Agreement
By Timothy Glover
By "understand", we mean, "to grasp the meaning of". In this sense, it may be misunderstood in many ways, but it can never be said that it is understood many ways. We are not using the word "understand" to mean "interpret".
First, we propose that the Bible can be understood. The purpose of Old Testament scriptures is to give understanding (Psalms 119:104,105, 130). Paul states in the New Testament, "Therefore, be not foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is" (Eph. 5:17). This is not to say that everyone can fully comprehend the meaning of every passage. Peter tells us that some Scriptures are "hard to be understood". Still, to admit that humanity can understand it is not to admit that they do. Last month we saw that prejudice, indifference, and other things hinder people from understanding. Again, to say that we do not understand it is not to say that we cannot understand it. The Bible was written from the viewpoint that it could be understood by anyone with the mental capacity to do so.
Second, we propose that if the Bible is "understood" at all, it can be understood alike. Some say, "you can understand it one way, and we can understand it another." Either they mean we "interpret" it differently or the Bible had no specific meaning to impart to it’s readers (which I deny). Do we employ this reasoning in other realms? We speak and write with the idea that all will grasp it as conveying the same thought though it may not be grasped as intended. If we allowed for everyone to understand the law differently, they would produce the same chaos that we see in today’s religion. The only logical conclusion is that we either grasp the meaning of a thing or do not. Thus, if two people grasp its meaning at all, they understand it alike. If they differ, both may be wrong, but both cannot be right. Do people reason like this so they may do as they please with the illusion that God is pleased? Do we think, "If we are free to have our own interpretation because God does not expect us to see it alike anyway, then we may choose to "understand" the Bible to be teaching what we already believe and practice"? How convenient!
In practice, we differ not over what the Bible says but over what it does not say. For example, where do you find that Adam and Eve ate an apple? We can agree that it was "the tree of knowledge of good and evil". I might disagree with someone who says it was an apple and suggest it was an orange. We would be divided. But would we be divided over what the Bible says or what it does not say? Again, who should be baptized? People do not disagree that penitent believers who confess their faith should be baptize. We are agreeing on what the Bible says (Acts 2:38; 8:37, Mk. 16:16) But, they insist that there is no harm done to baptize babies. Once again, we are divided over something not found in the Scriptures. Forsaking illogical reasoning and additions will aid us to "grasp" his will for all humanity.
Return Home
| The Word | The Word(2) | Gospel | Inspired
| Accurate?
| Our Guide
| Blind to?
| Understanding
| Understand-2
| Not to?
| |