How to Interpret the Bible

http://www.faithfacts.org/bible-101/interpreting-the-bible ^ | May 1, 2011 | Faith Facts

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

TERTULLIAN (c. 155 - 250 A.D.)

Likewise, in regard to days of fast, many do not think they should be present at the SACRIFICIAL prayers, because their fast would be broken if they were to receive THE BODY OF THE LORD...THE BODY OF THE LORD HAVING BEEN RECEIVED AND RESERVED, each point is secured: both the participation IN THE SACRIFICE... (Prayer 19:1)

The flesh feeds on THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, so that the SOUL TOO may fatten on God. (Resurrection of the Dead 8:3)

The Sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord commanded to be taken at meal times and by all, we take even before daybreak in congregations... WE OFFER SACRIFICES FOR THE DEAD on their birthday anniversaries.... We take anxious care lest something of our Cup or Bread should fall upon the ground... (The Crown 3:3-4)

A woman, after the death of her husband, is bound not less firmly but even more so, not to marry another husband...Indeed, she prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, SHE OFFERS THE SACRIFICE. (Monogamy 10:1,4)

---

let Tertullian speak.

[Mr Rogers]

There were Church Fathers on both sides. For myself, I prefer scripture - and I find the idea that Jesus was speaking literally in John 6 almost laughable.

In the previous chapter, he refers to John the Baptist saying, “35He was a burning and shining lamp...”

Was that literal?

In the next chapter, Jesus says, “38Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’”

Are Christians literally water fountains?

And in Chapter 6, Jesus tells us what the eating and drinking mean:

” 35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.”

If you wish to take it literally, I cannot stop you. But when Jesus said, “54Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life...”, did he mean we can take the communion wafer and wine and feed it to a wino, and save the wino’s soul?

If Jesus was speaking physically about eating his flesh, then why was he speaking spiritually in the remainder of the sentence when he promised eternal life?

Believe what you will. I don’t think anyone sins if they choose to take those words as physical. I just think they are guilty of using poor judgment in reading God’s Word.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

no, there really weren’t church fathers on both sides. if there were, you would have had a church council or a new church started. Jesus was quite clear, Paul was quite clear, the fathers starting with St Ignatius ( after being personally taught by St John ) were quite clear....until the 16th century. i showed you the fathers you thought agreed with you, didn’t. if they did, they would have been excommunicated as a heretic!!

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

“I prefer scripture”

so do I!

Scripture says “This is My Body”

Do you agree with scripture or does your Scripture say “This represents My Body?”

[Mr Rogers]

“i showed you the fathers you thought agreed with you, didn’t.”

Nope. I could have written much of what you quoted. You need context, and review of all their comments on the subject.

[raygun]

Exegesis is a critical explanation or interpretation of a text. Biblical exegesis as a specialty that includes a wide range of critical disciplines: textual criticism (investigation into the history and origins of the text, historical and cultural backgrounds for the author, what does the text say), the original audience, classification of the type of literary genres present in the text, and the grammatical and syntactical features in the text itself.

If the canon of Scripture is considered as an organic whole, rather than an accumulation of disparate individual texts written and edited in the course of history, then any interpretation that contradicts any other part of scripture is not considered to be sound. Sound biblical exegisis is dependent upon a rigorous and systematic implemenation of hermeneutics. Biblical hermeneutics employs interpretive formulae common to general hermeneutics and are generally not mutually exclusive, and interpreters may adhere to several of these approaches simultaneously once. The interpretive formulae employed include:

Theological Group of Principles:

• The Election Principle
• The Historical-grammatical principle based on historical, socio-political, geographical, cultural and linguistic / grammatical context
• The Dispensation Principle or The Chronometrical Principle: "During different periods of time, God has chosen to deal in a particular way with man in respect to sin and man's responsibility."
• The Covenantal Principle: "We differentiate between the various contracts that God has made with his people; specifically their provisions, their parties and their purposes."
• The Ethnic Division Principle: "The word of truth is rightly divided in relation to the three classes which it treats, i.e. Jews, Gentiles and the Church."
• The Breach Principle: Interpretation of a certain verse or passage in Scripture is aided by a consideration of certain breaches, either breaches of promise or breaches of time.
• The Christo-Centric Principle: "The mind of deity is eternally centered in Christ. All angelic thought and ministry are centered in Christ. All Satanic hatred and subtlety are centered at Christ. All human hopes are, and human occupations should be, centered in Christ. The whole material universe in creation is centered in Christ. The entire written word is centered in Christ."
• The Moral Principle
• The Discriminational Principle: "We should divide the word of truth so as to make a distinction where God makes a difference."
• The Predictive Principle
• The Application Principle: "An application of truth may be made only after the correct interpretation has been made"
• The Principle of Human Willingness in Illumination
• The Context Principle: "God gives light upon a subject through either near or remote passages bearing upon the same subject."

Sub-divided Context/Mention Principles:

• The First Mention Principle: "God indicates in the first mention of a subject the truth with which that subject stands connected in the mind of God."
• The Progressive Mention Principle: "God makes the revelation of any given truth increasingly clear as the word proceeds to its consummation."
• The Comparative Mention Principle
• The Full Mention Principle or The Complete Mention Principle: "God declares his full mind upon any subject vital to our spiritual life."
• The Agreement Principle: "The truthfulness and faithfulness of God become the guarantee that he will not set forth any passage in his word that contradicts any other passage."
• The Direct Statement Principle: "God says what he means and means what he says."
• The Gap Principle:"God, in the Jewish Scriptures, ignores certain periods of time, leaping over them without comment."
• The Threefold Principle:"The word of God sets forth the truths of salvation in a three-fold way: past - justification; present - sanctification/transformation; future - glorification/consummation."
• The Repetition Principle:"God repeats some truth or subject already given, generally with the addition of details not before given."
• The Synthetic Principle
• The Principle of Illustrative Mention
• The Double Reference Principle

Figures of Speech Group of Principles:

• The Numerical Principle
• The Symbolic Principle
• The Typical Principle: "Certain people, events, objects and rituals found in the Old Testament may serve as object lessons and pictures by which God teaches us of his grace and saving power."
• The Parabolic Principle
• The Allegorical Principle

In the interpretation of a text, hermeneutics considers what language says, supposes, doesn't say, and implies. The process consists of several steps for best attaining the Scriptural author's intended meaning(s). The techniques utilized in conjunction with the aforementioned principles include:

1. Lexical-syntactical analysis: This step looks at the words used and the way the words are used. Different order of the sentence, the punctuation, the tense of the verse are all aspects that are looked at in the lexical syntactical method. Here, lexicons and grammar aids can help in extracting meaning from the text.
2. Historical/cultural analysis: The history and culture surrounding the authors is important to understand to aid in interpretation. For instance, understanding the Jewish sects of the Palestine and the government that ruled Palestine in New Testament times increases understanding of Scripture. And, understanding the connotations of positions such as the High Priest and that of the tax collector helps us know what others thought of the people holding these positions.
3. Contextual analysis: A verse out of context can often be taken to mean something completely different from the intention. This method focuses on the importance of looking at the context of a verse in its chapter, book and even biblical context.
4. Theological analysis: It is often said that a single verse usually doesn't make a theology. This is because Scripture often touches on issues in several books. For instance, gifts of the Spirit are spoken about in Romans, Ephesians and 1 Corinthians. To take a verse from Corinthians without taking into account other passages that deal with the same topic can cause a poor interpretation.
5. Special literary analysis: There are several special literary aspects to look at, but the overarching theme is that each genre of Scripture has a different set of rules that applies to it. Of the genres found in Scripture, there are: narratives, histories, prophecies, apocalyptic writings, poetry, psalms and letters. In these, there are differing levels of allegory, figurative language, metaphors, similes and literal language. For instance, the apocalyptic writings and poetry have more figurative and allegorical language than does the narrative or historical writing. These must be addressed, and the genre recognized to gain a full understanding of the intended meaning.

Christian apologetics is a field of Christian theology that presents a rational basis for the Christian faith, to defend the faith against objections and misrepresentation, and to expose error within other religions and world views.

Christian apologetics have taken many forms over the centuries, starting with Paul of Tarsus, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, and continuing today with the efforts of many authors and speakers from various Christian traditions, such as Cornelius Van Til, Gordon Clark, Greg Bahnsen, James White, John F. MacArthur, Hank Hanegraaff, Ravi Zacharias, Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, C.S. Lewis, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, Hugh Ross. Apologists base their defense of Christianity on historical and archaeological evidence, theological and philosophical arguments and scientific investigation. Sound apologia of theological doctrine is absolutely dependent upon a sound exegisis of the doctrine contained in Scripture and exposited upon through a rigorous, structured, and systematic use of biblical hermeneutics.

[Mr Rogers]

CONTEXT. Only a fool takes a sentence fragment and assumes it must be literal.

” 26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Do you really believe the Apostles thought the bread had turned into the physical body of Jesus? Or that the cup was filled with the literal, physical blood of Jesus?

Do you think the Apostles, all Jews, didn’t know this:

” 10”If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life. 12Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.” - Lev 17

Do you think they would have drunk what they believed was literally the blood of Jesus without a question?

And what did Jesus tell them AFTER handing them what you claim was a cup of his blood?

“29I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

What did Jesus call it? “Fruit of the vine”. Not blood. Was Jesus confused?

Also:

For example, Clement of Alexandria wrote the following about John 6 (emphasis added):

Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,—of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle. (The Instructor, 1:6)

In another passage, Clement contradicts transubstantiation. He writes the following about how Christians should conduct themselves when drinking alcohol (emphasis added):

In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, “Take, drink: this is my blood”—the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word “shed for many, for the remission of sins”—the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, “I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father.” [Matthew 26:29] But that it was wine which was drunk by the Lord, He tells us again, when He spake concerning Himself, reproaching the Jews for their hardness of heart: “For the Son of man,” He says, “came, and they say, Behold a glutton and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans.” (The Instructor, 2:2)

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/transubstantiation.html#View

Also, there is a lot of information here if you scroll down to sections 95 & 96:

http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch07.htm

[Turtlepower]

Funny...you are only using a couple of verses to support your position, but your pope said that you need to read the Bible in context and and just pick a couple of verses by themselves.

Jesus also said about these things about salvation:

John 3:3 “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

John 5:24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.”

John 6:40 “For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

John 6:47 “Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life.”

True belief and just superficial belief in Christ causes one to be a new creature, filled by the Holy Spirit, who will endure and perform good works in obediance to God. It is the true belief that saves while the good works are a demonstration of the belief.

What about the thief on the cross? He confessed his belief in Christ in his final moments and Jesus said he would be with Him in paradise. The thief wasn’t baptized, didn’t peform and good works in Jesus’ name, and didn’t eat any wafers to be born again - only a true belief.

The last supper account was also figurative. The passage doesn’t say the bread they ate had some sort of supernatural transformation to become His literal flesh. It was just bread, and He was explaining in a metaphor that His body would soon be broken and His blood would be spilled.

In John chapter 6 Jesus was testing the faith and committment of His disciples. Many left because they didn’t have true belief and weren’t committed to Him. His closest disciples (except Judas Iscariot) were committed to Him when they said “Lord, to whom shall we go?”.

[Cronos]

Actually not just the Pope but all us Catholics and Orthodox and Copts, Armenians, Assyrians, Syriacs etc. say that you need to read the Bible in context

As pointed out, Jesus says John 6:47 “Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life.”, and he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. and He who believes and is baptized will be saved. (Mk 16:16) and [U]nless you repent you will all likewise perish. (Lk 13:3) and [H]e who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. (Jn 6:54)

It is not one thing alone -- of course the basic point is that GRACE ALONE saves us, but he who believes and is baptised and repents and shares in the Body of Christ will be raised up at the last day

[Turtlepower]

“....but he who believes and is baptised and repents and shares in the Body of Christ will be raised up at the last day”

So, I guess the thief that repented and confessed belief in Christ on the cross won’t be raised up at the last day because he wasn’t baptized or participated in communion....so you’re saying Jesus was incorrect when He said the thief would be with Him in paradise?

[Cronos]

The last supper account was also figurative. The passage doesn’t say the bread they ate had some sort of supernatural transformation to become His literal flesh. It was just bread, and He was explaining in a metaphor that His body would soon be broken and His blood would be spilled. -- the Last Supper was not figurative

• Mark 14:22, "22And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body."
• Matthew 26:26," 26And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body."
• Luke 22:19 "19And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me."

And note how Paul describes this in 1 Corinthians 11:24

24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

This is again Paul reiterating that this is really the body of Christ, otherwise why else would he write (1 Cor. 10:16)

6 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

and also 1 Cor 11:27-29

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ" and "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ -- why would you "eat and drink judgment on themselves." if it is just figurative?

[Cronos]

Note, even Martin Luther saw this

Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men.

If you say In John chapter 6 Jesus was testing the faith and committment of His disciples. Many left because they didn’t have true belief and weren’t committed to Him. His closest disciples (except Judas Iscariot) were committed to Him when they said “Lord, to whom shall we go?”. -- note the test in faith is the same as what the disciples saw that say.

This is intolerable language. Who can believe it? Those who want to believe it. Note that the faith we refer to is not just that Christ is present there as God but that Christ is present as God and as man -- both natures completely in one -- 100% man and 100% God. It is that we believe that Christ is there with that which we cannot see, which we cannot touch, which we cannot experience with our bodily senses.

The Eucharist highlights this fact that Jesus was both man and God -- not only a man, not only God, not a man become God, but 100% man and 100% God.

Jesus Christ who sits at the Right hand of the Father AND is present on earth in the Eucharist -- how? Because He is GOD AND MAN

[Cronos]

Jesus himself says, faith, baptism, repentance, etc (see below) -- and if someone has led a horrible life (or even a normal, not good, not bad life) and on his/her death-bed just says "Lord, Lord, I believe", but does not repent, he will not be saved, that is what Jesus Himself told us.

Look at the good thief -- he REPENTED, he BELIEVED, he was baptised by the Blood of the lamb and he endured in this to his death and yes, he was saved

To reiterate -- from the moment of your acceptance, you must truly accept the Lord's freely given grace of salvation.

The death-bed acceptance is the most extreme case, you have to admit, but even here, unless the person repents and believes, he is not baptised with the blood of the Lamb, he does not share in the body of Christ and no, he is not saved.

So, do listen to the words of Jesus who said it is faith+ repentance+baptism+the Eucharist+endurance, not any of these in isolation

Of course, these don't "save us" per se, since it is Christ's sacrifice on the Cross that grants us our salvation that we can accept or reject.

[Cronos]

Jesus himself says, faith, baptism, repentance, etc (see below) -- and if someone has led a horrible life (or even a normal, not good, not bad life) and on his/her death-bed just says "Lord, Lord, I believe", but does not repent, he will not be saved, that is what Jesus Himself told us.

Look at the good thief -- he REPENTED, he BELIEVED, he was baptised by the Blood of the lamb and he endured in this to his death and yes, he was saved

To reiterate -- from the moment of your acceptance, you must truly accept the Lord's freely given grace of salvation.

The death-bed acceptance is the most extreme case, you have to admit, but even here, unless the person repents and believes, he is not baptised with the blood of the Lamb, he does not share in the body of Christ and no, he is not saved.

So, do listen to the words of Jesus who said it is faith+ repentance+baptism+the Eucharist+endurance, not any of these in isolation

Of course, these don't "save us" per se, since it is Christ's sacrifice on the Cross that grants us our salvation that we can accept or reject.

Note that in the Eucharist we commune directly with our Savior, Lord and God -- that is why we call it "communion" -- the good thief had DIRECT communion with Christ. The good thief also repented AND believed, and he asks, humbly Luke 23:42 42And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom

[Turtlepower]

When was the thief baptized with water? You claim that water baptism is a necessary component of salvation but then say the thief was baptized in the Blood of the lamb. When did the physical act of baptism occur for the thief?

Being “baptized in the Blood of the lamb” was a figurative statement by you, I believe. Aren’t all believers figuratively “baptized in the Blood of the lamb”? Is water baptism as prescribed by the catholic church not required for salvation?

Also, you are inferring things from the text which were not explicitly stated, such as the thief had direct communion with Christ so the requirement for the Eucharist was satisfied. Yet, you also require the text in John 6 to explicitly state something like “THIS IS A METAPHOR”. So in one case, you are ok with inferring things not in the text based upon context, but in other cases you require strict, explicit statements.

[Cronos]

Firstly, it's not that I claim that baptism is necessary, but it's what Jesus says

John 3:5

5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Matthew 28:19

19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

>Mk 16:15-16

15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

this is reiterated in the Pauline Epistles

Rom 6:4

4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

[Cronos]

Now, to the point of the good thief let's put one point straight -- the thief was saved while the Old Testament was still in effect. Christ had not yet risen from the dead. He does not receive salvation under the New Testament.

How do we know this? Eph. 2:13-16 15Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

Heb. 10:9-10 9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

And Heb 9:16-17

16For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

The thief repents and his sins are gofgiven BEFORE Jesus died and therefore during the effective of the Old covenant

[Cronos]

Finally, the point I made in communion is that we believe that we commune directly with our Savior, Lord and God in the Eucharist -- that is why we call it "communion"

The Eucharist highlights this fact that Jesus was both man and God -- not only a man, not only God, not a man become God, but 100% man and 100% God.

Jesus Christ who sits at the Right hand of the Father AND is present on earth in the Eucharist -- how? Because He is GOD AND MAN

Yes, these are as hard words to hear now as they were 2000 years ago, Who can believe it? Those who want to believe it. Note that the faith we refer to is not just that Christ is present there as God but that Christ is present as God and as man -- both natures completely in one -- 100% man and 100% God. It is that we believe that Christ is there with that which we cannot see, which we cannot touch, which we cannot experience with our bodily senses.

[Religion Moderator]

Unless a quote is very familiar be sure to include the source reference.

[Cronos]

Also note that besides Christ telling us to go and baptise, He Himself began His public life after having Himself baptized by St. John the Baptist in the Jordan.
Mt 3:13

13Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.