Literal Sense

I use the historical/grammatical method of interpretation when I study the Bible. Many would refer to that method as being a "literal" method. Whether that is the most common method of interpretation, I could not say. But in light of the kinds of widely and I might add, wildly varying opinions of even the most clear passages in Scripture, I think it would be valuable to revisit the notion.

In other words, when you go through and look at what the Bible has to say to these people in the different books, you have to read it in the way that they took it, and in the way that it was meant in that time, and in that historical context. You don' get to go back and say it doesn't mean that, because as soon as you start doing that, then I need you when I read my Bible and that is just not the way it was meant to be. The Bible is written so that I don't need you to read it properly, and so that you don't need me to read it properly.

True, not every sentence in the Bible is meant to be taken literally. The When in John 10:9 Jesus said, "I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he shall be saved and shall go in and out and find pasture." He was not saying that He was a structural door. However, as the Good Shepherd, He was speaking in the kind of sheep-tending terms that anyone from that society, in that geographical, historical context would readily have understood. Those to whom He was speaking knew precisely what He was talking about. Most middle-eastern sheep pens of that day were a circular stone enclosure with a single opening through which to enter or leave. They realized that the good shepherd would be the one standing or laying in the gap between the fold pen and freedom. It was only by his permission that a sheep could either enter or leave the pen and find pasture grass to eat. Would you not agree that a little bit of applied historical understanding helps to clarify and even add some meaning to the passage in John 10?

The upshot is that what is in view in John 10 is that Jesus is the true way, that He knows our hearts, and that we can trust Him. Through His grace, only Jesus provides the way of salvation for His sheep. I could come up with any number of bogus interpretations about what being "the door" was meant to say, but because Jesus knew just what to say from the Father to His audience, the meaning should be clear as long as we don't play around with it. The Bible is written so that we can sit down with it and God can speak to us individually, all by ourselves, in a room, alone. You don't need me to read it. I don't need you. So any time I come up along side anybody who says that a simple mention in the Bible doesn't mean this, or it doesn't mean that, that person is putting himself in a position where I need them every time I read my Bible.

Another good example of how things can take a left turn can be found in Chapters 7 and 14 in the Book of Revelation. Verse 7:4 reads; "And I heard the number of those who were sealed, one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel:" Seems fairly straightforward. Then follows Chapter 14 verse 1: "Then I looked, and behold, the Lamb was standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads."

I have seen tons of different interpretations about these two verses. Most of the time, they miss the mark entirely. Some modernist theologians might say that this number was just a large number to the people of that day and is meant to have a staggering impact on their imaginations, but not to be a "literal" number. Right then, I have to have those theologians sitting with me to read my Bible, because if I don't, I can't tell the players without a program.

There are plenty of cults out there who include these verses prominently in their cultic eschatology because they have read things into them that just aren't there. The Jehovah's Witnesses are just one good example. The problem is, an interpretation involving these verses often include women within this number. Is that so? Take a look at Chapter 14, verses 3 and 4: "And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders; and no one could learn the song except the one hundred and forty-four thousand who had been purchased from the earth. 4 These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they have kept themselves chaste. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These have been purchased from among men as first fruits to God and to the Lamb."

Now it becomes clear that these one hundred and forty-four thousand are: male. They are Jewish, they are virgins and there is no reason to believe that they number any different than the one hundred forty-four thousand that the Bible says that they do. The same thing is true about the church and Israel. A straight, thorough reading of the entire Biblical text does not remove Israel from any historical significance. God makes it plain in His prophetic text that He is not done with her yet, and mixing up references to Israel and the church will only serve to confuse things.

When I study and interpret the Bible, using an historical, grammatical set of hermeneutical principles I don't really know if I can pin down a central interpretive motif. If I had to, it would likely be an over-arching conglomeration of the following: God' holiness, goodness and grace. Toward that end, I have written down a set of hermeneutical principles that were passed on to me by a friend and former pastor of mine. They have helped me. Maybe they will help someone who takes the time to read all of this.They are as follows:

1. Determine the historical background, the geographical setting, and the chronological period of the Scripture event, saying, or teaching being studied.

2. Consider the relevant socio-economic and cultural factors of the time the event, saying, or teaching occurred or was intended to be heard or observed.

3. Interpret the Bible naturally, normal or literally unless the language or context suggests otherwise. “Literal” interpretation here means the opposite of figurative, allegorical, or mythical interpretation.

4. Consider the contextual setting of the Scripture passage being interpreted. This should include the immediate context, the book context, the testament context and finally the whole biblical context. Scripture should be compared with and interpreted by other Scripture.

5. Consider the grammar, syntax and definition of the words in the text. Knowledge and use of the original languages is most helpful here, but not absolutely necessary. Good Bible translations and exegetical commentaries help immeasurably.

6. Build doctrine rationally, biblically and systematically. Theology should grow out of the biblical text, be supported by it, and systematized with the whole of it.

7. In preaching, teaching, witnessing, counseling, or any other practical use of the Bible two rules are important: (a) Determine the original meaning and intent of the text. (b) Apply the eternal, trans-cultural truth of the passage to people today.