Paul's Passing Thoughts

I will get to that. But first, a primary question looms that must be answered first. What method of biblical interpretation will Christians use to answer these types of questions?  I open discussion with another question of the compound sort; who did Jesus write the Bible to, and what do those individuals need to interpret it? The Bible its self answers those questions in many, many ways. We will explore a couple. Let’s begin with the sermon on the mount. Who was he talking to? Answer: They were the common people and peasants of that time. For all practical purposes, how was the teaching recorded in the Bible? Answer: The way it was presented to them. Did he intend for them to understand the plain sense of what he was saying? Well, since Matthew 5:2 say’s he opened his mouth and “taught” them, and “them” is the object receiving the action of the verb which means to teach, I would say yes with no hesitation. He was either teaching them or he wasn’t. So, when you are reading the sermon on the mount, who is Christ teaching? He is teaching you, and the same thing he taught them. What do you need to understand the teaching? The same thing they had, a brain, and an understanding of the language in which the lesson is being taught [not necessarily the original language]. Again, he was either teaching them or he wasn’t. `Matthew 5:2 doesn’t say “he said to them,” it says “he taught them *saying*.” What he said was the act of teaching which means to instruct with the goal of inflicting understanding within the mind. By the way, since Jesus was, and is God, I seriously doubt he lacked any ability to teach at their level. God is obviously the master of the communication he created.

This doesn’t mean we have no need of God ordained teachers; it does mean that we don’t have anything between us and understanding what God is saying , save unnecessary obstacles. As far as method of interpretation, remember the acrostic “psalm,” plain sense and literal meaning. For those who teach methods of interpretation that eradicate plain sense, it’s “psalms,”  plain sense and literal meaning, stupid. Now, in addition, neither does this mean that God never uses symbolism as a teaching tool. But in every case, the symbolism is explained in specific terms and we are not at the mercy of confusion or fleshly interpretation. Also, there were times when Jesus taught in riddles as a judgment to some who were listening at the time, because of their motives. But in every case, he makes the plain sense of his teaching clear in other places. Examples of this in the Scriptures are massive. A good example would Matthew 13. Read the whole chapter and you will see exactly what I am saying. Another good example would be Revelation 1:20 where Christ explains keys to interpreting prior symbolism to the Apostle John. As a matter of fact, this is a pattern throughout the book of Revelation. Also, and in addition to the above, it does not mean that Scripture will not be difficult to understand at times. Peter said that Paul was sometimes hard to understand, but he didn’t say it was because of complex methods of interpretation. Peter also said that even the angels desire to understand more of God’s truth; more proof that understanding takes much effort at various times. Question. If God wanted to, could he give us understanding on a silver platter? Answer: Of course. Why doesn’t he? Because he wants us to be part of the process and is honored by those who seek him. Lastly on this point, neither am I saying that historical background or context, among other considerations, are not necessary to lend understanding. Praise God, lay people in this country have vast resources in this regard at their disposal.

Now with that out of the way, let’s begin to answer one of the two primary questions. We will use 2Thessalonians 2:1-9. This biblical text is a descriptive narrative saturated with the idea that the antichrist is an actual person. In this text, no less than eight personal pronouns are used to refer to him. In addition, these personal pronouns are used in every noun case possible: subjective, objective, and possessive. Furthermore, two appositive personal pronoun phrases are used to describe him as well. Also, in this same text; besides adjectives that are used to describe him, he is the object that receives action from three other subjective  nouns, God, the Holy Spirit, and Satan. Any questions? Maybe one. Could it still be allegory, or referring to a spirit, or an attitudinal movement? No. In every case where the Apostle Paul uses allegory to teach, he makes it plain that allegory is being used. An excellent example of this would be Galatians 4:24 in regard to using patriarchal history to illustrate the role of the law in justification. Be not deceived. Let me say that again; be not deceived, literal forms of text in Scripture are never presented as allegory in a way to obtain some other supposed truth. And symbolism, allegory, parables, or any other teaching tool always has objective truth as its goal. If 2Thessalonians doesn’t say the antichrist is a person, then we don’t even know whether or not John 3:16 says what it says.

Listen. I have dear Christian friends who unfortunately use theology to interpret the Scriptures rather than method. Method of interpretation should always lead to theology, not the other way around. They can be my friends, but they cannot be my teachers or pastors, and they shouldn’t be yours either. But what about the second question? How important is it that the antichrist is an actual person? We will look at that in part 2.