, and biblically illiterate; and had even worse descriptions for the author of the books-- who happens to be a friend of mine. I was, frankly, rather stunned. Especially so, since earlier the same day, I had received another e-mail from his wife in which she stated that 'Tom hopes you will not take offense at our religious differences,' or words to that effect! 'Sure,' I thought to myself, 'why would anyone take offense at being called a deluded fool?' The whole episode had a surreal feel to it.

After sitting on it for a day, I sent an e-mail to Stan, the friend who wrote the offending books. Later, he telephoned me, and sounded quite up-beat. 'Don't worry,' he said; 'it's not you; your friend is not even aware of why he reacted so violently to the books.' In view of that last e-mail from Tom's wife, I thought Stan may be on to something. He explained further that Tom was unconsciously under the influence of a controlling spirit of legalism. It sounds far-fetched to the non-religious mind, but could be re-cast in contemporary terminology. You see, the whole tone of Tom's note was of indignation. He was highly indignant that I had had the temerity to even suppose that he would lower himself to entertain the premise of Stan's books. His note avowed that he had taken all of 'ten minutes' to ascertain that these tomes were full of nonsense not worthy of a Bible student like him. Like the Pharisees condemned by Jesus, Tom was deeply offended, and spared no language in conveying his disgust to me, an erstwhile 'friend.'

Thinking back to a previous incident, years before, I realized that Stan had a valid observation. On that occasion, I attended a small conference with Stan where speakers presented papers on matters relating to Bible study. One of the presenters was another friend of mine, at the time; let's call him Ken. I was familiar with Ken's favorite Biblical hobby-horses, most of which I tended to share, and had just become enthused with Stan's new insights. Innocently, I thought they should meet each other, and we'd all have a grand time sharing our views. Wrong, again! As soon as Ken met Stan, he immediately got on the defensive and we ended up having a very unpleasant lunch together. I was somewhat flummoxed; but Stan was surprisingly sanguine about it. Later, he told me the same thing-- when a person is under the spell of legalism, they simply will not listen to any other viewpoint. In fact, they seem to detect the spirit of freedom at once, and react viscerally and bluntly, often acting completely out of character with rudeness never before witnessed. Frankly, I wouldn't have believed such things until I had first-hand experience, seeing it happen before my amazed eyes.

Today, I am passing on this experience to other lone warriors of truth, who may wonder why many of their listeners are not just indifferent to their message, but outright hostile... even before they get to discuss it. The unbelievers you encounter will almost always gracefully decline your attempts to enlighten them; their attitude is usually 'Nice try... but I'm really not interested.' And that's fine; it's their choice entirely, as God wants. It's the so-called Christians who get riled up and indignant; 'How dare you attempt to expose them to your heretical garbage!' is their typical manner of response. So, as Jesus said, don't waste your pearls of wisdom on those of hardened hearts; where you are not welcome, shake the dust of that place from your shoes, and just carry on to the next destination (Matt 7:6; Mark 6:11).

As Paul wrote to the Corinthian congregation: "For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. To the one we are the smell of death; to the other, the fragrance of life. And who is equal to such a task?" (2 Cor 2:15-16, NIV) Paul recognized the same phenomenon: that some hearers of his message find it deathly intolerable, while those who are open find it refreshing. We bearers of the message are equal to the task by the grace and power of God within us. There's no point trying to argue with the former group; their spiritual ears are blocked by hardening of the attitudes. Paul provided a penetrating analysis of the response of his Israelite countrymen to the gospel, in 2 Corinthians 3 (NIV; italics added): "[14] But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. [15] Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. [16] But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. [17] Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. [18] And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit."

Although Paul was writing about the Jews of his day, there's no reason to suppose that his analysis doesn't apply equally 'even to this day' to anyone who focuses religious attention on the Law of Moses, the Old Covenant. As he states metaphorically, a veil covers their 'heart,' meaning their ability to see spiritual reality. That veil, that blinder, is only removed, Paul affirms, whenever one turns to the Lord, Jesus. And as he states in several other epistles, the Spirit of the Lord equates to freedom and life... while the letter of the Law is slavery and death. It seems simple enough: look to Jesus and enjoy the freedom that he purchased on our behalf, or look to the Law and remain in bondage to its stony demands. The legalistic Christians (the 'Judeo-Christians') don't want to admit to legalism, however; they think they can have one eye on Jesus and the other eye on the Law, and somehow get the 'best of both covenants!' They attempt this ploy, despite the clear words of scripture that you can't have it both ways-- either you are under Law or under Christ. Choose today which god you will serve (Gal 3:2-5; & 11-13; Rom 10:3-5); choose between life and death, as even the Old Testament challenged (Deut 30:19).

Only the Holy Spirit can soften the hard heart of the covert legalist... and then, only if the soul is willing. Those with 'unveiled faces' who are open to the message of liberty, are being transformed by the renewing of their thinking into closer relationship with Christ, as Paul again notes in more than one letter. Remember, Jesus himself inaugurated his mission by quoting Isaiah: "He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor" (Luke 4:18-19). Those goals he accomplished, not merely in the physical sense, but spiritually as well. So yes, you can always pray for those 'blind guides of the blind' to listen to the still, small voice that beckons them to freedom. Some of them will eventually crack, and let the light shine in.