Posted on 06/03/2009 12:00:38 PM PDT by blue-duncan
HOW TO MASTER THE BIBLE
CHAPTER 1--HOW TO UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE
THE Bible is a plain, honest, straightforward, simple Book. It is easy to read and easy to understand. It needs no learned introduction, no expert scholarship to enable us to grasp its meaning. It was written for the people and it has not missed its mark. It is a people's Book; therefore a classic. It is an exhaustive, work; therefore a standard. It readily discloses its secret to men of pure heart and simple faith, whether college-trained or unacquainted with the learning of the schools. The primary requisite of the Bible student is a sincere desire to know the will of God in order that he may do it. The Bible is a revelation of the will of God. Its primary appeal is to the will of man. It was written to be obeyed. Hence the primary qualification demanded in the reader is not scholarship but surrender, not expert knowledge but willingness to be led by the Spirit of God. Simple piety will feed on the inner spiritual kernel of Scripture. Pride of intellect will break its teeth upon its external literary shell.
It is not necessary to preface our study of the Bible with a course of Bible Introduction. The purpose for which the Bible was written, the purpose for which it ought to be read, may be accomplished without any knowledge of the conclusions of modern Biblical criticism as to the writers and the readers of the several books, the time when and the place where they were written, their simple or composite character, or the grounds on which they have been assigned a place in the sacred Canon. Bible Introduction may enhance our knowledge of the circumstances under which the books of the Bible were composed, but it is a poor substitute for the deeper and more exact knowledge of the message and content of the books themselves.
Bible Study is the study of the Bible not the study of problems relating to the composition of the Text and the transmission of the Canon.
The Bible is an open Book, not a cypher message the key to the interpretation of which is in the possession of the learned. It requires no preliminary course of study initiating us into the method of its composition and the mystery of its meaning. The essential content of the Bible, the facts recorded, the truths taught, and the precepts enjoined are within the compass of the most ordinary reader. The principal qualification for the right understanding of the Bible is a pure heart, a simple faith, and an obedient will. We must be in sympathy with the Divine aim and purpose of the Book which is to make unholy, men holy, and to make holy men holier still. We must be prepared to accept as authentic the things which it records as facts. We must be prepared to believe as true the interpretation which it gives of the real significance and meaning of those facts. And we must be prepared to obey the precepts which it enjoins as arising necessarily out of those facts and those truths.
The first necessity for the understanding of the Bible is the removal of all the embargoes which have been placed upon the operation of the Spirit of God in opening and illuminating the mind of the reader. Through the Word of God the Spirit of God awakens a clear conviction of the certainty of the facts recorded, the truth of the interpretations placed upon those facts, and the imperative necessity of obeying the will of God as made known in and through them.
The Bible is pre-eminently a manual of life and conduct for the layman. In the early days of the Christian Church, as also at the time of the Reformation, and again in the century following the great Evangelical Revival ushered in by the preaching of Whitefield and Wesley, the real meaning, the true purport, and the actual content of the Bible were well understood. The Bible was an open Book, " understanded of the people." Lay-preachers abounded. The Gospel message was grasped by all and proclaimed by all. The assumption of the incapacity of the unlettered layman to ascertain the true meaning of the Word of God must be resisted at all costs. It is made by the craft of the critic no less than by the craft of the Romish priest. It must be disallowed both in the interest of the truth itself, and also in the interest of the right of the laity to assist in the proclamation of the truth, without having to undergo a preliminary course of instruction in the very questionable results of modern Biblical Criticism.
The true key to the understanding of the Word of God is the sincere desire to ascertain just exactly what the Spirit of God in the sacred writers intended to convey. We must not take their words and read into them a meaning of our own.. We must receive the Word whether it accords with our preconceptions or contradicts them. We must interpret literally everything that was meant to be interpreted literally, and we must interpret figuratively everything that was meant to be interpreted figuratively.
Thus the early chapters of Genesis are not sacred myths but historic facts. The book of Jonah is not an allegory but the record of a historic event. The Son of Solomon is an inspired idyll to be interpreted not literally as if it were a common secular love song, and not allegorically as if it meant something altogether different from that which it says, but typically, as setting forth, under the type of the transcendent experiences of human life and human love, the still deeper mysteries of the union of the soul and its Saviour, of Christ and His Church. `
The allegorical method of Origin and Christian fathers of Alexandria, which empties the records of the Old Testament of their content of historical reality, and the hypothetical method of modern Biblical Criticism, which accounts for the whole content of Scripture upon naturalistic principles, and leaves no room for the transcendent operation of the Spirit of God, are both alike to be rejected as wholly incompatible with the plain declarations of the Word of God itself, , and a virtual denial of its claim to be a supernatural and a real revelation of the mind and will of God to men.
The Bible will never be understood until it is received for what in truth it is-a transcript from real life. The Bible is always true to itself. There are no real discrepancies and no real contradictions in it, though it can easily be so misinterpreted that the critic may be able to get many discrepancies and contradictions out of it. The Bible is always true to life. There are no contradictions between the facts stated in Scripture and the facts which have been ascertained and brought to light in any department of modern literary and scientific research. Astronomy, geology, archaeology, comparative religion, and Biblical Criticism in all its branches, have yielded no single instance of inaccuracy or unreliability in the written Word of God.
It is necessary to state the case thus strongly in view of the widely prevalent assumption that in some of these respects the accuracy and the authority of the Bible have been discredited. But whatever may be the learning and the scholarship of those who deny the authenticity and the harmony of the Biblical records, and however frequently the assertion of inaccuracy and unreliability may be made, the refutation of the charge is complete, and the Bible stands today, as it ever has stood, a well-spring of Divine truth, in every detail clear and pure and undefiled.
For an illustration of the truth of this statement the reader is referred to the author's "Romance of Bible Chronology," where in spite of the assertion of all manner of chronological discrepancies in the Text of the Old Testament, it is conclusively proved that every date given in the Old Testament is in perfect accord with every other date given therein, and also with every date obtained from contemporary monuments, such as the cuneiform inscriptions in the British Museum. The Biblical narrative is thus seen to be both self-consistent and self-sufficient, and also in perfect accord with all the facts that , have been brought to light by modern discovery and recent research. A similarly detailed study of any other class of alleged discrepancies will establish in like manner the entire accuracy and the complete authenticity of the Biblical records.
The Bible will never disclose its meaning to the man who approaches it in a spirit of doubt, who turns its facts into fables, its certificates of authenticity into late forgeries, and its theophanies into the subtle workings of the subliminal consciousness of men. The Bible must be treated with reverence as well as with intelligence. Its solemn testimonies must be accepted in good faith as trustworthy communication of the mind and will of God to men. The Bible student must be a man of prayer, in living communion with the living God, who utters His voice in the living soul. As the eyes fall upon the printed page the Spirit of God defines and perpetuates for all time the exact content and the true meaning of the Eternal Word. Divine power resides in the Word. It inheres in every translation of the Word. It penetrates the heart, illuminates the understanding, and invigorates the will. Every sympathetic and sincere soul may understand, if he is willing to obey, the holy will of God made known in His Holy Word.
I've never agreed with this many RC posters before. They say they don't understand the word of God, and I believe them.
"...We must be faithful, and stand fast in our liberty; we must follow the rule which is given us in the Word of God, and not suffer our souls to be brought into slavery by new laws, forged by men. For it is a hellish tyranny, which lesseneth God's authority and mixeth the truth of the gospel with figures of the law; and perverteth and corrupteth the true service of God, which ought to be spiritual. Therefore, let us consider how precious a privilege it is to give thanks to God with quietness of conscience, being assured it is His will and pleasure that we should enjoy His blessings: and that we may do so, let us not entangle ourselves with the superstitions of men, but be content with what is contained in the pure simplicity of the gospel. Then, as we have shown concerning the first part of our text, unto them that are pure, all things will be pure..."
It is extremely strange that some folks still hold to this position when scholarship has now proved beyond any doubt whatsoever the incorrectness of this translation.
Lets look at the scripture again: [Matthew 16:16-19] 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
The Catholic position is this: Solemnly The Lord establishes Peter's preeminence above the others when Peter recognizes Him to be the Messiah. By using the word "rock" The Lord could not have been referring to Himself because the Aramaic uses the same word (Kipha) for Peter.....and rock.
Here's the problem with that translation. The New Testament was written in Greek.....not Aramaic. If....and it's a big "if", The Lord actually did speak that word in Aramaic and did indeed mean that Peter was the rock, then why did The Holy Spirit inspire Matthew to record two different words.....one for Peter (Petros), and the other for a large rock (Petra) in the Greek? Matthew could have just used the same word.....but he didn't!
Here's what the Apostle John says: [John 1:42] 42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. John uses the same essential Aramaic pronunciation but translates it...."stone".
We now have two examples from scripture using the same word.....and now a definition.
The only other times in scripture where the word "Rock" is used to describe anyone.....it is a description of The Lord Himself. A good example is [1 Corinthians 10:4] 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. The Greek word here is "Petra".
The term "petra" is never used to describe Peter in the Greek. It's always used to describe some kind of rock....usually a large one.....or Christ Himself [Matthew 7:24-25].
The Catholic Church accepts the translation of Jerome's "Vulgate and this is what that says in [John 1:42] 42 Et adduxit eum ad Jesum. Intuitus autem eum Jesus, dixit: Tu es Simon, filius Jona; tu vocaberis Cephas, quod interpretatur Petrus.
Neither Cephas nor Peter are actual Latin words yet even the Latin translation is acknowledging that Cephas means Petrus (Latinized form of Petros).
There is one more place in the New Testament that speaks of a rock. It is [Ephesians 2:20] 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; The Greek word is "Akrogoniaios"....a massive rock. It would be very silly for Paul to describe Our Lord as the Chief Cornerstone if he knew that Peter was the actual rock on which the church was to be built.
This is the reason that the "Rock" being described in [Matthew 16] does not refer to Peter....but Christ Himself. The chosen word by Matthew was Petra.....not Petros.
If Our Lord was only speaking to Peter about "binding and loosening" in [Matthew 16:19] would He have said this in [Matthew 18:18-20]? 18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. All The Apostles are being addressed in Chapter 18.....as were they all in Chapter 16.....as well.
Thank you, Diego.
The arguments on this thread have effectively torpedoed the poor Reverend's thesis, lol.
“The arguments on this thread have effectively torpedoed the poor Reverend’s thesis, lol.”
If you read his preconditions for understanding the Bible, then the posts become a reflection on the attitude of the posters, not his thesis.
“It was written to be obeyed. Hence the primary qualification demanded in the reader is not scholarship but surrender, not expert knowledge but willingness to be led by the Spirit of God. Simple piety will feed on the inner spiritual kernel of Scripture. Pride of intellect will break its teeth upon its external literary shell.”
“The principal qualification for the right understanding of the Bible is a pure heart, a simple faith, and an obedient will. We must be in sympathy with the Divine aim and purpose of the Book which is to make unholy, men holy, and to make holy men holier still.”
“The first necessity for the understanding of the Bible is the removal of all the embargoes which have been placed upon the operation of the Spirit of God in opening and illuminating the mind of the reader.”
“The true key to the understanding of the Word of God is the sincere desire to ascertain just exactly what the Spirit of God in the sacred writers intended to convey. We must not take their words and read into them a meaning of our own.. We must receive the Word whether it accords with our preconceptions or contradicts them.”
Thank you for your insights.shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiachThe L-rd's blessings on you and yours.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
You are most welcome. These passages have been a stumbling block for many.....unfortunately.
Thank you for your kind thoughts....my FRiend.
Thank you.
It’s very clear who the Rock is.
Jesus.
The posters meet his preconditions yet are still arguing over the "plain and easily understood" verses. Each poster (or at least their respective denominational affiliations) would presumably claim to be seeking illumination by the "Spirit of God" and to obey with a pure heart, yet cannot agree on the meaning of the passage.
All of which handily disproves every point the poor Reverend was trying to make in the article.
“Did he say, ‘Blessed are the cheesemakers’?”
“What’s so special about the cheesemakers?”
The Monty Python guys really nailed it in “The Life of Brian”.
I read it several times, but it wasn’t until I read a chronological Bible that it all clicked. They aren’t that hard to find and there are also chronological reading plans online.
I have given copies of “The Daily Bible: In Chronological Order” by F. LaGard Smith, to clients, friends and students in my Bible classes over the years and it has revolutionized their daily devotions.
It’s very clear who the Rock is.
Jesus.
I struggled with the traditions of man until Once you start deep studies the many metaphors I try to follow Paul's instructions to Your animals bring joy Sister. Look up ! Our King is coming soon. All praise and glory goes to Yah'shua, the Word of Elohim.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
I began serious word studies with interlinear bibles
using the rule of first use.
of YHvH's commanded Feasts bring much comfort.
Timothy on preaching the Word.
hmmm...
The entire Roman church's corporate charter hinges on that one line.
Point well taken.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Yes, they did. I love their holy hand grenade bit. It demonstrates how sometimes the bible has to be really, REALLY clear or people will try to screw up it’s meaning.
>>And the Lord spake, saying, ‘First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three. No more. No less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out.<<
Any other book could simply say, “count to three”, but because so many want to complicate the bible, “count to three” will be controversial if it goes against anything someone believes.
I heard a homosexual preacher literally say that when the bible says it is a sin for a man to lie with another man, it means “heterosexual” men.
Does the bible really, REALLY need to say, “if a man lie with another man, and by ‘lie’ I mean have sex, buggary, etc., and by man, I mean a human with a penis, regardless of who he wants to have sex with...”
It’s almost comical. If it was not so serious, it would be.
The core message of the bible is very, VERY simple. The biggest problem is that when you get into the details, eternity, heaven, etc., it becomes the equivalent of trying to explain the color red to a man that has been blind since birth.
Sometimes there is nothing funnier than watching, metaphorically speaking, a bunch of blind men arguing what red looks like.
“It is extremely strange that some RC folks still hold to this position when Protestant scholarship has now proved beyond any doubt whatsoever the incorrectness of this translation.”
There, I fixed it for you.
Beyond any doubt.
Whatsoever.
In especially solemn fashion Christ accentuated Peter’s precedence among the Apostles, when, after Peter had recognized Him as the Messias, He promised that he would be head of His flock. Jesus was then dwelling with His Apostles in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi, engaged on His work of salvation. As Christ’s coming agreed so little in power and glory with the expectations of the Messias, many different views concerning Him were current. While journeying along with His Apostles, Jesus asks them: “Whom do men say that the Son of man is?” The Apostles answered: “Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets”. Jesus said to them: “But whom do you say that I am?” Simon said: “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God”. And Jesus answering said to him: “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter [Kipha, a rock], and upon this rock [Kipha] I will build my church [ekklesian], and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven”. Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ (Matthew 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-21).
By the word “rock” the Saviour cannot have meant Himself, but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for “Peter” and “rock”. His statement then admits of but one explanation, namely, that He wishes to make Peter the head of the whole community of those who believed in Him as the true Messias; that through this foundation (Peter) the Kingdom of Christ would be unconquerable; that the spiritual guidance of the faithful was placed in the hands of Peter, as the special representative of Christ. This meaning becomes so much the clearer when we remember that the words “bind” and “loose” are not metaphorical, but Jewish juridical terms. It is also clear that the position of Peter among the other Apostles and in the Christian community was the basis for the Kingdom of God on earth, that is, the Church of Christ. Peter was personally installed as Head of the Apostles by Christ Himself. This foundation created for the Church by its Founder could not disappear with the person of Peter, but was intended to continue and did continue (as actual history shows) in the primacy of the Roman Church and its bishops.
Entirely inconsistent and in itself untenable is the position of Protestants who assert that the primacy of the Roman bishops cannot be deduced from the precedence which Peter held among the Apostles. Just as the essential activity of the Twelve Apostles in building up and extending the Church did not entirely disappear with their deaths, so surely did the Apostolic Primacy of Peter not completely vanish. As intended by Christ, it must have continued its existence and development in a form appropriate to the ecclesiastical organism, just as the office of the Apostles continued in an appropriate form.
Objections have been raised against the genuineness of the wording of the passage, but the unanimous testimony of the manuscripts, the parallel passages in the other Gospels, and the fixed belief of pre-Constantine literature furnish the surest proofs of the genuineness and untampered state of the text of Matthew (cf. “Stimmen aus MariaLaach”, I, 1896,129 sqq.; “Theologie und Glaube”, II, 1910, 842 sqq.).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.