And without a parable spake He not unto them.
I've been thinking about the meaning of the scriptures as a whole. Being staunchly literal in my interpretation for a very long time, some things are popping out as never before for some reason. I can't speak of them all here, I won't make any sense, but check these out.
My paraphrases will follow the references
Matthew 16:6-12
Jesus tells His disciples to beware of the leaven of the religious big wigs. They start saying to each other, "Man, we didn't bring any bread. What were we thinking?" Jesus reminds them of the miracle they just saw, you know the feeding of multitudes with practically nothing, and then tells them plainly He isn't talking about leaven or bread at all!
Come on guys how are you so dense? Have you no faith?
John 3
Jesus is talking to Nicodemus about being born from above. Nicodemus, seemingly thinking Jesus is talking about another physical birth asks him how this could possible. Jesus again explains that this is a SPIRIT thing, spiritual birth= not literal. He also seems a bit exasperated that Nick isn't gettin' it. He was a "spiritual" leader after all, and he can't see these things?
John 2:19-25
Jesus says that if they destroy this temple (Him being in the temple area I presume) He would raise it again in three days. They thought he meant the literal temple, why wouldn't they? It was only after He rose from the dead that his disciples figured it out. OH, He meant the...yeah.
Again not literal
It is amazing now that I am paying attention (taking offdoctrine systematic theology *glasses), that almost everything Jesus said had a spiritual meaning, meanings that were hidden from those looking for literal things.
Hmmm
In the epistles, Paul also spiritualizes things that were always thought to be literal (and yes they were, but they pointed to something else).
Hagar and Sarah
The muzzling an ox thing....
look them up;)
So for what it's worth, it's got me thinking.
Edit:
*Gregg pointed out in the comments that doctrine is not bad, and is a Biblical term. I agree and have amended this to better reflect what I was trying to say.
I've been thinking about the meaning of the scriptures as a whole. Being staunchly literal in my interpretation for a very long time, some things are popping out as never before for some reason. I can't speak of them all here, I won't make any sense, but check these out.
My paraphrases will follow the references
Matthew 16:6-12
Jesus tells His disciples to beware of the leaven of the religious big wigs. They start saying to each other, "Man, we didn't bring any bread. What were we thinking?" Jesus reminds them of the miracle they just saw, you know the feeding of multitudes with practically nothing, and then tells them plainly He isn't talking about leaven or bread at all!
Come on guys how are you so dense? Have you no faith?
John 3
Jesus is talking to Nicodemus about being born from above. Nicodemus, seemingly thinking Jesus is talking about another physical birth asks him how this could possible. Jesus again explains that this is a SPIRIT thing, spiritual birth= not literal. He also seems a bit exasperated that Nick isn't gettin' it. He was a "spiritual" leader after all, and he can't see these things?
John 2:19-25
Jesus says that if they destroy this temple (Him being in the temple area I presume) He would raise it again in three days. They thought he meant the literal temple, why wouldn't they? It was only after He rose from the dead that his disciples figured it out. OH, He meant the...yeah.
Again not literal
It is amazing now that I am paying attention (taking off
Hmmm
 |
| It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life. |
In the epistles, Paul also spiritualizes things that were always thought to be literal (and yes they were, but they pointed to something else).
Hagar and Sarah
The muzzling an ox thing....
look them up;)
So for what it's worth, it's got me thinking.
Edit:
*Gregg pointed out in the comments that doctrine is not bad, and is a Biblical term. I agree and have amended this to better reflect what I was trying to say.
Yes. Good point. I agree. I also can't help to think (and sometimes I do too much of that, I think:) that He is teaching us to be better listeners. In the case of Nicodemus, we can be so intellectual, so high on our own smarts, so showy-lookie-what-I-know, that we totally miss the point. IOW, we're so full of self, we're not listening, not able to. He even expounded things to His disciples and they still didn't get it. Too much leaning on our own understanding can be just as blinding. Anyway, you got me going again. :-)
ReplyDeleteI so need to be a better listener. It is so hard to just put everything aside and just ask God to help you understand. I wonder if it is even possible. It is if He wants you to , I suppose.
DeleteReminds me of:
ReplyDelete1Co 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
1Co 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
The first one you bring up especially reminds me of how we can get to thinking that it is all about us doing something, the disciples thought they were supposed to bring bread, but Jesus supplied the bread before, and He was talking about the "leaven of the Pharisees" and they were always all about showing themselves to be "holy" by showing off their "good works" and long prayers and what not...not that good works aren't good, they had a wrong motive, and Jesus knows our hearts...we can fool others, we might even fool ourselves, but we can't fool Jesus :)
Great passage, there is SO much there. We have the mind of Christ? How is that possible?
DeleteOur pastor did a sermon on the bread thing last weekend that got me to thinking about all this. And I agree that good works ARE good, if they come from the heart, otherwise they are just for show or for duty (although I wonder if obedience is okay even if you don't "feel" it at the time).
Yeah, we cannot trust our feelings, although we have them for a reason and cannot rule them out 100% of the time either.
Delete1Jn 4:13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.
1Jn 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
1Jn 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
1Jn 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
1Jn 4:17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
1Jn 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
1Jn 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.
1Jn 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
1Jn 4:21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.
I know this passage (and the 1 Corinthians passage as well) get abused and misused, however they are there for our learning and for us to take to the Lord in prayer and thanksgiving, and all true humility in our spirit. We do not know everything, but we do know Jesus, who DOES know everything. :)
Very interesting post. I need to think it over more carefully, and I may post more on it later, but for now I have just three quick comments.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I think that it is helpful to distinguish between the literal meaning of a passage and the plain meaning of a passage. Consider the parable of the prodigal son. According to the literal meaning of the parable, there was an actual living person who did the things that the parable attributes to prodigal son. According to the plain meaning of the parable, there was no such actual living person. According to the literal meaning, the parable is a piece of historical reporting from which we may draw important spiritual lessons. According to the plain meaning, the parable itself is a spiritual lesson (or set of spiritual lessons). I think it is clear that Jesus intended us to understand the parable in terms of its plain meaning, not its literal meaning, but that doesn't mean that the plain meaning is some sort of far-out allegorical meaning. Instead, it is simply the intended, ordinary meaning of the parable.
Second, I think that there are many passages in the Bible whose literal meaning coincidences with their plain meaning - i.e., they are meant to be read literally. However, I also think that there are many passages whose literal and plain meanings do not coincide - i.e., they are not meant to be read literally. This doesn't mean that the plain meaning of such passages is some far-out allegorical meaning, and it certainly doesn't undermine traditional readings of the Bible. For example, I think that the doctrine of the Trinity is found in the literal meanings of many passages; and, I think that it is also found in the plain meanings of many passages that are not meant to be read literally. If the literal meaning of a passage asserts the Trinity and the literal meaning is the intended or plain meaning, then the passage asserts the Trinity. And, if the plain meaning but not the literal meaning of a passage asserts the Trinity, then the passage still asserts the Trinity. And, as I say, I think that the central doctrines of the Bible, like the Trinity, are asserted in both kinds of passages. So, I don't think that we need to fear that we will lose important doctrines by entertaining non-literal readings.
Third, every major thinker of the early Protestant Reformation agreed that many passages in the Bible should not be read literally as we use the term "literally" today. Calvin and others did criticize Catholic theologians for rejecting literal readings, but what Calvin meant by "literal" was considerably broader than what we mean today. For example, Calvin thought that many OT figures were types of Christ, and that many passages about those figures were about Christ when read literally. However, we probably wouldn't say that all of those passages were literally about Christ. We would say that Christ was part of the plain meaning of many or all of those passages though. The point is that different people use the term "literally" in different ways. And we need to be mindful of this.
In conclusion, we should probably reject many kinds of non-literal readings, but that doesn't mean that we should reject them all.
Sorry to take up so much space. Please feel free to delete the post if you wish!
I don't think that we need to fear that we will lose important doctrines by entertaining non-literal readings
DeleteI agree. I was thinking about the book of Revelation in all of this, not that I want to go there now, but coming from a very literal (literal 666 on one's forehead, you dig) place, I am starting to be willing to at least LOOK at some other ideas, not that I'm trying to change my mind, but Jesus DID speak in parables.
As far as the Trinity goes, I am pretty confused, just have accepted it as orthodox because, well it's orthodox. What passages in particular would you suggest give us this doctrine?
"you dig" lol Ma, you crack me up! :D
DeleteI do think that the doctrine of the Trinity can be found throughout the New Testament. However, I think that it requires a lot of explanation to make this clear. I am going to put a lot of thought into this over the next few days, and I will post something on my blog about it (knowing me, it will probably be fairly long). In the meantime, let me make two quick points.
DeleteFirst, we need to distinguish between the claim that Jesus is God and the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity says that there are three persons in the Godhead, not two - not just Jesus and YHWH, but also the Holy Spirit. I think that there are dozens of passages in the NT that clearly teach that Jesus is God, but it is harder to find passages that teach that the Holy Spirit is God, and it is even harder to find isolated passages that assert that YHWH, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are God. Nonetheless, I think that we can find passages of all kinds.
Second, I think that many modern readers of the Bible struggle with finding the doctrine of the Trinity in the NT due to an overly literal approach to Scripture. I have read the NT many times, but I can't think of a single passages that states the doctrine of the Trinity in the explicit terms that one finds in the Athanasian Creed. Actually, I don't think that the Apostles' Creed or Nicene Creed is explicit as the Athanasian Creed. But that doesn't mean that the NT doesn't affirm the doctrine of the Trinity. I think it does. I am not sure that the doctrine is the literal meaning of any passage in the NT, but I think that it is the plain meaning - the intended, ordinary meaning - of many such passages. We should be cautious here. I think that pre-Reformation (and much post-Reformation) exegesis was far too undisciplined when it found support for the Trinity in the three strangers who visited Abraham and other such passages. But I think that the doctrine of the Trinity can be found in the NT.
I will mention some passages here, but it would take some work to unpack them. I will do this on my blog soon. Here are the passages:
John 14:15-30; John 16:4-15; Acts 2; Romans 8:1-27; 1 Corinthians 2:10-16; 1 Corinthians 6:15-20; and, Titus 3:4-7.
I think that the Trinity can be found in other passages, but these may be the strongest and clearest.
I will check out the scriptures and will be looking for your piece on this when you get it done.
DeleteOne query on my part, if you know, why is it so very important that we have a Trinity? What I mean is why we as Christians see this as an essential doctrine?
That is a difficult question, and there are many Christians who could answer it far better than me, but here goes.
DeleteI could say that the Bible teaches the doctrine of the Trinity, but you might ask why the doctrine is significant in the context of Scripture. I could say that the doctrine of the Trinity reveals something about both God's nature. For example, I could say that the doctrine of the Trinity reveals that the Godhead is a community, and that this reveals something about the importance of love and community to God. But you might ask whether we need the full doctrine of the Trinity for this - wouldn't the divinity of Christ suffice? And couldn't God simply tell us that He values love and community? I could say that the doctrine of the Trinity reveals something important about how God interacts with us - that He is literally present with us, in spirit, on earth, and that He literally fills us and indwells us. But you could ask whether God couldn't accomplish everything without the Spirit that He accomplishes through the Spirit.
At this point, I might say that we should be content to accept the Trinity without probing it for the simple reason that it is taught by Scripture. That might not be bad advice, but I know that Christians thinkers from Calvin to Kupyer have had a lot of great things to say about the Spirit. I haven't read a lot of it, but I can share one of my own thoughts.
One of the biggest problems with the church today is that we have a hard time believing that God is truly active in the world. We may believe in Him, and we may believe that He sees all that happens on earth, but we often feel that God doesn't intercede very much in human affairs, and that we pretty much have to stick things out here alone until we die. Sure, God answers some prayers here and there, but He doesn't always do so, and we can never predict when God will step in. So, we muddle through as if we are on our own.
I have often thought about God this way, and so have many Christians. But this kind of thinking is wrong. Jesus Himself teaches us that this thinking is wrong in many places in the gospels, including the Last Supper discourses in John, where Jesus tells His disciples that He will send the Holy Spirit to them as an advocate. Here is how I would put Jesus's words.
God sends us His Holy Spirit. The Spirit plants faith in our hearts; He illuminates the Bible for us; He indwells us and causes us to grow in holiness and sanctification. The Spirit is in the church, building it up and purifying it. And the Spirit is always with us. God sees all, and He may not always answer our prayers in ways that we can understand, but His Spirit is always with us, and He is always acting on our behalf. The Spirit is always doing God's work, and the Spirit is always acting for our good. We aren't stranded here on earth, with God far away in heaven, watching but absent. No, His Spirit is closer to us than our own breath. And His Spirit guards, strengthens, comforts, supports, and teaches us. Finally, by doing this - by sending His Spirit in this way - God teaches us many important things about Himself, such as that He is perfectly faithful and trustworthy, that He is loving and mighty to save, and that He is with us always. Could God grant us faith from heaven without being literally present with us in His Spirit? I suppose. But God chose to send us His Spirit, to be present with us on earth in the fullest sense. I find this incredibly comforting and beautiful. It also gives me courage.
That is the beginning of an answer anyway. But you should read Calvin or Kuyper on this. They both have some wonderful things to say about the Holy Spirit.
First, it always concerns me when people talk about taking their doctrine glasses off. Doctrine means teaching, every time you pick up the bible, you are looking for God's teaching or doctrine. There is no such thing as a difference between "doctrine" and learning.
ReplyDeleteSecond, look to see why Jesus taught in parables. He taught in parables specifically so some WOULD NOT UNDERSTAND HIM. Those who knew him would understand them by the aid of the illuminating Holy Spirit. Those who did not know Him would not understand Him.
Third, don't make the mistake most covanent theologians, reformers, spiritualizers, and allegorists make. Literal does not mean a dead, wooden, non-living reading. Literal interpretation takes into consideration, figures of speech, symbolism, types, and such. If you go looking for hidden meaning and attach speculative thinking to your interpretation you are going to be incorrect.
I agree Gregg, that doctrine was a poor choice of words on my part. I will say "systematic theology" glasses instead;)
DeleteI understand well the literal interpretation and all that goes with it, I have been in the dispensational camp for a very long time.
Also, I wouldn't say I'm looking for hidden meaning, just the right one:)
I just have one terminological quibble. I would say that the literal meaning of a passage does not include figures of speech, types, etc., but that the plain meaning may. Consider a figure of speech like "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". The literal meaning of this figure of speech is that a bird in your hand is worth twice as much as a bird in a bush. The plain meaning - the intended, ordinary meaning - is that something you have secured is often more valuable than something you haven't secured. Figures of speech like this trade on their plain meanings, but not their literal meanings. Understood literally, such figures of speech are often nonsense. Understood plainly, they often include much wisdom.
DeleteSome people might think that this is a terminological issue, and it is, but the terminology is well established in linguistics and language studies, and great confusion results when the terminology isn't used in a uniform way. "Literal" means literal, and it excludes things like types, figures of speech, etc. I actually read the Bible more conservatively than Calvin, but I wouldn't say that we should confine ourselves to literal readings of Scripture. Rather, I would say that we should confine ourselves to plain readings of Scripture. Plain readings can include figures of speech, types, etc., but they can also be literal - sometimes the plain reading is the plain reading. Plain readings can also include allegories, though they don't need to. And yes, there are a few places in Scripture that contain allegories. But much of the allegorical reading of Scripture in the late antique and medieval periods went way beyond the plain sense of Scripture. In fact, I think that Calvin often went way beyond the plain sense of Scripture.
We need to be careful by what we mean when we use the tern "literal". To my hear, the claim that we can only read the Bible literally means that we have to throw out all types. But that's definitely not what Calvin meant when he insisted on the literal meanings. And, when I say that we can and should read the Bible non-literally, you might think that I have wild allegorical readings in mind. I don't. I have things like figures of speech and types in mind. Alright, time to get some coffee.
I do find myself in agreement with Leslie's comments on this...and all the more reason that we do need the Holy Spirit to teach us. Yes, of course He does it through reading the scriptures, and often uses His ministers to teach us, but even in those instances, it has to be the Holy Spirit at work, for if it isn't, then it is a fraud and a fake, empty religion.
DeleteI completely understand what you are saying Ma. I tried to explain to my Christian aunt something similiar to which she replied, "Well, people can over-spiritualize the Word." Hhmm, subtle put-down and dismissal. Jesus told the Pharisees, if you had admitted you were blind - then you had not sin, but since you say you see, then your sin remains (John 9:41) Only God can open the eyes of the blind - and until He does there is no way to make people see.
DeleteRemember that the Holy Spirit is the teacher and hang on to the things HE is teaching you. Love the people that will try to teach you because we were once where they were too.
lots of love!
Linda
The Holy Spirit IS the teacher, you are so right. It's amazing how the spirit works when nothing else can. I know all too well.
DeleteThis was one blind chic:)
About the Holy Spirit,
ReplyDeleteI guess what I have a question about is what is the difference between the Father and the Spirit. Jesus says that God IS spirit, so I just wondered.
I'm certainly not wanting to open up any can of worms on this though!
Alright, time to be brief for real. As I understand Scripture, it teaches that the Father and the Holy Spirit perform different duties. For example, the Father (through Christ) creates, but the Holy Spirit does not create; and, the Holy Spirit spirit indwells us, but the Father does not. As Calvin and other point out, there also seem to be relations of priority or quasi-priority in the Godhead - Jesus is begotten by God, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The relations of priority or quasi-priority are contained in the Nicene Creed, and they are found throughout the NT. It isn't clear exactly how Jesus can be begotten by God if Jesus is God and eternal, and similarly for the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, but Scripture and the early creeds recognize such relations.
DeleteSo, the Spirit seems to differ from the Father in both function and (quasi-)priority, though they are both God. That's all I can really say.
Makes it all really interesting, doesn't it? So much of the bible is literal and so much is figurative, and there are many views on which is which.
ReplyDeleteInteresting, indeed. God's word is never boring:)
DeleteI love the spiritual "layers" in Jesus' parables. I think the more you get to know Him the more He reveals. For me, if I am going through new situation, something I could have read a hundred times before seems to jump off the page.
ReplyDeleteHi Stacie, it's a relationship.
DeleteJesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
He lives in us and as we obey, He becomes more and we become less. This gives us more of His mind so to speak and would result in greater understanding:)
Hi Ma,
DeleteI wonder if obedience follows faith or vise versa, or both in combination mixed together simultaneously? Some put one before the other (on two separate camps, one emphasizing faith, the other obedience first), but I think they are both combined in how the Lord works in us.
I've been thinking alot about the relationship aspect, and how it is like the marriage relationship (a good one, that is). How many marriages are one-sided with only one partner being truly invested in the building of the relationship, and the other just expecting everything, and wanting to do nothing towards it? Are many Christians in THAT KIND of relationship with Jesus? Just on autopilot? wanting to take the easy way out by "doing the relationship thing" in a way that conforms to what other people teach or think, just because it's comfortable and doesn't make waves, even though it might be superficial...or even artificial? The truth sometimes needs to make us a little uncomfortable, eh?
Indeed and this hits on something, in a round about way that I was thinking about at church today, but I'll post about it later:)
DeleteExcellent point Susan. I probably need to go think about that.
Delete