“There is sufficient clearness to enlighten the elect, and sufficient obscurity to humble them. There is sufficient obscurity to blind the reprobate, and sufficient clearness to condemn them, and make them inexcusable.” – Saint Augustine

And,

“Because He is true, faithful, and just, God always rewards virtue and punishes vice, though often not immediately. Then too He may deceive a duplicitous character such as Satan or Balaam, but His response is entirely consistent with His person to outwit the proud and catch them in their own schemes…

“…if we are not willing to obey God, He may allow us to hear what we want to hear. This is a profound insight that if we want God to change His mind about what is clear in Scripture, He will appear to change His mind, but we will be under judgment…If we do not want the truth in scripture, we will not get it. This is not because God is fickle, unreliable, or arbitrary, but because He will not be mocked by the proud.” – Old Testament Theology, p 106-107

Is it not a fearful consideration that God will confirm us in our error if we continue to suppress/ignore what has been clearly revealed in His word? How often to we consider that we are entirely dependent upon God for all our understanding of His revelation to man through the scriptures? We are not sovereign and autonomous in weighing evidence, examining the texts, and coming to conclusions; God will reward or harden us according to His sovereign will, and according to the humility (or pride) in our hearts.

Psalm 147:
Great is our Lord, and abundant in power;
his understanding is beyond measure.
The Lord lifts up the humble;
he casts the wicked to the ground.

And,

Isaiah 66:
this is the one to whom I will look:
he who is humble and contrite in spirit
and trembles at my word.
he casts the wicked to the ground.

And,

“God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”

“For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law; and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”

For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.” – Romans 2:12-29

There is a simplicity to this which even a babe in the faith can see from this text. Consider:

What ‘law’ is Paul talking about?
Because of the phrase “if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law“, among other things, it is clear that ‘the law‘ refers to the Law given to the Jews, the Mosaic Law. In fact, from the beginning of this passage to the very end, ‘the law’ refers to the Old Testament, Jewish Law. There is no other exegetical reason to say otherwise.

What law will be used to judge men on the final day?
Because of the phrase “will be judged by the law“, we can see that anyone who has ever read this Old Testament, Jewish Law will be judged by it on the last day. James 2:12, among other passages, teach this as well.

What about those who never hear this ‘law’; what ‘law’ will they be judged by?
Because of the phrase, “They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts”, we see that those who never hear of this Jewish Law will nevertheless be judged by it, and this because they prove by their actions that this same Jewish Law is written on their hearts.

How is one found righteous before God?
Because of the phrase, “it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law“, we know that those who obey this same law are pleasing and righteous in God’s sight. We also know from the continuation of Paul’s argument here in Romans, that no man can perfectly obey this Law so as to be perfectly righteous. However, there is one who has, the Man Christ Jesus, who’s obedience becomes ours by faith. Thus, we still keep this law, imperfectly when we obey and are pleasing in God’s sight; and perfectly, for justification and complete righteousness, through the merits of Jesus Christ.

But doesn’t this Jewish ‘law’ contain all sorts of ceremonies and cleanliness laws that we Christians are released from?
Yes, the New Testament teaches that Christians are released from obeying ‘ceremonial’ laws which were only given to the Jews for a period. However, by the phrase “For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision“, we can see that Paul is not speaking of the outward ceremonies of the law. Instead, he makes a clear distinction between ‘obeying the law’ and simply performing it’s outward ceremonies (which have since passed away).

So how do we know what aspects of ‘the law’ Paul is talking about here?
Because of three phrases: 1) “While you preach against stealing, do you steal?“, 2) “You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery?“, and 3) “You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?“, we see the 8th commandment, the 7th commandment, and the 10th commandment, respectively, alluded to by Paul.

Conclusion:
By the scripture here we conclude that ‘the law’ will be the standard judge on the last day, that this ‘law’ is written on the hearts of those who’ve never heard of it, that this ‘law’ details how one is righteous before God, that this ‘law’ doesn’t include the ceremonies clearly abolished by Jesus and the Apostles, and that this ‘law’ consists of precepts found in the Ten Commandments.

Given these plain facts, as well as other testimonies of scripture, we are bound to affirm that the Ten Commandments, not just 9 of the commandments as many try to argue in this day, are foundational to the ‘moral’ law of God that transcends time, covenants, culture, and even eternity. To allude to just one of the Ten Commandments is to allude to them all, as they are never divided in scripture, always being treated as a unit, and James 2:10, when referring to the Ten Commandments, confirms their unity by teaching us that breaking one of them is tantamount to breaking them all.

Paul doesn’t directly allude to Jesus and this so-called ‘law of Christ’; Paul doesn’t allude to the greatest commandments of Love to God and neighbor, even though both Jesus’ teaching and the greatest two commandments are certainly included in the ‘moral’ law. Rather, Paul clearly refers back to the Old Testament law, the law previously given and widely understood, and he clearly upholds the Ten Commandments as the foundational to all morality, ethics, and righteousness.

“Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.” – 3:19-25

I have found, however, that few people understand the term ‘Biblical Theology, and what it actually entails. The fact that this science has been largely delegated only to the experienced student or theologian is a tragic thing, in my opinion. How I wish this method of interpreting scripture were more common among the simple layman! What blatant errors of biblical interpretation/application would be avoided!

So I found the definition below to be very helpful in illustrating what exactly we mean when we say ‘Biblical Theology’:

From Ligon Duncan,

“What is biblical theology?” Simply, it is a survey of the whole picture. But from what perspective? Yes, redemptive history is the key there. Biblical theology is the study of the history of redemption from the perspective of a particular theological theme traced through the eras of that history of redemption.

For instance, you might want to study the holiness of God, and ask the question, “What was revealed about the holiness of God in the Patriarchal era?” And then compare that to what was revealed about the holiness of God in the Mosaic era. And then compare that to what was revealed about the holiness of God in the Prophetic era. And what have you just done? You have just done a redemptive historical study of how God unfolded the one truth about His holiness over time. You have just done a biblical theological study. You are paying special attention to what God revealed during certain times. When you are studying biblical theology, you are picking the Bible up and you are asking, “What does the progress of redemption help me understand about this particular biblical topic?” So it is a study of special revelation from a redemptive historical perspective.”

Some recommended reading regarding the introduction and study of Biblical Theology:

• Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture, by Graeme Goldsworthy
• Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments, by Geerhardus Vos
• Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ from All the Scriptures, by Dennis Johnson
• The Pauline Eschatology, by Geerhardus Vos
• According to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible, by Graeme Goldsworthy
• An Old Testament Theology, by Bruce K. Waltke
• Promises Made: The Message of the Old Testament, by Mark Dever

In Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture, Graeme Goldworthy sets forth a very clear agenda, an agenda reflected in the title, and one that serves as the main thesis of the book from beginning to end:

“The aim of this book is to provide a handbook for preachers that will help them apply a consistently Christ-centered approach to their sermons.”

Very simply put about what Goldsworthy means when he says ‘Christ-centered approach’, Goldsworthy emphasizes that all of scripture and redemptive history testify and point to Jesus Christ, and therefore, “Jesus is the interpretive key to the Bible”.

In essence, this book is intended to assist the preacher to begin his sermon preparation with the question: “How does this passage of Scripture, and consequently my sermon, testify to Christ?” And I must say, Goldsworthy definitely accomplishes this goal on a very practical level.

A few personal thoughts on the thesis:
Part one of the book deals with various presuppositions that we might bring to the table when sitting down to interpret scripture. Goldsworthy here argues for what is called a “Redemptive-Historical” or “thematic” approach to interpreting scripture. Biblical Theology, as it is termed (Google this term if you are unfamiliar with its definition), and the approach of Goldsworthy in this book, is to help the preacher understand how each part of scripture ultimately points to fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is, how certain themes run throughout the Old Testament into the New, and how these themes point to and culminate in the Person and Work of Christ. We understand the Old Testament through the lens of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and Biblical Theology traces ‘gospel’ themes throughout all of scripture. Very important to recognizing these themes and properly interpreting scripture is the solid understanding of the point in redemptive history in which the text is given.

With that being said, this book is not a full defense of the Redemptive Historical method. This book is certainly a good explanation and guideline to the RH method, but it is certainly not a defense or full treatment of the subject. In fact, I found the author to be very dogmatic at times, making statements all throughout that he does not fully support. The book is riddled with argumentation that presupposes the tenants of Biblical Theology/the Redemptive Historical method that some readers might disagree with. However, I do not consider this a bad thing, for I agree with most of what Goldsworthy sets forth, how he goes about interpreting the text of scripture, and thus I found his wisdom and logic to be very edifying. But considering this, I would first recommend this book to those who already agree with the basic tenants of Biblical Theology/Redemptive Historical interpretation, or to those who fairly new to this biblical science of interpretation.

The second half of the book covers “The Practical Application of Biblical Theology to Preaching”. Here Goldsworthy examines different ‘epochs’ in scripture, such as the Old Testament Law or the Wisdom Literature, and he demonstrates how we might go about examining themes/pinpointing how they point to Christ and the gospel/put the BT/RH method into practice. I found this section to be a very helpful and practical guide as to how to preach and put into practice the method of examining scripture in light of Jesus Christ and His accomplished work.

This section is very easy to follow, with many helpful charts and diagrams to help explain and understand redemptive history. It is specifically written to the one who will be teaching and preaching on this subject, though I imagine that any layman would have no trouble following what Goldsworthy sets forth.

A few concerns I had:
I approached this book from a layman’s perspective, as I have aimed this review. With this in mind, understanding that critiquing the theology and flow of argument was not my main objective, I must say that I did not find much wrong with this book. However, if I were to go a little deeper, I would like to further examine a few minor concerns:

-In the introduction Goldsworthy shares a little story highlighting how Christological preaching can easily become predictable, and that his goal in the book is to help keep us from being predictable/boring our audience with the exact same ‘Christ-centered’ message week after week. This book certainly helps us in that goal, but I do not believe he goes far enough in this work to fully flesh it out.

-Goldsworthy expresses much concern on the ‘moralistic’ preaching of our day and the emphasis on ethical imperatives divorced from the gospel, rightly so. He warns that exegetical, verse by verse preaching can sometimes separate the first part of an epistle (gospel) from the second part of an epistle (practical application). I highly applaud his concerns here, but without question he does not set forth a clear alternative to this problem to help preachers avoid this dichotomy. Are we to scrap verse by verse preaching and preach entire epistles instead (in one sermon)? Personally, I was left a little disheartened at times in that preparing to preach in Goldswothy’s system is something that will require immense preparation, or life-long practice in order to preach a simple text of scripture in its context.

-As others have pointed out in reviews of this book, Goldsworthy sees Redemptive History as beginning with Abraham rather than in Genesis 3 with the promise of the Seed. His charts and diagrams reflect this error all throughout. Fleshing out the implications and ramifications of this view is beyond the scope of this review, but this is definitely a sticking point with me, and should be noted with caution.

-Furthermore, Goldsworthy’s view on scripture division is Abraham to Solomon, Solomon to Exile, and Christ to Parousia. While I agree largely with his division, specifically in how he uses this to teach proper interpretation (properly considering the point in redemptive history which a text is given, and not jumping from that point directly to the modern reader while skipping how it ultimately points to Christ first), I believe Goldsworthy to be lacking in the area of traditional Reformed/Covenant theology and how the covenants provide the proper structure and support for biblical interpretation. I will have to read more of his works to form a full opinion, but I was uncomfortable at times with his divisions and neglect of traditional ways of understanding the divisions and covenants in scripture.

Conclusion:
Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture is a must have for any student of scripture. Even if you do not agree with everything Goldsworthy says, you will undoubtedly view scripture in a different light, and will have an immediate desire to re-read your bible and trace the Messianic/Gospel themes littered throughout. I would label this a great introduction to the Biblical Theology/Redemptive Historical hermeneutic, not only for this presentation, but for his practical outworking of this method found in the second half of the book.

I give it 4 out of 5 stars.

A few choice quotes:

“Our operative gospel will be the thing that preoccupies us as the focus of our preaching and teaching. It may be a particular hobbyhorse or denominational distinctive. Baptism, a particular view of the second coming, social action, creationism, spiritual gifts, and the like are all easily raised to the status of gospel by becoming the main focus of our preaching. This is especially deplorable when these spurious gospels are made the basis of our acceptance of other Christians.”

“Our operative gospel will be the thing that preoccupies us as the focus of our preaching and teaching. It may be a particular hobbyhorse or denominational distinctive. Baptism, a particular view of the second coming, social action, creationism, spiritual gifts, and the like are all easily raised to the status of gospel by becoming the main focus of our preaching. This is especially deplorable when these spurious gospels are made the basis of our acceptance of other Christians.”

“We [often] recognize the existence of elements of discontinuity between us and the Old Testament, but we do not so readily recognize those that exist between us and the New Testament.”

“There is often a failure to think through how the link between the people and events of the Old Testament are to be made with us as, presumably, New Testament people. This failure leads to some major defects in preaching, not the least of which is the tendency to moralize on Old Testament events, or simply to find pious examples to imitate.”

“It is clear from the New Testament that the ethical example of Christ is secondary to and dependent upon the primary and unique work of Christ for us. Yet this does not seem to be clear to many when it comes to the Old Testament. The message of the Old Testament is too easily reduced to the imitation of godly example and the avoidance of the ungodly example.”

“My concern about evangelism is that sometimes there is a greater emphasis on the need for some kind of response than on the clear exposition of the gospel…Telling people the need for the gospel, both their felt need and the real need, is plainly important, but it is not itself the gospel. When we have explained what God has done for us in Christ –the gospel– then we may go on to explain the benefits of receiving the gospel and the perils of ignoring it.”

Other posts on this subject:

• Moralistic Preaching
• What is Your ‘Gospel’?
• Newsweek Magazine, Gay Marriage, and Moral Examples from Scripture

The purpose of my mention of it today is not to discuss Gay marriage, the Bible’s specific teaching on the subject, our even our attitude to the culture’s slow-but-sure acceptance of sodomy. Mohler does a good job hitting a few high points, and over at Phil Johnson’s blog, Frank Turk posts some valuable insight as well.

Rather, I would like to briefly discuss interpretation of scripture. So let’s start by considering a few quotes out of this Newsweek article, which again, is labeled a “Religious” (or ‘biblical’) case for the acceptance of homosexual ‘marriage’:

“Let’s try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists.”

“…in the Old Testament, “examples of what social conservatives call ‘the traditional family’ are scarcely to be found.”

Miller also goes into the New Testament teaching on marriage, seemingly arguing that it’s a matter of confusion and ambiguity rather than clarity, but again, what struck me about this article is how the author interprets scripture.

At face value, Miller is dead-on with her assertion that the Bible, especially the Old Testament, presents heroes and righteous men who had their serious defects regarding ‘traditional’ marriage. She mentions Abraham, Jacob, Solomon and others above, but there’s also Samson, Hosea, and who can forget ‘Rahab the Harlot’. Not only are these figures spoken very highly of in the Old Testament, but they are in the New Testament as well, as even Rahab and Samson are mentioned in the ‘Faith Hall of Fame” in Hebrews chapter 11.

So given the serious moral defects of many righteous believers in scripture, we must ask the question: Why has God preserved this record for us? Would it not be better to edit out the fact that Rahab was a prostitute, or that Samson was given over to sexual lust, or that David and his son Solomon, forerunners to Jesus Christ, were adulterers and men of seemingly uncontrollable (at times) sexual passion?

There are, of course, many reasons we could give for why God preserved this record for us –even more so for why He has exalted these men and women as great people of God. For starters, it speaks to the authenticity of scripture, the depravity of our nature –even redeemed nature, as well as the depths of God’s love and forgiveness through the suffering and death of Jesus Christ on behalf of these sins.

But what troubles me about this article is not what Miller is doing, for clearly she has entirely missed what the Bible clearly teaches in these areas. Rather, what troubles me about this article is that Miller is simply doing what conservative evangelicals all across our nation are doing, and indeed, have been doing for many ages: she is looking at scripture, particularly the examples of those who are presented as righteous believers, as if they were given to us chiefly as a moral, pious examples that we should follow.

Who can blame Miller for interpreting scripture like this when this Sunday countless pastors will stand in the pulpit and preach sermons such as ‘Dare to be a Daniel’, or ‘Slaying the Giants in your life’, etc.? For there is no doubt that evangelical culture in which we live has deadly assumption that the people in scripture, particularly the narratives of the Old Testament, are given to us primarily to provide us patterns of faith and behavior that we are to imitate. Friends, this is nothing less than ambiguity and situational ethics on the negative side, and moralism at it’s finest on the positive side.

Consider on the negative side, that the examples in scripture teach us what is wrong: if Abraham lied in certain situations, then maybe it’s OK for us to do likewise, in certain situations. Or if David was culpable to adultery and murder, and he was a great man of God, then although adultery and murder are not preferrable patterns of behavior, at least we know that it cannot be that big of deal in God’s eyes.

So taking the examples in scripture as helping us define right from wrong, we end up with ambiguity, situation ethics, and a flat out denial of scriptural truth, as in the case of Miller above.

But this pattern of interpretation couldn’t be further from the truth –and I hope to briefly illustrate this below. For even on the positive side, that scripture helps define for us what is right, the figures in scripture are not given to us primarily that we may follow their example, for that does nothing but preach to us a gospel of man, not a gospel of Jesus Christ. Indeed, even the ethical example of Jesus Christ are “secondary to and dependent upon the primary and unique work of Christ for us” (Goldsworthy, P4). Clearly, man is not in any way saved by his effort to imitate Jesus Christ, thus even His perfect ethical example is superseded by the message of the gospel itself.

Therefore, viewing scripture as if the men and women are given to us as examples of how we should or should not live, will always, always lead to some kind of error. Sure, we may not go to Miller’s extreme and use these examples to justify sodomy or adultery, for those sins are obvious in scripture. But take, for example, Gideon’s fleece in Judges 6:36-40: is this practice of testing God an acceptable practice for us to implement in this day? What about the story of Jephthah’s tragic vow in Judges 12:29-40? Or what about David’s dancing before the Ark (2 Sam 6:14); does this justify a similar practice in our day?

You see, in the three examples I give above, scripture is somewhat unclear on whether these actions, blessed actions by Godly men, are acceptable or not for us to imitate. And when we consider the great distance that stands between our situation and those events back then, we should be even more convinced that it is dangerous for us to use these events and others chiefly as examples for us to study and imitate.

In conclusion, the message of scripture is primarily and chiefly about what Jesus Christ has accomplished in His life, death, and resurrection. The stories and examples we have in scripture, though in some manner serving as an example for us, are given first and foremost to testify and exalt the gospel and the Person and work of Christ. All of scripture, from beginning to end, is given primarily to point to, communicate, and exalt the grace of the gospel found in Jesus Christ and His accomplished work.

Looking at scripture as a ‘how to’ guide, and using the men and women in scripture chiefly as moral examples of right and wrong will consistently and undoubtedly undermine the primary message of the accomplishment of Jesus Christ. Moralism is deadly subtle, and it is even deadlier to the soul. Even when we use these examples conservatively and properly, being careful to let the Law and the didactic portions of scripture interpret the moral examples for us, we still do an injustice to the ultimate message if we fail emphasize Christ, His work, and His gospel of grace as being the centrality and primacy of the Bible’s message.

“O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” – Luke 24:25-27

Clearly, the arena where this particular debate is prominent is in the discussion of eschatology. The use of symbolism is one of the main tenants of the prophetic writings in scripture, and so disagreements in eschatology are bound to lead to one side claiming to be more ‘literal’ than the other side.

Today, however, I just want you to consider what definition we can prescribe to the phrase ‘literal interpretation’. Consider a few words of Jesus:

“Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”

“If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away…And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away.”

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.”

Now, I ask my friends, what is the ‘literal’ interpretation of these texts? If I argue that Jesus isn’t really teaching us to dismember ourselves in the case of sin, or that He isn’t really saying that we must physically eat His physical body, would I be labeled a ‘liberal’ or one who ‘spiritualizes’ the text? Obviously not.

However, we would be wrong to say that there isn’t a real, ‘literal’ interpretation of these texts. Take the first one as an example:

“Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

Upon Jesus first saying this to the disciples, they didn’t have a clue what He meant. But Jesus, aware of their misunderstanding, states:

“O you of little faith, why are you discussing among yourselves the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive?… How is it that you fail to understand that I did not speak about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

You see, there was a real and ‘literal’ meaning to Jesus’ words, but that meaning was not found on purely mechanical or academic interpretation of His ‘literal’ words. What does Jesus point to as the reason why the disciples misunderstood? “Oh you of little FAITH”.

One more example will suffice for my argument. Consider Malachi 4:5:

“Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes.”

Now consider the fulfillment of this prophecy, by the direct teaching of Jesus:

“And the disciples asked him, “Then why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?” He answered, “Elijah does come, and he will restore all things. But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him…”

Earlier in the gospel of Matthew Jesus had said:

“For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John, and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

Notice a few things about these texts:

• A ‘literal’ interpretation of Malachi 4:5 caused the Jews to miss the fulfillment of that prophecy (and, I might add, a ‘literal’ interpretation of the OT prophecies caused the Jews to completely miss their Messiah).
• Jesus told the disciples that ‘He who has ears to hear, let him hear’, which is a direct reference to the gift of wisdom that is given by God alone.
• Jesus says ‘if you are willing to accept it’, again, I believe, noting that belief in the fulfillment wasn’t a matter of ‘literal’ or ‘spiritual’ interpretation of a set of words, but a matter of faith, given of course to those with ears to hear.

Therefore, interpretation of scripture is a matter of faith and wisdom, just as much as it is a matter of words and sentences. Faith and wisdom, of course, are gifts from God and not something we possess naturally in our nature. Biblical interpretation is not entering a formula into a machine and having it automatically spit out the interpretation!

Does that mean we have a right to spiritualize the text? No! Do we have the right to force allegories wherever we deem necessary? Certainly not. Does that mean that when the scriptures speak with symbolism, that we have the right to interpret it just any way we please? Emphatically, no! But it does mean that taking a dictionary and defining the words, and then constructing the sentence with the proper rules of Greek grammar, does not promise that your interpretation will always be the right one!

Thus, lest I be misunderstood, I close with a few points of consideration:

• It should be a given fact that scripture interprets scripture, and that wisdom, given by the Spirit, aides us in understanding the depth of a book that is inexhaustible to our human minds.
• Even when words and sentences do not ‘literally’ or ‘at face value’ give the specific meaning of the text, they will never contradict the words themselves, the context, or more importantly, other scriptures.
• There is a real, ‘literal’ meaning behind each and every text of scripture, but that meaning isn’t always communicated by black words on white paper.
• We must be wise to determine when and where scripture uses symbols to communicate truth. I am prepared to argue that prophetic literature has a tendency to do this almost always.
• We must use other scripture as our chief method of interpretation when we suspect that symbolism is being used in a biblical text.
• We cannot ‘just decide’ the meaning of a symbolic text (I have in mind here the typical style of Revelation); we are chiefly bound to what the rest of scripture teaches in a particular area (and to other rules as well, of course).

Now, I can’t possibly leave this post without an example of prophetic literature, one that Sam Waldron recently used (and an excellent article I might add):

Revelation 13:1 – “And the dragon stood on the sand of the seashore. Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems, and on his heads were blasphemous names.”

I believe that the Dispensationalist teachers who taught me the literal wherever possible view would have without exception understood this text symbolically. I suppose they must have argued that that such an assertion as is found in Revelation 13:1 is not literally possible. But today I have the sense (and perhaps the audacity) to ask, Why not? What is so impossible about taking this verse with strict literality? Is it not possible for God to create dragons and beasts with ten horns and seven heads? I think it is possible. Thus, the literal wherever possible hermeneutic does not satisfy the needs of this text or properly qualify literal interpretation.