Numerology?

For better or worse, there are many discussions regarding numbers in the Bible and about the Bible, from the obvious numbers that any reader can read on its surface to the supposed hidden numbers that someone with secret knowledge must reveal to you. A lot of terms, for better or worse, which may not be understood, are thrown around the issue of numbers and the Bible. The issue itself is confusing, as well as the jargon.

Geometric Jargon.

First I will attempt to give definitions of some of these words used often, as well as a few others less commonly used. There may be some differing opinions on how they are used, and how they should be used.

• Alpha-Gematria = possibly a term coined by Leo Tavares for his method of explaining the scriptures by coded significance of the words, using the alphanumeric properties of the Hebrew and Greek languages.
• Arithmancy = a form of divination involving numbers.
• Bible numerics = the theory that there are in the Bible mysterious and marvelous numerical patterns which establish the correctness of the text and proves the divine authority of Holy Scripture, especially related to the work of Ivan Panin on the Greek New Testament.[i] 
• Gematria = a cabalistic method of explaining the scriptures by means of the cryptographic or coded significance of the words.
• Kabbalah = specifically, a form of Jewish mysticism marked by belief in creation through emanation and the use of a cipher method of interpreting scripture; or, more generically, an esoteric doctrine or mysterious art; a traditional, esoteric, occult, or secret matter.
• Number-ology = a coined word, apparently by G. John Rov (Gary Rovarino), to try to distinguish his view of biblical words and numbers from numerology or gematria.[ii] 
• Number symbolism (or, Bible numbers) = the use of symbolic numbers in the Bible and the study of the meaning of those symbols. This is a different and open (not hidden) unlike the various attempts to find secret codes[iii]. 
• Numerics = the field of numerical study, though applied in various ways when applied to the study of numbers related to the Bible (see “Bible numerics”).
• Numerology = the study of the meanings of numbers and their supposed influence on human life; or, in reference to the Bible, the study of hidden numbers and their supposed influence on the interpretation of scripture. This term is very often connected to the occult.[iv] 

Significant People.

David Bay (“Ivan Panin: Russia’s Gift to Christianity”).

“Don’t just read your Bible – Count It!”

“You and I have to go to numerics in Greek when we wish to prove the correctness of a passage…The amazing design of numeric features or facts discovered in the structure of the Greek text used by Wescott and Hort definitely settles the question concerning the correct reading of the last verse in the Bible. The numerical facts prove that they are right in ending the New Testament with the word ‘saints.’ (Mathematics Prove Holy Scriptures, Karl Sabiers, latest reprint 1969, pp.91-94)

“We are so amazed by the effectiveness of Bible Numerics in proving, or disproving, all textual question that we can only marvel that every Christian college and university does not include a full line of study on this subject. Certainly, no one has stepped forward to challenge Panin’s conclusions, either Christian or secular.”

Chuck Missler (“Preface,” Cosmic Codes: Hidden Messages from the Edge of Eternity).

“There are actually many types of hidden codes in the Bible, and the recently controversial equidistant letter sequences are but one of them. There are those who are irrepressibly enthusiastic about the equidistant letter sequences in the Bible. There are others who dismiss these incidences as simply statistical oddities that will occur in any extensive corpus of text. And there are some who even regard the pursuit of these codes as having a sinister portent.

“However, very few of the popular treatments of this intriguing subject evidence any background in cryptology, with is precisely the science at issue. Having spent a 30-year career in both military and civilian pursuits in advanced communication and information science technologies — including deeply classified ventures in the intelligence field — and, also, having more than three decades in serious Biblical studies, I felt that a broader approach to the subject of hidden messages was appropriate.

“Are there really hidden messages in the Bible? If so, why?

“We will, of course, also explore the controversial equidistant letter sequences, their potential significance, and their latent dangers. And yet the most astonishing codes are of the kind for which you do not need a computer.

“We will explore some remarkable discoveries about the alphabets used in the Biblical texts and the microcodes which reveal some surprising aspects hidden behind the text itself.”

The late Ivan Panin (See “Bible numerics”).

Brandon Peterson (Sealed By the King, page 207).

“So what about these men, Moses and Elijah, do we discover in the numerics of the KJB?

“To begin, as you might expect, they are sevened. It is concealed to those who quickly search their names without careful attention…”

Gail Riplinger (New Age Bible Versions, page 150).

“Acrostic algebra reveals the ashy residue on which the NIV and NASV rest. When you shake down the ‘Lite’ versions like the New American Standard Version (NASV) and the New International Version (NIV), you find some heresies which are common to both (like their common letters ‘N’ and ‘V’, as shown in Step 2.)” …

“When the portions of the true text of the Authorized Version (AV) are removed from these other versions, the sheep’s clothing comes off the hand of the wolf’s skin spells—SIN. (Steps 4 & 5)”[v]

Step 1: (NASV - NIV) - AV = X

Step 2: (NASV - NIV) - AV = X

Step 3: (ASI + NV) - AV = X

Step 4: ASI + NV - AV = X

Step 5: SIN = X

[Note: I have used strike-through, not knowing how to create a slash-through as in New Age Versions.]

Gary Rovarino (Concealed from Christians for the Glory of God, page 3).

“The secrets that God keeps are matters of divine revelation and require a prophet to reveal them. To understand the issue of God’s authoritative Bible we do not need historians, manuscript experts, textual critics, or linguistic scholars but we do need the voice of a prophet. The word of God is this prophetic voice, and God will use it alone to reveal glorious secrets to you or to conceal costly secrets from you.”

Leo Tavares (Geometric Exegesis).

“I showed how the Standard Greek value of ‘TEMPLE’ (from Matthew 12:5) yields the G-base of the Genesis 1:1 Triangle and forms a Star that accommodates Snowflake 373. This now leads to another hidden identity I uncovered in this very same Greek word, which is this: The Ordinal Greek value of ‘TEMPLE’ (Matthew 12:5) = 64. Why is this significant? Because the 64th Triangle is the precise Triangle that accommodates the Star of 925!”

These (above) are just a few promoters of “biblical” numerology, and there exists lots of other “Bible-code” talk in addition to the numerology. The following are samples of titles out on the World Wide Web which sound esoteric and Gnostic.[vi]

• God Code: Unlocking Divine Messages Hidden in the Bible, by Timothy P. Smith (2018)
• Discovering Hidden Meanings in Biblical Texts: Unearthing Deeper Significance in the Scriptures for Your Spiritual Journey, by Kaleb F Weaver (2024)
• Bible Unlocked: Hidden Meanings Revealed, by Kristina Kaine (2019)
• Beyond the Words: Unraveling the Hidden Meanings of the Bible, by Ryan Santosh Joseph (2023)

There is a wide range of beliefs among the proponents of “biblical numerology.” We supporters of the King James Bible have been “blessed” with an inordinate amount of them – but among these numerology folks are also users and promoters of modern Bibles. Bay and Missler follow the late Ivan Panin, who used numeric methods to try to establish the “correct” Greek text of the New Testament. The range of folks leads from the more circumspect (like Brandon Peterson, who seems primarily interested in supporting the King James Bible) to Gary Rovarino (who seems to now be identifying himself as a modern-day prophet). Nevertheless, there will be no good to come from bogus biblical beliefs. They will not lead to a deeper spiritual journey, but rather into a fog of confusion and unbelief. “Bible codes are contradictory to the doctrine of sufficiency of Scripture” (Creation.com).

Serious Problems.

• Builds on sinking human sand rather than solid biblical rock.
• Coaxes the curious toward confusion, and even heresy.
• Connects to a condition of apophenia, the tendency to perceive meaningful connections between unrelated things. The human mind can invent perceived connections – including numerical connections – in practically everything, even where there are none.[vii]  
• Exalts hidden-knowledge “experts” over simple Bible teachers, and advances subjugation to “Messianic” masters, shrewd swindlers, and Gnostic gurus (many cultic in their leadership) without whom you cannot know the “secret meaning” of the Bible.
• Feeds pridefulness and egotism with its magnetism to “secret knowledge.”
• Opens the floodgates of susceptibility to odd and errant Bible interpretations.
• Overthrows the “faith” of some, when they realize they have had the wool pulled over their eyes.
• Promotes the contrived and/or deceptive use and explanation of numerical patterns.

Conclusion.

Beware of false prophets. Watch for weird witnesses. Do not be deceived. Partake of the good food our Lord has put on the shelf for all to receive. 

“The attempt to find mysterious numerical patterns and values in sentences, words, and phrases which have a plain and obvious meaning, whether the meaning is sublime or trite or trivial, whether it is found in the Bible, or in a masterpiece of secular literature, or in the commonplaces of ordinary life, is to say the least a tremendous waste of time and effort; and, what is far more important, resting as it does on principles that are demonstrably false, it may lead to serious and disastrous consequences. A man who rests his faith in the inerrancy of the Bible on Bible Numerics is trusting in a broken reed, which if he leans on it will go into his hand and pierce it.”[viii] 

---

[i] Also, Karl George Sabiers used “Bible Numerics” as the title of his book that supposedly “proves” the inspiration of the Bible by finding numeric codes in the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible. He also wrote Astounding New Discoveries: Thousands of Amazing Facts Discovered Beneath the Very Surface of the Bible Text. Sabiers studied the work of Panin. He was also connected with Aimee Semple McPherson.
[ii] On page 141 of his book, Gary Rovarino says “number-ology” means “words about numbers” and that this is “God’s word” and “righteous.” On page 142, he calls the superstitious use of numbers “numerology,” and says it is evil. Concealed from Christians for the Glory of God: the 1611 KJV, the King James Bible Authorized Version, G. John Rov, Lulu Publishing, 2019, pp. 141-142.
[iii] Some books of this sort include: Number in Scripture: Its Supernatural Design and Spiritual Significance, by Ethelbert William Bullinger; That Ye May Marvel, Or, The Significance of Bible Numbers, by George Elliott Jones. While it is possible that some studies of number symbolism can get carried away with speculation, such studies are nevertheless subject to universal inspection by Bible believers (that is, such studies do not hinge on secret knowledge).
[iv] Some distinguish “biblical numerology” or “Christian numerology” as the study of numbers in the Bible to find meaning outside of the numerical value of the actual number being used. It is best for real Bible students to steer clear of the word numerology.
[v] I am a critic of both the NASB and the NIV as defective Bibles, but this so-called “acrostic algebra” of Gail Riplinger is pure unadulterated nonsense! Notice also that the correct and common initials of the New American Standard Bible are NASB, which Riplinger uses most of the time in her book. However, she pulls a rabbit out of the hat – identifies it as the NASV – when she gets ready to perform her amazing acrostic algebra reduction trick. It is unbelievable that she or anyone else would take this seriously!
[vi] Possessing secret knowledge that most people do not have.
[vii] This can become a conspiratorial condition.
[viii] Bible Numerics: an Examination of the Theory that there is in the Bible a Mysterious and Marvelous Numerical Pattern which Establishes the Correctness of the Text and Proves the Divine Authority of Holy Scripture, Oswald Thompson Allis, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1944.

Continuity and discontinuity of the word

On Wednesday, July 20, I posted some excerpts of blog comments by Peter Van Kleeck, Jr. that I titled “Words in the KJV that people don’t know.” In it, Peter stated that one reason the King James translation has become “archaic” is because “the language of the standard sacred text has fallen out of use both in the church.” When some people read this, their first thought is others can verify their theory that the KJV is “archaic.” Mark Ward mentioned that Noah Webster (Webster Bible, page iii) complained about this in 1833, and followed it up with corroborating testimony by Benjamin Franklin.[i] There is no reason to suppose that people did not perceive problems with KJV around the turn of the 19th century. However, this does not address the problem.

When I read Peter’s statements, my mind did not go to the possibility that some previous person might have disagreed with him. Instead, I saw a truth in it. My mind went rather to our failure in our churches to continue to faithfully pass down what we have been taught – both the churches that have abandoned the continuity of the word for continual changes of it, and the churches that have not faithfully, carefully, and taught the word that they hold in continuity. We possess ancient truth that has been and is to be passed down. Even when the English language changes in society, if the meaning of English words we use in church were taught in our churches, we would continue to know what they mean. If I were to admit ERI^® is a valid principle (which I do not admit to the extent Mark proposes it), it clearly is not the only principle taught in the Bible! How about this one? “And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also” (2 Timothy 2:2; cf. Psalm 145:4; Exodus 1:8; Joshua 24:31; Judges 2:10). EERC, Edification and Endurance Requires Continuity. We have a faith written by God 2 Timothy 3:16), given to the apostles/church (John 17:14), and passed down to us by our forefathers in the faith. To what extent have we failed to do this – especially with the truths, but even with the words? Perhaps more than any Christian culture in time or space, Christians in the U.S. have perpetuated the idea of “lone ranger” Christians who sit at home in their chairs and interpret their Bibles on their own apart from faithful biblical leaders and Bible believing congregations. Here’s another principle, ERO¹, Edification Requires One-Anothering (Ephesians 4:12; Romans 14:19; 15:1-3). When the Bereans searched the scriptures daily, it is unlikely that every household had its own copy of the OT, but rather that they came together and searched the scriptures together.

What about the world of the lost? They are not taught in church, therefore not heirs to this principle. Well, some of them are brought up in church, but, yes, what about those who know nothing of the church or the Bible? Enter two other principles – ERG, Edification Requires Guidance (Acts 8:30-31) and ERO² Edification Requires Obedience (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15; Acts 8:26-27). The lost do not understand the word, and have bigger issues to overcome than whether a besom is a broom, what a mandrake is, or what halt means. It is the duty of the church to carry the message and explain/teach what it means. Is it too much to expect us to teach a few words along the way?

Additionally, when I contemplate the biblical and spiritual failures of my life, very few of them are related to not knowing a besom is a broom. Mark Twain supposedly said something like this, “It is not the parts of the Bible that I cannot understand that bother me – it’s the parts that I do understand.” Whether or not Twain said that (I haven’t checked), I find my life struggles are related more to what I know than what I do not.

“O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?”

---

[i] It is not clear to me whether this was actually written by Benjamin Franklin, and if so, to what end. This appears as part of a letter from “A. B.” “To the Printer (Franklin ?) proposing a new version of the Bible with modern expressions and turns of phrase. See Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Benjamin Franklin, Volume 3, pages 307-309.

Through Western Eyes

Several friends have enthusiastically recommended Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible, by E. Randolph Richards and Brandon J. O’Brien.

Upon looking at the book, my first thoughts were, “Written by two white guys with western eyes! What are their qualifications to instruct the rest of us in the matter?” I found that Randy Richards was a missionary to Indonesia for about 9 or 10 years, and the other spent some time researching church history in Europe. There is no doubt they have experiences that some other people do not. However…

What I say is not a review of the book – for I have not read it. It is more of a review of the impression some people give when hawking the book.

The theme of the books seems to be that the cultural distance between modern Westerners and the biblical world cause us to misunderstand God’s word. We bring our biases to the text. Richards and O’Brien write, “We can easily forget that Scripture is a foreign land and that reading the Bible is a crosscultural experience” (p. 11)…One of our goals in this book is to remind (or convince!) you of the cross cultural nature of biblical interpretation. We will do that by helping you become more aware of cultural differences that separate us from the foreign land of Scripture” (p. 12).

Really, I think few would question that we bring our biases to the reading of the text of the Bible. No one approaches the Bible as a blank slate. Truth be told, none of the first century readers were blank slates, either – nor are any of the Indonesians. Or anyone else who reads the Bible. It is likely this book offers some thought-provoking ideas that Westerners need to consider. It is likely that this book may drive off in the ditch on the other side of the road. We can be aware of our biases, but we cannot be men and women of the first century. It is likely that the approach is overly dismissive of guidance of the Spirit, and heavy on an academic approach. It is likely that put little stock of the 2000-year church history foundation that many Western Christians have, where the faith once delivered to the saints was committed to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also – a cycle recurring to the present. If they have taken on Western individualism that often disregards the idea of studying (and practicing) the Bible in a faithful community, they probably cannot say that strongly enough!

Ultimately, we all have to read Scripture with the eyes God gave us. That does not mean we cannot recognize that we might vision problems and ask to know what others see. However, we must take into account their vision problems as well. One might be color-blind and the other nearsighted.

Charles Haddon Spurgeon said:

“It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others.”

The Criterion

For many moderate to liberal SBC Baptists the traditional liberty of conscience morphed into the liberty to deny the truths God revealed in the Bible. For example, part of the crisis behind the 1963 revision of the Baptist Faith and Message were things such as Ralph Elliott’s book on Genesis, which many Southern Baptists believed taught things that simply were or were approaching heretical. This 1963 revision produced the sentence, “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.” Apparently some conservatives viewed it as a good thing, while others saw the dangers within it. Regardless, it gave a foothold of appeal to liberals to claim they had interpreted their view through (their ideas about) Jesus Christ.

The Making of the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message by A. J. Smith gives some interesting looks behind the scenes of things that went into making the 1963 BF&M. For example, he writes:

Denominational leaders found it necessary to address the issue raised by Elliott’s book by forming a Committee to revise the BFM. According to Garth Pybass, one of only three members of that Committee still living in 2004, the intention of the “criterion” statement in the article on Scripture was “to convey biblical infallibility based on Christ’s testimony of it in the gospels.” A footnote below comments “this interpretation of the ‘criterion’ statement would take on differing interpretations within the Convention.” (p. 34)

When the Committee agreed to follow a shortened form of the “criterion” sentence they played into the hands of men such as Moody. To say that “the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ” without qualification raised a host of questions. Marvin Tate, who taught Old Testament at Southern from the early 1960s until his retirement, commented: “Back in 1963 I asked, ‘What does that mean?’ It doesn’t mean anything.” (pp. 139-140)

Smith follows the above with a quote from Herschel Hobbs’s journal article “Southern Baptists and Confessionalism” (“Southern Baptists and Confessionalism: a Comparison of the Origins and Contents of the 1925 and 1963 Confessions,” Review and Expositor 76, No. 1 (1976), 55-56). In it Hobbs pointed out that Elliott in The Message of Genesis said Melchizedek was probably a priest of Baal. He thought that the “criterion” sentence would mean such nonsense would have to be rejected in the light of Jesus and the New Testament. See Smith, page 140.

Below are some interesting comments from Mercer University’s Department of Christianity (a list of the faculty is on page 131 of Smith’s book).

This paragraph [on soul competency, in the preamble] ignores that for Baptists the object of “the individual’s soul competency,” “freedom of religion,” and “the priesthood of the believer” is God and not “soul” itself, “freedom” itself, the “believer” himself. (p. 132).

The paragraph tends to undermine Article I, the Scriptures, by assuming man is free to select those “certain definite doctrines” which they “hold dear.” (p. 132)

The term “criterion” unfortunately connotes the presence of a yardstick by which men can measure or judge Scripture, rather the Scripture measuring and judging man. (p. 172)

The Mercer professors, certainly not champions of fundamentalism, saw the dangers of creating “a yardstick by which men can measure or judge Scripture.” The proof has been in the pudding, as many used it for just that purpose – and howled like hit dogs when the statement was removed in 2000.

Most of you reading this probably are not Southern Baptist. You many think it irrelevant. Let it be a reminder that words, phrases, and sentences have meaning, and often ugly unintended consequences.

Note: Best I have found, the original “criterion” statement out of committee was “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is the person, work, and teachings of Jesus Christ.” The Mercer faculty was objecting to this, not just the shortened statement that left out “person, work, and teachings.”

Basics of Bible Interpretation

“The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture of error for its matter, that it reveals the principles by which God will judge us; and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union , and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried.”[i]

A couple of months ago I was listening to a Bible lesson which strategically and stringently emphasized the law of first mention and its importance in understanding the Bible. I think there is value in this rule, though it can be stretched and over-emphasized.[ii] This rule got me thinking about rules that have been set forward for help in hermeneutics,[iii] studying and understanding the Bible. Below is a listing of some that I have been taught or of which I have heard. They are in no certain order.

• The guideline of first mention – “To understand a particular word or doctrine or practice, find the first occurrence of the same in Scripture in order to get the primary meaning of that doctrine or practice.” For example, to understand marriage it is important to study the first marriage. “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?” (Matthew 19:4-5)
• The guideline of every mention – “In addition to first mention, every mention of a doctrine and practice in the Bible must be studied to have the full import of meaning.” “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15) Sometimes similarly stated as the rule of recurrence – “The repetition of the account of events, doctrines, and/or practice, giving additional details.”
• The guideline of definition, usage, and context – “What does the word or words mean? The study of Scripture must include the study of words. The meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or paragraph must be derived within its semantic range and in its usage in the context.” Who is speaking? To whom? When? Why? Biblical passages must be interpreted historically, grammatically, and contextually. “But go ye and learn what that meaneth…” (Matthew 9:13)
• The “golden rule” of interpretation – “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.” (As stated by David L. Cooper, 1886-1965) “In other words, interpret the Scriptures literally, unless you have good reason to believe that they are figurative.”
• The guideline of authorial intent – “Understanding is based on the author’s intended meaning and not the reader’s. No reader has the right to impose his or her own ideas on the text of scripture.” “knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Peter 1:20-21) Also, understand that the Scriptures contain several different kinds of literature, such as historical narrative, poetry, parables, letters, and prophecy.
• The guideline of comparing scripture with scripture – “We must interpret any scripture by other scripture.” “For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:” (Isaiah 28:10) “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” (2 Corinthians 13:1)
• The guideline of non-contradiction – “A correct interpretation of Scripture will always be consistent with the rest of the Scriptures. Interpret difficult passages with clear ones. The Scriptures maintain unity of truth throughout. God is true and the Bible does not contradict itself.” “...let God be true, but every man a liar...” (Romans 3:4)
• The guideline of comparing spiritual with spiritual – “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.  (1 Corinthians 2:13; See also John 16:12-15, 1 Corinthians 2:9-11)
• The guideline of the sufficiency of scripture – “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
• The guideline of Christian community – “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11) The goal of biblical interpretation is not to find secrets no one else has found, or to be unique in understanding different from all others. Study should not be individualistic, but as a part of a local church community. “It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others.” (Charles H. Spurgeon)
• The guideline of faith – “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” (Hebrews 11:6) One cannot approach God and his word without trusting God and his word.

The guidelines in this list above may furnish some help to the student of God’s word, if used reasonably within the context of scripture and leadership of the Holy Spirit. Contrariwise, they can furnish a legalistic grid applied to the Bible that overrides even the Bible itself.[iv] Approach with caution; use with care.

---

[i] Article I, Of The Scriptures, New Hampshire Confession of Faith

[ii] To provide something of a “buffer,” I have chosen to speak of “guidelines” rather than “laws.”

[iii] The science of interpretation, especially of the Scriptures; the branch of theology that deals with the principles of Biblical exegesis. (Dictionary.com)

[iv] For example, one might stress the rule of context – “to whom is it written” – regarding Paul’s letters to the church at Corinth so as to squeeze out any many for the contemporary reader and say it only applied to the Christians at Corinth.

The Golden Rule of Interpretation

The “Golden Rule of Interpretation,” as found in Brief Studies in Christian Doctrines by J. E. Cobb:

“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”

This text doesn’t really say

James 2:24 “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”

“This text doesn’t really say what it says...” I cringe every time I hear a preacher or teacher say words to that effect. I suspect we might be surprised just how often preachers and teachers attempt to explain the scripture with words that contradict the words of scripture.

Of course, we are supposed to teach people what the words of the Bible mean. Sometimes the meaning isn’t clear, and sometimes it is not what people think. We should make it clear, regardless of what people think. But in the process of teaching let’s not say that the scriptures do not say what they say. The listening congregation has just heard us read it and read it with us. A poor choice of words can appear more like an attack on the Bible than teaching with reasonable confidence in it.

Recently a preacher remarked that the first time he preached on faith and works in James chapter two, he “was careful to explain the difference between Paul’s use of the word ‘justification’ in Romans and James’s use in the second chapter of his letter.” Later he recognized that in so “focusing on perceived differences between James and Paul” he had failed to “hammer the point home” of what James was actually teaching.

This is a good example of how our preaching may be imbalanced, and how we can be perceived as saying a text doesn’t say what it says – or doesn’t say what it means. If we correctly teach James 2, what we say he said won’t contradict what Paul said about justification by faith in Romans. If we “apologize” for James teaching what he wrote about works, we are doing something wrong. If we say he didn’t really say it, we are doing something wrong. When we teachers seem to be saying the Bible is wrong and we are right, we deteriorate confidence in the Bible.[i]

We probably have all either preached James 2 that way, or heard it preached that way. And not only James 2! Physician, heal thyself. It’s not solely the liberals who say, “This text doesn’t really say what it says...”

---

[i] [Note: Martin Luther certainly got it wrong when he wrote in his preface to the New Testament, “St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.” In fairness to Luther, after 1522 he edited the “epistle of straw” comment – which we keep referencing – out of his Bible.]

Let the Bible Interpret Itself

An old country preacher said, “I sure do love the Bible ’cause it sheds so much light on these commentaries.” The Bible is a self-explaining book “precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little and there a little.” (Isaiah 28:10). Yet some people try so hard to show their education and importance – they go everywhere but the Bible to find all sorts of explanations. It sure does look funny when the real explanation is right there in the text.

The Needle’s Eye
“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:24)

Every once in a while, we hear someone trying to pass off the high sounding theory that this meant a gate in Jerusalem, called “The Eye of the Needle,” which a camel could pass through only by crawling on his knees.

That we enter into the Kingdom of God on our knees, I would agree. But that is not the point. Jesus is not talking about something that could be done with difficulty, but of something that was impossible for man. To illustrate this, He chose a large animal and a small opening. It is literally impossible for a camel to pass through the eye of a sewing needle. “But thanks be to God,...The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.” (Luke 18:27)

Born Again
“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily. I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.” (John 3:4) “Ye must be born again.” (John 3:7)

A great many scholars change “born again” to “born from above.” No doubt we are born from above (John 1:13), but here (vs. 4, 7) the meaning is “again” – once more, a second time. Nicodemus so understood it, and Jesus did not correct or change that understanding. Nicodemus asked, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb and be born? (v. 4)” Jesus also explained it as a second birth, “Except a man be (1) born of water and (2) of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God (v. 5).” They spoke face to face and Jesus meant and both understood “again” to mean a second time.

These two examples show that answers can be found in the Bible context rather than a commentary, lexicon, or Bible dictionary. This may be too simplistic for the scholarly, “But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise” (1 Corinthians 1:27) and “God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit” (1 Corinthians. 2:10). It has been said many times that the Bible is its own best commentary. Let us pray for divine guidance, search the scriptures daily, and let the Bible interpret itself.

First published in The Baptist Waymark, Vol. II No. 9, April-May 1993, page 1

Troublesome times are here

I read quite a few Baptist blog posts. I'm interested in what contemporary Baptists are saying. Sometimes I comment and engage in discussion.

A troublesome trend manifests in frequent spouting of suppositions void of biblical reference or groundwork. There may be vague references to "what the Bible says about [cue topic]" -- but usually without any mention of what the Bible actually says. This protects the turtle commentator in his or her shell. With no specific scriptures used, the context and meaning cannot be discussed -- just take their word that what they say is right. Not content with this runaround tactic, those who actually bring up what the Bible actually says are chided for proof-texting. The scriptures they present are derided as "popcorn passages" (i.e., taken out of context; apparently this is the latest cool lingo for "proof-texting").

Recently a Baptist bunch discussed whether is it okay for Christians to pulls pranks on people. What is the clear moral standard for these things? Is there a line we cannot or should not cross? Rather than good biblical discussion and advice, the thread was filled with "I thinks" and joking around, with only two commenters seeming to suggest the Scriptures should actually be consulted! Another discussion found a member of the "Oracle of Delphi church" admonishing folks that scriptures must be taken in context -- while never providing any contextual discussion on the scriptures presented and never presenting any scriptures for contextual discussion! Such is subterfuge and misdirection.

Don't accept this. Let's discuss the Bible. It is our sole rule of faith and practice!

Oracles and Interpretation

Writing When Women Ruled the World from the Oracle of Delphi, Wade Burleson audaciously asserts, "Portions of the Bible can only be understood when one has a working knowledge of ancient Greece and the importance and influence of women at the Oracle of Delphi."

After referencing history of the the Oracle of Delphi, the assertion focuses particularly on the incident recorded in Acts 16:16-18, with Burleson adding, "The only way you can understand why Paul did what he did is to realize the biblical description of this young girl." He goes on to write, "The English versions of the Bible say she had "a spirit of divination" (Acts 16:16). The literal Greek word used to describe this woman is Pythia. She could have served in the Temple of Apollo in Delphi, or she could have been a lesser oracle. What we do know is she had the spirit of divination." Rather than reveal some particularly pithy perception, Burleson concludes that what we do know is exactly what the English Bibles tell us -- that she had the spirit of divination!

I do not point to this to focus on Wade Burleson's exegesis and interpretation of this text (though I think he possibly falls for a root fallacy here); but rather to focus on the grand need to study what the Bible says rather than interpret it based on "inaccessible" extraneous material. If we doggedly believe that "portions of the Bible can only be understood when [cue the hermeneutical soup of the day]," then we must maintain the corollary that those to whom this material is inaccessible cannot possibly understand the Bible, or are at the least seriously defective in their attempt. On the other hand, Paul indicates that in the inspired text itself we have sufficient matter for all our doctrine, our reproof, our instruction in righteousness. Let's learn to think this way rather than think about the need to access some obscure bit of history by which to interpret the Bible. We are a kingdom of priests, not a kingdom that needs mystical priests to mediate God's word to those of us who don't know the Oracles of Delphi!

Proof-texting: pushing back

proof text, noun: a Scriptural passage adduced as proof for a theological doctrine, belief, or principle (Merriam-Webster Online)

Sometimes verses of the Bible are misused as proof of something they do not prove. On the other hand, “proof-texting” has become a new “whipping-boy” for those who do not want to discuss the Scriptures specifically. Though Merriam-Webster defines “proof text” in neutral terms, most Christians have come to use it negatively. Zack Hunt claims, “Proof-texting is an intentionally deceptive practice that offers out of context proof while ignoring the greater witness of scripture...” Grant Osborne (The Hermeneutical Spiral) describes proof-texting as “that process whereby a person ‘proves’ a doctrine or practice merely by alluding to a text without considering its original inspired meaning.” Another writes, “Proof-texting is when you start with a point you want to prove and then cherry-pick verses to support the point, regardless of the context and original meaning of those verses.” If we accept these kinds of definitions, then proof-texting becomes an unredeemably bad thing. But is it?

Proof-texting can be a problem
The classic humorous proof-texting tale is as follows: 

John was dissatisfied with the way things were going in his life. He decided to consult the Bible for guidance. John closed his eyes and flipped the Bible open, touching a finger to a spot on the page. He opened his eyes and read the verse under his finger, Matthew 27:5: “Then Judas went and hanged himself.” Thinking these words seemed unhelpful, John randomly selected another verse using the same process, finding Luke 10:37: “Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.” Desperate, he tried again. This time he found John 13:27: “Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.”

The above caricature aside, proof-texting actually comes in both positive and negative forms. Yes, taking random verses out of context is a bad thing – whether as life guidance or doctrinal “proof texts”. We’ve all no doubt been guilty of it at times. Let us repent and seek to study the Bible in toto and in context. We should not embrace all that comes under the umbrella of “proof-texting”. We should not dismiss the legitimate criticisms. But...

Proof-texting has a place
R. M. Allen and S. R. Swain wisely call for a more judicious approach, writing, “All of the charges brought against the use of proof-texts in Christian theology could be lodged against the Bible’s own use of the Bible.” (“In Defense of Proof-texting,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 54, No. 3, 589-606) For example, “With respect to the first charge: 2 Cor 6:16-18 cites and/or alludes to a litany of OT passages (including Lev 26:12; Isa 52:11; 2 Sam 7:14) in support of the claim that ‘we are the temple of the living God,’ but gives no indication of the distinct literary and historical contexts within which those passages are found.”

Allen and Swain advise us to “not commit the fallacy of confusing a method of citation with a hermeneutical procedure. Indeed, if there is an immediate lesson to be drawn, it is this: proof-texting (as a citation technique) has biblical precedent and therefore should not be too hastily dismissed.” Amen.

Serious debate, not caricature
Someone memorably said, “A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text.” But that really isn’t what a true proof text is. It is a caricature of the basic meaning. All of scripture matters. Exegete and expound on each verse/statement in its context; understand and show how various scriptures are connected; listen to others who introduce scriptures that might give an alternate meaning; refine your views in light of all the Bible. But...

Don’t ever discredit the use of Scripture as “proof texts”. Don’t chide people who produce texts of Scriptures to back up their doctrine and theology. We must first present texts so we know where we’re coming from, and then we have a basis to discuss what these Scripture texts teach. Absent bringing the Scriptures into the equation we are tossed to and fro, adrift to be carried about with every wind of doctrine.

Isaiah 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

*    You may run across dicta probanta as a theological term meaning “proof text”.
**  The common and combative way of referencing proof texts is inequitable and insufficient. Be sure you realize the following, and do not be bullied into submission – many objections to “proof-texting” come from those who do not hold the Scriptures as authoritative and therefore really disagree with the theology taught in the “proof text” more than they disagree with “proof-texting”. It is a form of misdirection.
*** Proof texts are properly used as a form of shorthand. They are not intended as the last word on a topic, but as a beginning. This kind of use of proof texts can be seen in confessions of faith that point to texts believed to support the individual points made. See, for example, the First London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1644/1646.

In this divine and infinite Being there is the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; each having the whole divine Essence, yet the Essence undivided; all infinite without any beginning, therefore but one God; who is not to be divided in nature, and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties.
1 Cor. 1:3; John 1:1, 15:26, Exod. 3:14; 1 Cor. 8:6

**** “Many years ago, I was warned by a teacher of theology, that to appeal to the direct statements of Scripture as the foundation of a theological treatise was to be less than modern.” (Joe Nesom in The Omniscience of God: Does the Lord Really Know Everything?) May we, by God’s grace, be less than modern!

Background information and the sufficiency of Scripture

Andy Naselli asks the question Is 'Background Information' Ever Necessary to Understand the Bible?  His answer to the question is that "historical context may sometimes be necessary to understand the Bible accurately." I think I am not misrepresenting him to say that he means historical context found outside of the Bible.

In contrast he quotes Wayne Grudem writing that he is "reluctant to affirm that additional historical background information is ever necessary for getting a proper sense of a text."

In this statement Grudem is maintaining "a distinction between (a) lexicographical resources in ancient literature and inscriptions that I think to be necessary for understanding the words of Scripture and (b) resources that provide historical background information (such as archaeological evidence and historical evidence from ancient texts) that I think to be helpful for improving our understanding but never necessary for gaining a correct understanding of the sense of a text."

Naselli "pushes back" with three biblical examples that I quote below with a few related comments.

1. How can we determine what a δηνάριον (denarius) is without historical context? (Δηνάριον occurs 16x in the NT: Matt 18:28; 20:2, 9, 10, 13; 22:19; Mark 6:37; 12:15; 14:5; Luke 7:41; 10:35; 20:24; John 6:7; 12:5; Rev 6:6 [2x].)

What do we need to know about a δηνάριον from history for the interpretation of these verses? Can we get enough "historical context" from the Bible itself to interpret the meaning of contexts that uses the word δηνάριον? I believe the lattr is sufficient. We learn from the Bible itself that this is a coin -- money -- that is roughly equivalent to a day's wages for a laborer. Is there any verse we can't understand without more information? I think not.

2. It's important to understand what a lamb is to understand parts of the Bible, and those passages are part of deeply important typology. But what if someone today (such as an adult in a remote tribe or a child in America) has never heard of (let alone seen) a lamb? They would need some extra-biblical information in order to get "a proper sense of a text" (to use Grudem's words).

This example might teach us that the Bible gives us far more information than we initially think. Perhaps we do not "need some extra-biblical information in order to get 'a proper sense of a text." It is important to understand what a lamb is to understand parts of the Bible. But must we experientially know what a lamb is, or could we possibly understand what a lamb is from reading the Bible? From the Bible we learn that it was a domestic animal used in ritual sacrifice, that it has wool and can be sheared, and so forth. This is not to say that someone who is a shepherd might catch details that others miss. How many of us have ever seen an animal sacrificed? Yet this does not keep us from grasping the idea and its meaning of the sacrifice of a lamb or the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

3. D. A. Carson writes this regarding Revelation 3:15:
A fair bit of nonsense has been written about the exalted Christ's words to the Laodiceans...Many have argued that this means God prefers people who are "spiritually cold" above those who are "spiritually lukewarm," even though his first preference is for those who are "spiritually hot."...All of this can comfortably be abandoned once responsible archaeology has made its contribution. Laodicea shared the Lycus valley with two other cities mentioned in the NT. Colosse was the only one that enjoyed fresh, cold, spring water; Hierapolis was known for its hot springs and became a place to which people would resort to enjoy these healing baths. By contrast, Laodicea put up with water that was neither cold and useful, nor hot and useful...it takes a bit of background information to make the point clear today.

With all due respect to Donald Carson, I would have to add that I have seen a "fair bit of nonsense" written about Revelation 3:15 from those who know or think they know something about the condition of the springs in Colosse, Hierapolis and Laodicea. Further, I have seen people who knew nothing of the condition of the waters in these cities of Lycus Valley get the point of what John was writing to the church of Laodicea. People on "both sides" get it and miss it. But taken in the context of the entire address to the church of the Laodiceans, we can get the point and the meaning of this without knowing the geographical/historical context behind it. It's not necessary to read the history of the Lycus Valley to understand Revelation 3, any more than it is necessary to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to understand the meaning of the death of Jesus on the cross. Getting a look at the hill of Golgotha and surrounding terrain will not be a magic potion to open the spiritual eyes of the dull reader, and a drink of the springs in Laodicea won't reveal things that are spiritually discerned.

Extra
"Cf. Wayne Grudem's seven sensible qualifications: "Scripture affirms that it is able to be understood but (1) not all at once, (2) not without effort, (3) not without ordinary means, (4) not without the reader's willingness to obey it, (5) not without the help of the Holy Spirit, (6) not without human misunderstanding, and (7) never completely." "The Perspicuity of Scripture," Themelios 34, no. 3 (2009): 288-309."

Is Scripture Enough?, in the July-August 2013 9Marks Journal

Explaining away difficult texts

“Christian morality comes from the mix of Bible, Christian tradition and our reasoned experience. Sometimes Christians have had to rethink the priorities of the gospel in the light of experience. For example, before Wilberforce, Christians saw slavery as biblical and part of the God-given ordering of creation.

“Similarly in South Africa the Dutch Reformed Church supported Apartheid because it was biblical and part of the God-given order of creation. No one now supports either slavery or Apartheid. The biblical texts have not changed; our interpretation has.” -- Nicholas Holtam, Church of England bishop

When we try to explain away difficult subjects in the Bible, we end up with a new interpretation informed more by our "reasoned experience". We mix in views other than the Bible. What Holtam calls "Christian tradition and our reasoned experience" often is more the current trends of thought in our surrounding society than even "Christian tradition", much less the Bible. Slavery not acceptable? Must not be biblical either. Explain away the difficult texts in the New Testament that regulate rather than abolish it. Not properly, squarely and scripturally dealing with the slavery texts and other such difficult* texts in the New Testament have crippled us when trying to deal with the texts on homosexuality. If slavery was merely an artifact of the past that is now erased by our modern sensibilities, why not divorce, and all gender subjectivity as well? Is this not where we are?

* i.e. not fitting contemporary societal views