There is a growing belief in the church today that a person can interpret and give their own meaning to Scripture because Jesus said, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” (John 10:27-28 ESV), as well as, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me” (Rev 3:20 ESV).
Another argument I read and continuously hear coming from those who want to justify their belief is that they must continuously look for private prophetic words, dreams, or visions for a more meaningful personal experiential revelation and interpretation from God, which supersedes that which is found in the Bible alone, because the 27 “books” of the New Testament were not compiled until after 324 AD, and there was no previous official ‘canon’ (a measuring rod) to determine how to rightly divide the Word of truth in the first century.
Therefore, because the disciples in the first century had to rely on hearing the spoken Word (rhema) from God, the Church should as well because God still speaks today which surpasses His written Word (logos). This belief is being used to validate and justify teaching what is contrary to traditional and historical orthodox fundamental Christianity.
The historical facts are that the first-century disciples considered the letters written by each of the Apostles to be given directly by God as sacred and used them throughout the churches as the final and definitive authority for questions regarding church doctrine. To say that certain verses found in the New Testament were written by specific individuals using their worldly wisdom and opinions to address only cultural issues of the first-century Christians, and are not for the edification and training of the ageless Church universal, is denying the multiple divine attributes of the actual Author of the Bible who used human beings to transcribe them. The Creator of all things would not have let them be placed in the Bible if they were not timeless truths that apply to every person born in the past, present, and in the future.
Rhema vs. Logos
A simple word study of the original Greek language used in the New Testament (NT) quickly reveals that there is no significant difference between the words ‘rhema’ and ‘logos.’ Also, the Bible uses the Greek word ‘graphe’ 51 times to always refer to the written Word of God (Holy Scripture; i.e., the inspired, inerrant writings of the Apostles and other writers of the 27 books of the NT) (see 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 3:16), and ‘logos’ to refer to that which Jesus had spoken (Matt 21:42; 22:29; John 2:22, 5:39, 14:23-24, 17:6,14; Acts 17:11; 18:24; Rom 1:2).
The Greek word ‘logos’ refers to a word, decree, the act of speaking, teaching, reason, account; first sense of collection, counting, conversation; expression of thought, statement; thoughts expressed in words, relates to speaking and thinking, a divine declaration recorded in the Old Testament (OT); systematic and formal treatment of a subject, the content of what is preached'; pertaining to matter.
'Logos' also refers to the gospel as preached by the Apostles, and not to all the Scriptures (Acts 4:4). It is used regarding the supernatural gifts of prophecy, wisdom, knowledge, and tongues (1 Cor 12:8, 14:9). The ‘logos’ is also ‘spoken’ by angels (Heb 2:2, 12:19) and also refers directly to Jesus (John 1:1,14).
The Septuagint translates both ‘logos’ and ‘rhema’ from the Hebrew word ‘dabar,’ which means ‘that which is uttered in speech, or writing; speech, discourse, the subject matter of speech; a minimal unit of discussion, a single word, a focus on the content of the communication.
The words "rhema" and "logos" overlap in their definitions. The actual difference between the words is simply a matter of writing style and expression. The word "logos" occurs 330 times in the NT. The word "rhema" occurs 70 times in the NT. There are 218 times when the word "logos" occurs, and it is translated simply as "word." ”Rhema” is translated 56 times as "word." The word "logos" occurs 50 times and is translated "saying." Nine times "rhema" is also translated as "saying." The words "logos" and "rhema" are equally associated with "word" and "saying."
Jesus spoke the ‘logos,’ and all that exists came into existence (John 1:1-3). Both ‘rhema’ and ‘logos’ are meant to be synonyms and are equated with each other (2 Pet 3:5). The word ‘rhema’ can be seen referring to what was written. Although the prophets ‘spoke’ words from God, they were written to the people (1 Pet 1:25; 2 Pe 3:2,5; Heb 12:19,11:3; Jude 1:17).
The word ‘rhema’ is also used of the gospel of Christ being preached, and not the written word that is used to sanctify and cleanse, or the spoken word (Ro 10:8, 17; Eph 5:26; 1 Pet 1:25). The ‘logos’ word is equated to the ‘rhema’ word that was delivered on the day of Pentecost (Acts 10:44). The ‘rhema’ words of Peter were seen as ‘logos.’
During the early years of preaching the Gospel, it was not written down yet, but the Gospel is just as well contained in the OT as it is in the NT. The word of faith is ‘preached’ and not ‘written.’ Whether the Bible uses the word ‘rhema’ of God, or ‘logos’ of God, they still point to that which is spoken in the majority of cases. The word ‘logos’ cannot be interpreted as only the written Word (example Eph 6:17; Heb 6:5).
The Bible Timeline
The historic church has had the complete written “logos/graphe” Word since before 100 AD. Below is the consensus of Bible believing Scholars for the timeline each book was written +- in either direction:
James - 46 AD
1 Thessalonians - 52 AD
2 Thessalonians - 53 AD
Galatians - 56 AD
1 + 2 Corinthians - 57 AD
Romans and 1 Peter - 58 AD
Philippians - 59 AD
Matthew - 60 AD
Titus, Philemon, Mark - 61 AD
Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Timothy - 62 AD
Hebrews 63 AD
2 Peter, 2 Timothy, Luke, Jude - 65 AD
Acts - 67 AD
John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John - 80 AD
Revelation - 98 AD
Both the OT and the entire NT could be reconstructed from the writings of the early Church Fathers such as Clement of Rome who wrote a letter to the church at Corinth in 95 AD that contained numerous OT Scriptures as well as the writings of the Apostles Jesus had hand-picked, that were considered as sacred Scripture. Another early church father was Irenaeus, who lived from 130 AD to 202 AD. In his writings, he quoted from 24 books of the NT over 1,800 times.
Marcion of Sinope (85 AD -160 AD) , the son of the Bishop pf Pontus gathered together all the books of the New Testament in 144 A.D as one book. It did not contain the Old Testament.
Justin Martyr wrote a letter known as his first Apology to the Roman Emperor around 150 AD in which he described what happened during a typical Sunday church service. He wrote that the Scriptures of the OT (the writings of the Prophets) and the writings of the NT were read out loud, and then a message (discourse) was preached, songs were sung, people prayed together and took communion. Then, an offering was taken, part of which was used to help those who were sick, as well as for widows and orphans, and all those that were in need (First Apology, 67).
There was also Origen Adamantius, who lived from 185 AD - 254 AD in Alexandria, Egypt. He was a theologian and scholar who made over 18,000 references to the books in the NT in his writings.
Here are some questions for those who rely on experiential special/fresh revelation to interpret the Bible:
1. If two people read the same verse and each comes up with a different interpretation or meaning of a word(s), who determines which voices in whose head are correct?
2. Which version of the Bible is correct, and in which language?
3. How does one determine which manuscript in the original language it was written in, was translated correctly?
4. Do they understand that a word may have a different meaning in its original grammatical and historical context?
5. How does one “present” their self “approved to God” as “a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly ‘dividing’ (Gk: orthotomeó = to accurately and precisely cut straight; to handle correctly, teach rightly) the Word of truth (2 Tim 2:15)?
Those who believe that the Bible is open to personal interpretation by special/fresh revelation helps to explain why there is so much heresy and doctrines of devils in the church today. A person making these claims would have to be fluent in first-century Hebrew, Koine Greek, and Aramaic, and therefore, every translation of the Bible into any language is totally unreliable and open to any interpretation by anyone who translates it from the original language it was written in.
Exact Rules are Needed for an Exact Result
The science of interpretation, known as ‘Hermeneutics,’ began at least about 2600 years ago with Socrates and Aristotle, who have influenced it to this day. The rules of Hermeneutics are used by all courts of law in the Free World. If one became involved in a court case about the meaning of a Will, Contract, or Deed, the court would use these rules to determine the meaning of the disputed document. In daily reading and study, everyone uses these rules at times. A person could not make sense of anything they read or write if they did not.
One cannot get a sure meaning with an uncertain rule. The Bible student must not only study the Scriptures; they must decide how they will interpret them. Two persons can read the same texts and get different ideas from them because they put different meaning upon the words.
The rules of biblical Hermeneutics are found in the writings of the foremost legal and biblical authorities, both ancient and modern, since before the first century. They are found in the writings of Irenaeus, a master interpreter among the second-century church fathers. They were used by the master expositors of the Middle Ages to Luther and the Reformation theologians who disproved Roman fallacies with them. The rules were involved in the great doctrinal debates of the theologians from the Council of Nice (324 A.D.) to the Council of Trent (1545-1563), and Bible translators have used them throughout history and continue to use them today.
The doctrinal errors of twenty centuries of church history were violations of these principles. It is also true of all the false doctrines found in Christendom today. Think of any false doctrine you know about and see if it isn't true. Cults, religious sects, and teachers of heretical doctrines use these rules in the ordinary affairs of life, but they will not apply them to the Bible as they would overthrow their doctrines if they did.
It is impossible to determine the true meaning of a Bible doctrine without them. There is nothing more important in all Biblical learning than to know these rules and rightly apply them to Bible doctrines. Doctrine is only as sure as the proof upon which it is established, and it cannot be demonstrated as sure without these rules, which are the principles to which all logical inquiry appeals.
Many false doctrines are based on a single word or term. Teachers have taken a biblical word or term and loaded it with a non-biblical meaning. They then detach the word or term from all that the Bible teaches about it and build their doctrine on it.
The whole Bible is a context. No one has the right to speak as an authority to interpret Scripture unless they know all that the Bible teaches on the subject being addressed. The word ‘interpret’ can be used to mean “to understand,” “to translate,” or “to explain.” These three functions of the interpretive process are also appropriate for preaching. When one applies the rules to all that the Bible teaches about a subject, they stand on proven ground.
Dr. G. Campbell Morgan is widely esteemed as "the greatest Bible expositor of the past century," and he said: "We must be set free from the bondage of popular and traditional views in interpretation." 1 Parables and Metaphors, p 72.
Dr. R. A. Torrey worked with Dwight L. Moody and was the first head of the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. He wrote a valuable book on how to study the Bible, and said that if some Bible teachers "were practicing law and should try in any court of justice to interpret laws, as they interpret the Bible, they would be laughed out of court."
Interpretation
King Solomon asked: "Who knoweth the interpretation of a thing?" (Eccles. 8:1 KJV). The Apostle Peter said that no Scripture "is of any private interpretation" (2 Pet 1:20 NIV). No one knows the interpretation of Scripture if they have their own "private" (personal) interpretation. For twenty centuries, many people have ignored the rules and forced their private beliefs upon the Scriptures, claiming to have a special revelation from God.
Interpreting the Bible (Hermeneutics) is the science and art of understanding, translating, and explaining the meaning of the Scripture text. It is more than knowing a set of rules, but the rules are necessary. The spiritual sense must always be derived from the grammatical sense.
Here are the Eight Rules:
1. Rule of Context
This is the first and most important principle for accurate interpretation. Bible scholars use the term ‘context’ to discuss various aspects of the original writing of the text—historical, social, political, religious, and literary. A writer follows a logical line of thought in what they write. What they said in the previous verses or chapters and what they said in those following will help make the text clear.
The meaning must be gathered from the context. Every word a person reads must be understood in the light of the words that come before and after it. Many passages will not be understood at all, or understood incorrectly, without the help afforded by the context. A good example of this is the Mormon practice of using 1 Cor. 8:5b: "…for there be gods many and lords many…" as a "proof text" of their doctrine of polytheism. However, a simple reading of the whole verse in the context of the entire chapter (e.g., where Paul calls these gods "so-called"), plainly demonstrates that Paul is not teaching polytheism.
Quotes:
“Many a passage of Scripture will not be understood at all without the help afforded by the context; for many, a sentence derives all its point and force from the connection in which it stands.” (Biblical Hermeneutics, Terry, M. S., p. 117. 1896)
“[Bible words] must be understood according to the requirements of the context.’ (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 97)
“Every word you read must be understood in the light of the words that come before and after it.” (How to Make Sense, FIesch, Rudolph, p. 51, Harper & Brothers, 1954)
“[Bible words] when used out of context.. . can prove almost anything. [Some interpreters] twist them . . . from a natural to a non-natural sense.” (Irenaeus, second-century church father, quoted in Inspiration and Interpretation, p. 50, Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1957)
“The meaning must be gathered from the context.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, Interpretation of Documents, V. 8, p. 912. 1959)
Seven Principles for Understanding Context
The reason it is so vitally important to study Bible passages and stories within their context is that taking verses out of context leads to all kinds of error and misunderstanding. Taking a text out of context becomes a pretext for a proof text that leads to misinterpretation.
The understanding of context begins with Seven Principles:
1. The literal meaning (what it says)
2. Historical setting (the events of the story, to who is it addressed, and how it was understood at that time),
3. Grammar (the immediate sentence and paragraph within which a word or phrase is found)
4. Synthesis (comparing it with other parts of Scripture for a fuller meaning)
5. Immediate Context - Exposition of a passage must agree with both the immediate context around a passage and is most important and usually pivotal.
6. Remote Context - Exposition of a passage must expand out from the entire book being interpreted, then to the whole New Testament, and then the Old Testament.
7. Always take a God-centered perspective for interpreting Scripture. - Look at the text in terms of what it reveals about His will, goodness, character, nature, and His dealings with Creation, particularly His involvement with human beings.
Context is crucial to biblical exegesis and is one of its most important fundamentals. A person must never read Bible verses that have been ripped from their context. A good rule of thumb is to read 3 to 4 verses before a verse AND 3 to 4 verses after.
Once a person accounts for the literal, historical, and grammatical nature of a passage, they must focus on the outline and structure of the book, then the chapter, later the paragraph. All of these things refer to "context." To illustrate, it is like looking at Google Maps and zooming in on one house.
Taking phrases and verses out of context always leads to misunderstanding. For instance, taking the phrase "God is love" (1 John 4:7-16) out of its context, a person might come away thinking that God loves everything and everyone at all times with a gushing, romantic love. But, in its literal and grammatical context, “love” here refers to ‘agape’ love, the essence of which is sacrificed for the benefit of another, not a sentimental, romantic love.
The historical context is also crucial because John was addressing Born-Again Christians in the first-century church and instructing them not on God’s love per se, but on how to identify true Believers from false professors.
True love—the sacrificial, beneficial kind—is the mark of one who is genuinely Born-Again (v. 7), those who do not love do not belong to God (v. 8), God loved us before we loved Him (vv. 9-10), and all of this is why Christians should love one another to prove that they are His (v. 11-12).
Consider the phrase "God is love" in the context of all of Scripture (synthesis). That will keep a person from coming to the false, and all-too-common, conclusion that God is only love or that His love is more significant than all His other attributes, which is not the case. Many Bible passages state that God is also holy, righteous, faithful, trustworthy, graceful, merciful, kind, compassionate, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, as well as many, many other things. The Bible also tells us, God not only loves, but He also hates.
The Bible is the written Word of God, literally "God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16), and the Born-Again Christian is commanded to read, study, and understand it through the use of proper study methods, and always with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to guide them (1 Cor 2:14).
The study of Scripture is greatly enhanced by maintaining diligence in the use of context because it is quite easy to come to wrong conclusions by taking phrases and verses out of context. It is not difficult to point out places that seemingly contradict other portions of Scripture, but if they carefully look at the context and use the entirety of Scripture as a reference, they can understand the meaning of a passage. “Context is king” means that the context often drives the meaning of a phrase. To ignore context is to put one’s self at a tremendous disadvantage.
2. Rule of Definition
Any study of Scripture must begin with an examination of words to determine their meaning. Terms must be defined and then kept to the term defined. The interpreter should conscientiously abide by the plain meaning of the words. This will most often require using a Hebrew/English or Greek/English lexicon to make sure that the sense of the English translation is understood. A couple of good examples of this are the Greek words "allos" and "heteros." Both are usually translated as "another" in English – yet "allos" literally means "another of the same type" and "heteros" means "another of a different type."
Quotes:
“The Bible writers did not invent new words because they would not have been understood, so they used those already in the common language of the day. The content of meaning in these words is not to be determined by each expositor. . . to do so would be a method of interpretation [that is] a most vicious thing.” (Studies in the Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, Wuest, Kenneth, pp. 3037, Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1945)
“The author confines the definitions strictly to their literal or idiomatic force; which, after all, will be found to form the best, and indeed the only safe and solid basis for theological deductions of any kind.” (Young's Analytical Concordance, Prefatory Note)
3. Rule of Usage
The Old Testament was written originally by, to, and for Jews. The words and idioms must have been understood by them – just as the words of Jesus when talking to them were understood.
Quotes:
“The majority of the New Testament was written in the common language of the Greco-Roman (and to a lesser extent Jewish) “...It was necessary to view that Life and Teaching in all its surroundings of place, society, popular life.... This would form not only the frame in which to set the picture of the Christ but the very background of the picture itself.” (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Edersheim, Alfred, V. 1, xii, Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1953)
“In interpreting very many phrases and histories of the New Testament, it is not so (The Importance and Value of Proper Bible Study, p. 67. Moody Press, 1921. Testament, Girdlestone, R. B., p.14) much worth what we think of them from notions of our own . . . as in what sense these things were understood by the hearers and lookers on, according to the usual custom and vulgar dialect of the nation.” (Bishop Lightfoot, quoted in The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, xii, Moulton & Milligan, Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1959)
It is essential not to impose modern usage on one’s interpretation. It is not worth much to interpret phrases and histories if one’s interpretations are shaded by pre-conceived notions and cultural biases, thereby rendering an inaccurate and ineffectual lesson.
4. Rule of Historical Background
The interpreter of Scripture must have some awareness of the life and society of the times in which the Scripture was written. The spiritual principle will be timeless but often can’t be adequately appreciated without some knowledge of the background. If a person can have in their mind what the writer had in his mind when he wrote it – without adding any excess baggage from their own culture or society – then the actual thought of the Scripture can be captured, resulting in an accurate interpretation.
Quotes:
Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "Our only interest in the past is for the light it throws upon the present."
“Even the general reader must be aware that some knowledge of Jewish life and society at the time is requisite for the understanding of the Gospel history.” (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Edersheim, Alfred, V.1, xiii, Eerdmans Pub.Co., 1953)
“The moment the student has in his mind what was in the mind of the author or authors of the Biblical books when these were written, he has interpreted the thought of Scripture.... If he adds anything of his own, it is not exegesis.” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, V. 3, p. 1489. 1952)
“Theological interpretation and historical investigation can never be separated from each other.... The strictest historical . . . scrutiny is an indispensable sable discipline to all Biblical theology.’ (A Theological Word Book of the Bible, 30 scholars, Preface, Macmillan Co., 1958)
"I have said enough to show the part which the study of history necessarily plays in the intelligent study of the law as it is today ....Our only interest in the past is for the light it throws upon the present." (U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., 1902-1932, quoted in The World of Law, V. 2, p. 630, Simon & Schuster, 1960)
5. Rule of Logic
Interpretation is merely God-given logical reasoning. When interpreting Scripture, the use of reason is everywhere to be assumed. Does the interpretation make sense? The Bible was given in the form of human language and therefore appeals to human reasoning, which invites investigation. It is to be interpreted as one would any other volume: applying the laws of language and grammatical analysis.
Quotes:
"What is the control we use to weed out false theological speculation? Certainly, the control is logic and evidence… interpreters who have not had the sharpening experience of logic…may have improper notions of implication and evidence. Too frequently such a person uses a basis of appeal that is a notorious violation of the laws of logic and evidence." (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, Boston: W. A. Wilde, 1956)
“Interpretation is merely logical reasoning.” (Encyclopedia Americana, V. 15, p. 267. 1953)
“The use of reason in the interpretation of Scripture is everywhere to be assumed. The Bible comes to us in the forms of human language, and appeals to our reason . . . it invites investigation, and. . . it is to be interpreted as we interpret any other volume, by a rigid application of the same laws of language, and the same grammatical analysis.” (Biblical Hermeneutics, Terry, M. S., p. 25. 1895)
“What is the control we use to weed out false theological speculation? Certainly the control is logic and evidence . . . interpreters who have not had the sharpening experience of logic. . . may have improper notions of implication and evidence. Too frequently such a person uses a basis of appeal that is a notorious violation of the laws of logic and evidence.” (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, Ramm, Bernard, pp. 151-153, W. A. Wilde Co., 1956)
“It is one of the most firmly established principles of law in England and in America that "a law means exactly what it says, and is to be interpreted and enforced exactly as it reads." This is just as good a principle for interpreting the Bible as for interpreting law.” (The Importance and Value of Proper Bible Study, Torrey, R. A., pp. 67-70, Moody Press, 1921)
6. Rule of Precedent
A person must not violate the known usage of a word and invent another for which there is no precedent. Just as a court Judge has the primary occupation of studying previous cases, so must the interpreter use precedents to determine whether they support an alleged doctrine. Consider the Bereans in Acts 17:10-12, who were called "noble" because they searched the Scriptures to determine if what Paul taught them was true.
Quotes:
“We must not violate the known usage of a word and invent another for which there is no precedent.” (The Greek New Testament for English Readers, Dean Alford, p. 1098, Moody Press)
“The professional ability of lawyers in arguing a question of law, and the judges in deciding it, is thus chiefly occupied with a critical study of previous cases, in order to determine whether the previous cases really support some alleged doctrine.” (Introduction to the Study of Law, p. 40, Woodruff, E. H., 1898)
“The first thing he [the judge] does is to compare the case before him with precedents.... Back of precedents are the basic juridical conceptions which are postulates of judicial reasoning, and farther back are the habits of life, the institutions of society, in which those conceptions had their origin.... Precedents have so covered the ground that they fix the point of departure from which the labor of the judge begins. Almost invariably, his first step is to examine and compare them. It is a process of search, comparison, and little more.” (U.S. Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo, 1932-1938, The Nature of the Judicial Process, quoted in The World of Law, V. 2, p. 671, Simon & Schuster, 1960)
7. Rule of Unity
The parts of Scripture being interpreted must be construed concerning the significance of the whole. An interpretation must be consistent with the rest of Scripture. An excellent example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity. No single passage teaches it, but it is consistent with the teaching of the whole of Scripture (e.g., God, the Father, God, the Son, Jesus, and God, the Holy Spirit are referred to individually as God; yet the Scriptures elsewhere teach there is only one God).
Quotes:
“[It is] fundamental to a true interpretation of the Scripture, viz., that the parts of a document, law, or instrument are to be construed with reference to the significance of the whole. (Dean Abbot, Commentary on Matthew, Interpretation, p.31)
“Where a transaction is carried out by means of several documents so that together they form part of a single whole, these documents are read together as one.... [They are to be so read] that construction is to be preferred which will render them consistent.” (Interpretation of Documents, Sir Roland Burrows, p. 49, Butterworth & Co., London, 1946)
8. Rule of Inference
Quotes:
“…An inference is a fact reasonably implied from another fact. It is a logical consequence. It derives a conclusion from a given fact or premise. It is the deduction of one proposition from another proposition. Such inferential facts or propositions are sufficiently binding when their truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence. Competent evidence means such evidence as the nature of the thing to be proved admits. Satisfactory evidence means that amount of proof which would ordinarily satisfy an unprejudiced mind beyond a reasonable doubt. (Jesus proved the resurrection of the dead to the unbelieving Sadducees by this rule Matt. 22:31, 32.)” (See Encyclopedia Britannica, V. 6, p. 615 (1952) and Black's Law Dictionary, p. 436, Fourth Edition, West Pub. Co., 1951).
“A proposition of fact is proved when its truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence. By competent evidence is meant such evidence as the nature of the thing to be proved admits. By satisfactory evidence is meant that amount of proof which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind beyond reasonable doubt. Scripture facts are therefore proved when they are established by that kind and degree of evidence which would in the affairs of ordinary life satisfy the mind and conscience of a common man. When we have this kind and degree of evidence it is unreasonable to require more.” (Systematic Theology, Strong, Augustus H., p.142, Judson Press, 1899)
"A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: to understand a proverb, and the interpretation." (Prov. 1:5,6 NIV)
Conclusion
It is important to remember that a text cannot mean what it never meant. Discovering the writer’s initially intended meaning will also be the intended meaning of the Holy Spirit, who inspired him to write it in the first place. As one reads their words, they are dealing with direct revelation from God.
The biblical reality is that if a private “revelation” given to (or by) someone does not agree or align with Scripture, it is false, and if it does, then it is not needed.
If a person does not believe that the Written Word of God is direct revelation and is “inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16-17), they will not be able to correctly preach or teach the message of a text and “present” themselves “to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15 ESV).
