First Rule of Bible Hermeneutics: Simple Enough to Teach a Child

[Arial]

And I add, should be taught to children, so they never fall off the cliff at every turn when interpreting Scripture.

Something can never mean what it does not mean.

That is the very reason "proof texts" and isolated scriptures should never be the source of doctrine or belief. It is the principle behind scripture interprets scripture. It is the death knell to the mantra of promises spouted by Word of Life teachings.

In Bible Hermeneutics we first find the meaning of a passage, and having done that, we can move on to its application to us as Christians.

Let's look at one passage as an example. Jeremiah 29:11 "For I know the plans I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."

If we take that as a personal promise God makes to us, what then do we do with 2 Tim 3:12 Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted...

If Jer 29:11 is not a personal promise to all believers, does that mean the passage has no application to us?

No. But just what that personal application is, must be found by first knowing what it means in its context. Then and only then can we make the correct application.

So I will leave it as a friendly challenge to explore the text from which the passage comes, find its meaning, and then apply it. It is really quite eye opening and comforting.

Repeating it as a mantra to move God will not move so much as a grain of sand. Grasping the application from the meaning, just might move a mountain.

 

[Lees]

And I add, should be taught to children, so they never fall off the cliff at every turn when interpreting Scripture.

Something can never mean what it does not mean.

That is the very reason "proof texts" and isolated scriptures should never be the source of doctrine or belief. It is the principle behind scripture interprets scripture. It is the death knell to the mantra of promises spouted by Word of Life teachings.

In Bible Hermeneutics we first find the meaning of a passage, and having done that, we can move on to its application to us as Christians.

Let's look at one passage as an example. Jeremiah 29:11 "For I know the plans I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."

If we take that as a personal promise God makes to us, what then do we do with 2 Tim 3:12 Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted...

If Jer 29:11 is not a personal promise to all believers, does that mean the passage has no application to us?

No. But just what that personal application is, must be found by first knowing what it means in its context. Then and only then can we make the correct application.

So I will leave it as a friendly challenge to explore the text from which the passage comes, find its meaning, and then apply it. It is really quite eye opening and comforting.

Repeating it as a mantra to move God will not move so much as a grain of sand. Grasping the application from the meaning, just might move a mountain.

"Something can never mean what it does not mean". OK. Hard to argue with that.

"proof texts and isolated scriptures should never be the source of doctrine or belief" And what does that mean? All Scripture should be a source of doctrine and belief. What do you mean by 'isolated'?

In Bible Hermeneutics when you find the 'meaning of a passage', that is the meaning of the passage. Which any application to us as Christians, if it does not pertain to us as Christians, doesn't change the meaning. Does it?

Hermanenutics comes after a correct translation. (Jer. 29:11) "For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end." (KJV) If the translation is amiss. The application is equally, if not more, amiss.

I think what you present as an 'example' is really the whole subject of this thread. (Jer. 29:11)

My opinion.

Lees

 

[Arial]

"Something can never mean what it does not mean". OK. Hard to argue with that.

I can think of all sorts of Lee-ism as a tone to respond to that with, but shall yield to the Spirit and not the flesh, though the flesh is screaming loudly.

It is a way of hermeneutics coming against interpreting a scripture by application instead of by meaning. And then saying the application is the meaning. The meaning must be found first and the meaning is found in the context and in clear scriptures on the same subject.

So what is the context of Jer 29:11? Can Jer 29:11 be applied each individual believer as meaning that God promises them only good things, prosperity, no harm, in this life?

"proof texts and isolated scriptures should never be the source of doctrine or belief" And what does that mean? All Scripture should be a source of doctrine and belief. What do you mean by 'isolated'?

I have trouble understanding why you would need to ask what that means. Are you seriously asking? If you are, I will gladly tell you. The example I gave in the OP should be enough.

In Bible Hermeneutics when you find the 'meaning of a passage', that is the meaning of the passage. Which any application to us as Christians, if it does not pertain to us as Christians, doesn't change the meaning. Does it?

Everything in the Bible pertains to us as Christians. I am talking about the application must come from the meaning, not the meaning from an application. Perhaps you do not understand what is meant by application, although that too was hinted at in the OP example and then opened up for us to find that meaning from the context and then find how it applies to us, even though it was not written to us (it declares itself to be a letter)it applies to us but not in the same way as it did to those it was written to. It actually applies in a much grander and larger way, an eternal way.

Hermanenutics comes after a correct translation. (Jer. 29:11) "For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end." (KJV

Translations rarely has anything to do with it. I quoted from the ESV. The ESV and the KJV are saying exactly the same thing. And I am not asking for a dictionary definition of individual words in the passage, when I ask what it means. I am asking, can it be taken all by itself as a universal promise of only good for those who love God? Is that what God was saying?

My intent, and it was clearly given as a challenge to explore the context on this forum and in this thread, was to do just that. Not to invite argumentative off topic responses or discuss translations. So, can you go there and in a civil manner, or not?

 

[makesends]

"Something can never mean what it does not mean". OK. Hard to argue with that.

I can think of all sorts of Lee-ism as a tone to respond to that with, but shall yield to the Spirit and not the flesh, though the flesh is screaming loudly.

It is a way of hermeneutics coming against interpreting a scripture by application instead of by meaning. And then saying the application is the meaning. The meaning must be found first and the meaning is found in the context and in clear scriptures on the same subject.

So what is the context of Jer 29:11? Can Jer 29:11 be applied each individual believer as meaning that God promises them only good things, prosperity, no harm, in this life?

"proof texts and isolated scriptures should never be the source of doctrine or belief" And what does that mean? All Scripture should be a source of doctrine and belief. What do you mean by 'isolated'?

I have trouble understanding why you would need to ask what that means. Are you seriously asking? If you are, I will gladly tell you. The example I gave in the OP should be enough.

@Lee, to quote any verse or passage by itself, is to isolate it from its context, always. That we can do no other without writing a huge book notwithstanding, to do so lends itself to error—when we quote something out of context, we are necessarily misquoting it. It can't be helped, so we must mitigate that all we reasonably can, by bringing in any impinging thoughts, principles, texts, to lend meaning to the quote.

 

[Arial]

@Lee, to quote any verse or passage by itself, is to isolate it from its context, always. That we can do no other without writing a huge book notwithstanding, to do so lends itself to error—when we quote something out of context, we are necessarily misquoting it. It can't be helped, so we must mitigate that all we reasonably can, by bringing in any impinging thoughts, principles, texts, to lend meaning to the quote.

Also, one has to make sure what they say a scripture means and turn it into a doctrine, it is not contradicted in other places in the scriptures.

 

[Rye]

Sometimes we run into the issue of anthropomorphic language as well.

Exodus 32:14 - And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Numbers 23:19 - God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

By the same author, we are told in one place that God repented and in another place we are told that God never repents.

How do I know that this is to be understood anthropomorphically?

As an example, God threatened to wipe out Israel after the golden calf incident and start over with Moses. The problem with that is the Messiah was already promised to come from the tribe of Judah and Moses is from the tribe of Levi.

We know not take this literally because if God did actually repent then He would be a liar also.

 

[Lees]

I can think of all sorts of Lee-ism as a tone to respond to that with, but shall yield to the Spirit and not the flesh, though the flesh is screaming loudly.

It is a way of hermeneutics coming against interpreting a scripture by application instead of by meaning. And then saying the application is the meaning. The meaning must be found first and the meaning is found in the context and in clear scriptures on the same subject.

So what is the context of Jer 29:11? Can Jer 29:11 be applied each individual believer as meaning that God promises them only good things, prosperity, no harm, in this life?


I have trouble understanding why you would need to ask what that means. Are you seriously asking? If you are, I will gladly tell you. The example I gave in the OP should be enough.

Everything in the Bible pertains to us as Christians. I am talking about the application must come from the meaning, not the meaning from an application. Perhaps you do not understand what is meant by application, although that too was hinted at in the OP example and then opened up for us to find that meaning from the context and then find how it applies to us, even though it was not written to us (it declares itself to be a letter)it applies to us but not in the same way as it did to those it was written to. It actually applies in a much grander and larger way, an eternal way.

Translations rarely has anything to do with it. I quoted from the ESV. The ESV and the KJV are saying exactly the same thing. And I am not asking for a dictionary definition of individual words in the passage, when I ask what it means. I am asking, can it be taken all by itself as a universal promise of only good for those who love God? Is that what God was saying?

My intent, and it was clearly given as a challenge to explore the context on this forum and in this thread, was to do just that. Not to invite argumentative off topic responses or discuss translations. So, can you go there and in a civil manner, or not?

The context of (Jer. 29:11) is that Jeremiah, still in Jerusalem, (Jer. 29:1), sent a letter to the captives who had already been carried away to Babylon. Just as Jeremiah had prophecied would happen before. See (Jer. 25) This judgement was from God. And instead of resisting this judgement, the Jews were to accept it as of God and prepare for a long stay in Babylon. (Jer. 29:4-7) And just as false prophets resisted Jeremiah's message before, (Jer. 14:13-15), so they still do while being captive. (Jer. 29:8-9)

The false prophets view this captivity as not from God, thus ignoring their sins against God which have brought on this captivity. Jeremiah is saying that it is from God, though it be terrible to endure. And though it be terrible, it's purpose is for good. It is to destroy that unbelief and idolatrous spirit among Israel. And to have them return again once that is accomplished. (Jer. 29:10) It does have an end. 70 years, which they can expect.

And so, (Jer. 29:11) "For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end." The captivity is terrible but does not change God's love and good thoughts for His people because it is for their good.

This verse is specifically to Israel who are experiencing the captivity. It is not to the Church, which I believe doesn't begin until Pentecost. Can we, the believers in the Church make 'application' from this verse. Of course. It reveals the mind of God concerning His people. Which means when we, who are the Church, are brought into judgement from God we can know also that it is for our good, and God still loves and will not abandon us. He will bring us to our expected end. (Philippians 1:6) (Heb. 12:3-15)

Lees

 

[Arial]

The context of (Jer. 29:11) is that Jeremiah, still in Jerusalem, (Jer. 29:1), sent a letter to the captives who had already been carried away to Babylon. Just as Jeremiah had prophecied would happen before. See (Jer. 25) This judgement was from God. And instead of resisting this judgement, the Jews were to accept it as of God and prepare for a long stay in Babylon. (Jer. 29:4-7) And just as false prophets resisted Jeremiah's message before, (Jer. 14:13-15), so they still do while being captive. (Jer. 29:8-9)

Precisely. Before I begin addressing your post in the spirit of Rule 2.1 All members must engage in discussions with humility, respect, and peace (Eph 4:2; Rom 12:18;Matt 7:12; 1 Cor 13:1-13). Discussions should be constructive, seeking to edify rather than tear down. Approach discussions with a willingness to listen, a readiness to learn, and a heart that seeks fellow believer in unity with Christ Jesus; I am respectfully asking that you read my entire post before quoting and responding so that the responses do not lead off into a derailment. I say this because of an eschatological comment made at the end of your post and because I am presenting all that I say from a particular set of views, not arguing view points or details of them. In order to approach with a willingness to listen and a readiness to learn, what I say must be considered as coming from my own POV. I will make my best attempt to support all I say with Scripture. Therefore it becomes necessary to at least give a synopsis of that view as it relates to what I present and to Jer 29 when it comes to application. My view of end times will need to be mentioned in brief when I do this, but that does not mean there is then leeway to change the topic to different end times interpretations.

My POV: Reformed. Amillennial. Most closely aligned with Idealist Amillenialism. As such I believe that the Covenant of Redemption was with and in the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) before creation. That all the covenants made with individuals and with Israel are an integral part of the Covenant of Redemption, not separated from it, but moving it forward to the coming of Christ and the New Covenant. As such national Israel is not a separate entity from the church but the two become one in the New Covenant. In essence, God's people expanded through the gospel to peoples of all nations. And that this was always God's intent and plan. There is a point to be made that this joining of the two as God's people is the New Jerusalem, though it is now in a right now, not yet position until Christ's return. Christ is true Israel. Perfectly obedient Israel and all in him are true, spiritual Israel. (Gal 6:15-15; Romans 11:19-25; Romans 9:6-8; Eph 2:11-14; Gal 3:26-29).

The false prophets view this captivity as not from God, thus ignoring their sins against God which have brought on this captivity. Jeremiah is saying that it is from God, though it be terrible to endure. And though it be terrible, it's purpose is for good. It is to destroy that unbelief and idolatrous spirit among Israel. And to have them return again once that is accomplished. (Jer. 29:10) It does have an end. 70 years, which they can expect.

I would mostly agree with this, but we must not lose sight of vv 4-9 "Thus says the Lord the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare. For thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Do not let your prophets and your diviners who are among you deceive you, and do not listen to the dreams that they dream, for it is a lie that they are prophesying to you in my name; I did not send them, declares the Lord.

This will be very important to all believers of all generations when we get to the application, just as it was to those who received the letter and to the time in which it was written. It is the foundation of verse 11 and also an indictment to those who take verse 11 out of all context and tell the people that this is what God says, and this is what we have as a promise for the hear and now.

To be continued. Accidently hit post.

 

[Arial]

And so, (Jer. 29:11) "For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end." The captivity is terrible but does not change God's love and good thoughts for His people because it is for their good.

Read post #8 first. I accidentally posted it before I was finished. Thanks.
Not exactly IMV. The captivity wasn't all that terrible. The central point is God's eternal plan and that portion of it that directly related to national Israel. The Messiah, the Savior, must come from Judah. Therefore he would not destroy them or utterly abandon them and would bring them back into the land.

This verse is specifically to Israel who are experiencing the captivity. It is not to the Church, which I believe doesn't begin until Pentecost.

Yes, Just as the letter is. But that does not mean that it has no application to the Church in a future way.

Can we, the believers in the Church make 'application' from this verse. Of course. It reveals the mind of God concerning His people. Which means when we, who are the Church, are brought into judgement from God we can know also that it is for our good, and God still loves and will not abandon us. He will bring us to our expected end. (Philippians 1:6) (Heb. 12:3-15)

We, the believers, are never brought into judgement from God. There is a difference between judgement and discipline.

I do not see what you are saying as entirely wrong, other than that judgement part. What I do see is not a deep application but some what resting on the surface.

Application to Christians of all generations, Jew and Gentile alike from my POV.

As long as we are in this fallen world, the believer is living in exile. As being in Christ through faith, our home is dwelling with God, and he with us, but we are not there yet. We still suffer the effects of the fall and live in the middle of it. To be honest, it is easy to lose hope or be optimistic about anything with all the suffering and corruption and persecution, our own and that that is all around us. Governments are corrupt, invasive, and oppressive. Incomes (speaking as one who lives in the US) can't keep up with inflation while bureaucracies and conglomerates grow bigger and bigger, untouchable, as they fuel their own interests and line their own pockets and in the shadows run the government. The anti-God and anti-Christian forces have their boot heel on the necks of God's people forcing them to bow to "Ceasar is God", in subtle but powerful ways. Changing language and gender and feeding our children with propaganda. Justice in the justice system often becomes a travesty.

Even Christians lose hope and join in the cry, "I do not want to bring children into this world." Even Christians violate the order of the command, marry and have children. Increase and do not decrease. And there is an element in Christianity which must not be overlooked. The prophecy that says look at all of this. Christ is at the door and we will soon be taken out of here. I remember my brother saying thirty or forty years ago, why by a house, why have children, why do anything but wait, we will soon be taken out of here.

And here is where we can look at Jer 29:4-9 and apply it to the believer of any generation and take hold of verse 11 as our sure hope and promise. Not for ease and peace and prosperity for today, but for Rev 21 and Is. 11: 1-10.

We have been planted here in this world for God's glory and his purposes. We each have been place in the nation, the state, the city that we reside in. For his purposes. We are to live with hope, the certain hope of the consummation (1 Cor 15; 1 John 2:25; Romans 12:12; Romans 15:13; Titus 1:2; Romans 8:18-25). We marry and have children, we build homes and plant gardens and eat their produce, (literal at the time of the writing and usually metaphorically in this modern age----working and taking care of all we have been given.) And most of all we do the very thing that is counter intuitive, we pray for the welfare of the country, state, city, where we live because in their welfare is our welfare. Because he has plans for us. We have a future and a hope. Our hope is placed in him. Even in our suffering and our trials and the raging world around us.

We are here for a reason and it is God's reason and he will bring it to pass.

 

[Arial]

I think what you present as an 'example' is really the whole subject of this thread. (Jer. 29:11)

The passage is a commonly misused and misunderstood isolation of scripture that completely looses the context and the value. The value commonly given to it is of no value at all for it defies many, many other scriptures in the NT that say Christians will suffer and be in trials and tribulations.

The subject of the thread is hermeneutics of Bible interpretation. What follows and what I eventually said myself in the post you ignored, uses that passage as an illustration for learning purposes concerning hermeneutics in basic form that even a child can learn and should be taught (who, what, where, when, why); doing that, as was illustrated, gives a solid, true, and biblically verifiable, application of Jer 29:11.

 

[Dave]

Does the Bible set it's own rules for interpretation? Does that line up with the hermeneutic principles?

Dave

 

[Arial]

Does the Bible set it's own rules for interpretation? Does that line up with the hermeneutic principles?

Dave

Yes, but they do not differ from hermeneutics involved in interpreting anything else. The Bible is a unique book containing many types of genre, and as the word of God, must also be contradiction, (as to truth and principle), free. Which adds, the principle of Scripture interpreting Scripture. So the answer to question two is yes.

The principles or law of Bible hermeneutics are:

Interpret literally. That is it is to be understood in its normal, plain meaning unless the passage is obviously intended as symbolic or if figures of speech are used. As an example in Mark 8:19 Jesus feed five thousand. He feeds them real bread and fish. Denying the literal number (spiritualizing it) or denying a literal miracle are incorrect hermeneutics. To interpret those passages that refer to those God gives to Christ as sheep who hear his voice, as literal sheep and hearing a literal voice, is equally wrong.

HIstorically. Understanding the culture, background that prompted the text.

Grammatically. Following the rules of grammar, considering the nuances of Hebrew and Greek. We can still get the true meaning of the passage without the Hebrew and Greek when we consider other clear scriptures on the same subject. For example if we are reading Titus 2:13 "our great God and Savior" is Paul saying Jesus and God are parallel terms or is he saying they are not? We can solve that "mystery" by going to those scriptures that clearly state Jesus is God.

Contextually. Interpreting according to the context of the passage. That includes the verses or chapters immediately preceding and following the text and also the entire Bible.

Applying the principle of hermeneutics to the Bible is to protect us from misapplying Scripture and mishandling the word of God.

 

[makesends]

Does the Bible set it's own rules for interpretation? Does that line up with the hermeneutic principles?

Dave

It has some. It gives examples of comparing beliefs/ notions/ doctrines to scripture, and even a few with using scripture in reasoning/ debate. In those dialogues, there are examples of how to reason on scripture and doctrine.

Also, scripture makes statements as to the reliability of any and all Scripture, and of the supremacy of its source.

But Hermeneutic principles are not scripture itself. They are just common sense.

 

[Arial]

But Hermeneutic principles are not scripture itself. They are just common sense.

We actually apply hermeneutics to everything we read. We do it automatically but for some reason it is often abandoned almost entirely when reading the Bible. I think that may be because, as is often the case, some read the Bible looking for us, not God or Christ. In much of the modern church we hear that from the pulpit (application without examination of context or the whole counsel of God, and void of most of theology) and are taught to do that. It becomes a habit difficult to break.

 

[makesends]

We actually apply hermeneutics to everything we read. We do it automatically but for some reason it is often abandoned almost entirely when reading the Bible. I think that may be because, as is often the case, some read the Bible looking for us, not God or Christ. In much of the modern church we hear that from the pulpit (application without examination of context or the whole counsel of God, and void of most of theology) and are taught to do that. It becomes a habit difficult to break.

I think it is from several things, one of which is a sort of superstition. We want to delve in only a bit, and hold it off from ourselves, and consider it beyond us as a 'holy thing', almost a talisman, which in a way is funny, because we also have a tendency to 'figure it out' instead of 'read it'.

 

[EarlyActs]

And I add, should be taught to children, so they never fall off the cliff at every turn when interpreting Scripture.

Something can never mean what it does not mean.

That is the very reason "proof texts" and isolated scriptures should never be the source of doctrine or belief. It is the principle behind scripture interprets scripture. It is the death knell to the mantra of promises spouted by Word of Life teachings.

In Bible Hermeneutics we first find the meaning of a passage, and having done that, we can move on to its application to us as Christians.

Let's look at one passage as an example. Jeremiah 29:11 "For I know the plans I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."

If we take that as a personal promise God makes to us, what then do we do with 2 Tim 3:12 Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted...

If Jer 29:11 is not a personal promise to all believers, does that mean the passage has no application to us?

No. But just what that personal application is, must be found by first knowing what it means in its context. Then and only then can we make the correct application.

So I will leave it as a friendly challenge to explore the text from which the passage comes, find its meaning, and then apply it. It is really quite eye opening and comforting.

Repeating it as a mantra to move God will not move so much as a grain of sand. Grasping the application from the meaning, just might move a mountain.

Do you know Ramm's 1st 4 principles in Protestant Biblical Interpretation?

 

[Arial]

Do you know Ramm's 1st 4 principles in Protestant Biblical Interpretation?

I looked it up. Is there something in particular you wanted to address about it? Or was it just a question of inquiry?

 

[Hazelelponi]

I think it is from several things, one of which is a sort of superstition. We want to delve in only a bit, and hold it off from ourselves, and consider it beyond us as a 'holy thing', almost a talisman, which in a way is funny, because we also have a tendency to 'figure it out' instead of 'read it'.

I read it like a novel. I literally get the light right and curl up and just start reading. I let God speak to me through the word and the Holy Spirit.

But I'm not as good at meticulous study I don't think. Everything I do is bulk reading.

Should I do more meticulous study? I guess I'm about to regardless with the institutes starting Saturday, as we are making a study group out of it.

Do people have positive habits they can get into or thoughts on what kind of study habits we should be in?

 

[EarlyActs]

I looked it up. Is there something in particular you wanted to address about it? Or was it just a question of inquiry?

I might have the wrong list but it starts with ‘the NT interprets the OT’ and gets more particular from there. Very helpful.

I might have had a Present Truth list in mind.

 

[Arial]

Should I do more meticulous study? I guess I'm about to regardless with the institutes starting Saturday, as we are making a study group out of it.

Depends on what you mean by meticulous study I guess. I read it much the same way you do. Everytime I start at the beginning again it becomes more and more interesting. I let other more scholarly and disciplined writers do the heavy lifting for me and check what they say against the scriiptures.

This is slipping a bit off topic but it goes to reading the Bible like a novel. I am a prolific novel reader. I "chain read" them. A few years ago I read one called the Forever Queen and on the heels of that one another of the historical time period and in the same place, England, just prior to the historical novel of The Forever Queen. Should have read them in the reverse order because the dove tailed into the characters.

Anyway, it was about all these wars between nations and internal battles over kingship. The intermarriage for territory and power, the politics involved etc---all historical. At the same time I was reading from 1 and 2 Kings. It really brought to life the personal aspects of those Bible books as it helped me to see them as real historical events, and that though in the Bible the focus is the work of God in it and his purposes, I could begin to flesh out the subtext of the personal conflicts and deals made. I just started 2 Kings again yesterday and that experience still brings it to life and very interesting in a novel like way.