I would like to understand how do you (GWH) interpret scripture? Do you have any methods? There are some verses that are quite difficult to understand all through the Bible where we might need to give a bit of leeway to others who have different views. Especially if it doesn’t affect one’s daily walk with Christ.
A hermeneutic or set of parameters for interpreting the Bible that
I recommend begins with the instruction of Paul (1THS 5:21) to “Test everything. Hold on to the good.” A truthseeker is guided by the question: What is most true or the best interpretation of God’s Word? Recognizing that discerning truth is subjective or fallible, I seek to be as objective or right as possible by learning from other truthseekers (especially the apostle Paul and other NT writers) via dialogue when possible.
As a result of seeking ultimate truth, a person might come to value
two NT teachings as key points from which to triangulate or use to guide an interpretation of the Bible, especially problematic statements. First, God loves and wants to save everyone (1TM 2:3-4); Christ died to show God’s love and the possible salvation of all (RM 5:6-8) including His enemies (ungodly, atheist, anti-Christ). Second, God is just (2THS 1:6a, cf. RM 3:25-26 & 9:14, DT 32:4, PS 36:6, LK 11:42, RV 15:3). Explanations of God’s Word should not be blasphemous or impugn God’s justice and love for all people (JL 2:13, JN 3:16). This parameter is affirmed in the OT (PS 145:17): “The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.”
This principle leads one to conclude that (third)
even the wrath of God is an expression of His love and justice. The writer of Hebrews (12:4-11) indicates that divine wrath is intended as discipline or for the purpose of teaching people to repent of their hatefulness and faithlessness (PR 3:12, IS 33:14-15 RV 3:19). If a righteous explanation cannot be found for a passage of Scripture purporting to describe God’s will (such as JSH 6:17-24, 8:2&24 & 10:28-40, 11:6-23), then it should be considered as historical or descriptive of what people perceived rather than as pedagogical or prescriptive of God’s nature. Unrighteous rage should not be attributed to God.
The justice of God is a source of comfort and joy to those who have decided to accept His loving Lordship, but it is experienced as judgment or wrath by those who rebel against Him (IS 13:13, RM 1:18, RV 19:11). The fire that warms (purifies) also burns (punishes). Stating God’s requirement for salvation negatively: a person would do well (be wise) not to reject Him in order not to experience the miserable but just consequence (JN 3:17-18). Just consequences teach good behavior.
Another important element in this hermeneutic is that a truthseeker must be satisfied with obtaining
sufficient knowledge of evidence rather than absolute certainty or proof (2CR 5:7). IMO, a logical train of thought leads an unbiased truthseeker to have a
propensity to believe in an all-loving God, who is not tricky and does not hide the way to heaven (HB 11:6, ACTS 13:10). Knowledge of history makes a truthseeker aware that humanity’s understanding of God evolved or progressed through the millenniums, so that
the OT was superseded by the NT, which is the apex of divine revelation (HB 7:18, 8:13, 9:15).
The method employed in this hermeneutic is additive or eclectic as taught by Paul (in 1THS 5:21), exemplified by Jesus (in MT 4:6-7) and illustrated by the transparent overlays of bodily systems found in some books on anatomy. An interpreter should want to include all true assertions in the picture of reality without making a “Procrustean Body” by cutting off or ignoring parts that do not seem to fit, because
the correct understanding must be self-consistent or else God would be tricky. The whole truth combines parts without sawing!
The Bible says God’s Spirit is love and truth (1JN 4:8 & 5:6), which means all love (agape, RM 6:5-8) in all people is God’s operation, and all truth in all cultures is God’s revelation. Thus,
becoming a Christian theist does not mean rejecting what is good and true in one’s pre-Christian experience or culture. As the philosopher Hegel taught: when considering two different understandings (thesis A versus antithesis B),
the truth may not be either one or the other but rather the proper harmonization of the two. (Both A and B = synthesis C.)
The Bible teaches (GN 1:3, JN 1:1-3) that (9.)
both the world and inspired words are expressions of God’s Word/Logos, and thus both scientific and spiritual truths must be compatible or else God would be tricky. So, while belief that God is love and Jesus is Lord is based upon the biblical revelation, knowledge also is gleaned from the natural sciences and common sense. While this interpretation of reality is based on the Bible, it also utilizes logical thinking, especially where the Bible seems silent, hoping to be guided by the Logos or Spirit of Truth (JN 14:17). Logic is the way every sane soul has direct access to the supreme Mind of Christ or Logos (1CR 2:11-16).
Right reasoning serves as spiritual glue that connects and harmonizes biblical dots, binding all individual truths together in one Word/Scripture and catholic or universal faith. Divinely inspired logic provides the rationale for believing that the history of humanity and God's plan of salvation is not a farce, and it sustains or encourages the hope of experiencing love and joy in a future heavenly existence.
The beauty of this hermeneutic is the harmonization of whatever is good and true. However, I realize that—just as frequently happens when a person shares favorite musical or scenic beauty with someone else—it
may not move your soul like mine (MT 11:16-17).
