Paul's Passing Thoughts

“This is very uncharacteristic of how men write and contains concepts that men could never invent.”

A hermeneutic is a method of interpretation. For God’s child, His intended hermeneutic for us is demonstrated in the very first sentences of Scripture. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Statement of fact, no explanation, no apologetics to make the case. The very first sentence in the Bible is authoritative and assumes superintention for the rest of the book.

Secondly, its truth is plainly stated, and separated from God’s mystery. God’s servant is to carefully observe the details and draw truth accordingly without presuming anything. We also see another interpretive tool meant for God’s people that excludes the necessity of knowing what the Hebrew word for “day” means: “And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.” So, “day” here obviously means one solar day. Therefore, God’s word is to be interpreted literally and taken at face value. God also elaborates and confirms the literal meaning.

God is glorified when His children use the brains they are given. There are going to be truths that are difficult to understand. But God never intended His word to be overly difficult to understand, and certainly, God’s children are not to be dependent on scholars. This is clear from Acts 17:11 where we have the Bereans confirming the teachings of one of the greatest Bible scholars of all time, the apostle Paul. What about allegory, symbolism, and parables in the Bible? How do we know when to apply those principles to interpretation? Well, the Bible usually tells us when that’s the case. It is my contention that the Bible contains its own rules for interpretation. For instance, in Galatians 4:24 we read, “Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.” In Matthew chapter 13 we read the following:

Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” 37 He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. 40 Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age.

Regardless of the fact that our Lord explains this parable in no uncertain terms, various contrary interpretations abound from the supposed scholars of our day.  And even in regard to the complexity of the book of Revelation, our Lord gives clear methods of interpretation and interpretive keys:

19 Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this. 20 As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches (Rev. 1:19,20).

And angels as well….

6 And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. When I saw her, I marveled greatly. 7 But the angel said to me, “Why do you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman, and of the beast with seven heads and ten horns that carries her (Rev. 17:6,7).

Regardless of clear interpretation from our Lord and holy angels, the Gnostics and self-aggrandizing academiacs  of this day defile our sanctification with their arrogant musings. Some, like Francis Chan, describe us as “clay vessels struggling to describe this vast treasure.” Hardly. Our Lord wants us to understand—that’s important to Him. He wants us to be free with the truth found in the perfect law of liberty (John 8:32, James 1:25).

Everywhere throughout the Scriptures, they teach us how to interpret them. Matthew 4:4 teaches us that in some way, ALL Scripture contributes to our spiritual growth. 2Timothy 3:16,17 teaches this as well. To the contrary, many in our day have bought into the idea that the study of last things (eschatology) is “less relevant” than “the gospel” and is “secondary truth.” Yet, Paul said that those who have hope in regard to eschatological truth “purify themselves” and “comfort one another” (1John 3:2,3; 1Thess. 5:11).

Yet another example among many is the unique hermeneutic laid forth by the Holy Spirit for Christ’s Sermon on the Mount. It states that Christ “opened His mouth [perhaps an illusion to Matthew 4:4] and taught them, saying….”  What does it mean when you are being taught? When you go into any kind of classroom for the purpose of being taught,  and that is the goal, all things needed to accomplish that goal are assumed. His audience for that sermon was, for the most part, the uneducated peasants of that day. And they were “taught”—past tense. The Sermon on the Mount is to be taken literally, and at face value. Trust me, these people knew nothing of New Covenant Theology; or for that matter, the vileness of it all, or anything regarding deep theological matters of interpretation. The hermeneutic for that sermon was common sense, period.

Furthermore, because the Bible interprets itself, another big question is solved; especially in regard to new believers: “Where is the best place to start?” Answer: “In the beginning.” Because the Bible interprets itself, a study of the book of Genesis will also cover the rest of the Bible. When I was a new believer, other Christians chuckled at the fact that I didn’t follow the usual churchy cliché of “starting in the book of John because it is about the gospel.” ALWAYS counsel a new believer to start in the beginning, and then take the opportunity to disciple by showing how the old interprets the new and vice versa. And where do we get that? Again, from the Bible itself (Matthew 13:16,17, 51,52; 1Peter 1:10-12). In Matthew 13:51,52, Jesus, while stating that what He was saying at that time was the new—was also stating that the old was necessary also. What is more obvious than the fact that the book of Revelation cannot be fully interpreted without many Old Testament books; particularly, Daniel and Ezekiel. And for that matter, Genesis as well. This is why theologies such as New Covenant Theology cannot withstand biblical hermeneutics. It also reveals how teachings like Geerhardus Vos’ “Biblical Theology” were forged with the very fires of hell.

With this in mind, let us look at Genesis 1:1-5:

1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

If one listens to the theological Timothy Learys of our day, these first verses are supposedly about the gospel. Go figure. Anybody see “gospel” here? Supposedly, God created the earth as a chaotic void (representative of man and his devices) so He could then bring forth light in the midst of  “chaos” as a way to “show forth the gospel.” Anybody see “chaos” here? Since when does dark  + void + water = chaos?

If people would just shut up and listen to the Holy Spirit, something astounding is going on here. In the beginning, God created the Earth, and the following verses are what He created first. So what do we have? Thus far: darkness, and water, in a void and without a form, and then God adds light. So what we have now is darkness and light as one (what in the world would that look like?!), suspended in a void with a body of water that has one side (“the face of the deep” [probably all of the water that is now on the Earth]). This isn’t a picture of man, this is God’s majesty and mystery on display. How can light and darkness be one and the same? Add this gargantuan mass of water with a surface, and without form elsewhere, and what you have is a spectacle that cannot be recreated in any kind of illustration. In addition, God offers no explanation for this, but rather states it as fact. This is very uncharacteristic of how men write and contains concepts that men could never invent.  Note verse four: “And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.” Obviously, if the light and darkness were not one, He wouldn’t have separated them. One can create all kinds of theories about what God was supposedly symbolizing in these verses, but I assume the light and the darkness being one causes most of the models (if not all of them) to break down on that point. One wonders if that was intentional on God’s part.

Such was the first day of creation. The first five verses create many questions that only God can answer. Did He create darkness in the first day? It would seem so, because He gives both  light and darkness their names in verse 5. Was water already present before the creation of the earth? Perhaps, we have no indication here that water was created. But if light and darkness were created, does that mean there was no light and darkness before the creation of the Earth? And what in the world do the two look like as one?

Yes, the wonderment of our great Father. We stand in awe of Him, do we not?

How ironic that those who approach the Bible literally are often accused of being “overly simplistic.” Really? Seeing these verses as gospel seems more simplistic to me, if not downright silly. Not only that, please do not mess up my present condition of being awestruck by God’s majesty with another boring 7-11 praise song. That’s seven verses about the gospel repeated eleven times.

paul