Principle 2

HERMENEUTICS

PRINCIPLE 2

Assume the Clarity of Scripture

When we “assume” something, we accept it’s true. When we assume the clarity of Scripture, we accept that God meant His Word to be clear, and easy to understand. Assuming the clarity of Scripture the “common sense” principle of biblical interpretation, and it’s a crucial principle of hermeneutics. It means that God isn’t playing guessing games with us when it comes to understanding His Word. This principle also assumes that the human authors were not trying to hide the real meaning of a passage behind something more obvious.

How do you read the Bible? Do you accept that it means what it plainly says - including the parts you don’t like? Or do you try to get around “uncomfortable” verses and passages by deciding that God didn’t really mean what is clearly stated?

This principle is taught in Scripture in Proverbs 8:8-9, where Wisdom is personified and speaking: “My advice is wholesome. There’s nothing devious or crooked in it. My words are plain to anyone with understanding, clear to those with knowledge.” Here God is telling us to assume the clarity of Scripture. He wrote the Bible for us to understand!

We could expand this principle and say it like this:

Always go with the simple, straightforward, ordinary, obvious, plain, direct,
normal, natural meaning unless there is a very good reason not to do so.

Notice that the word “literal” is left out of this expanded definition, because the Bible includes figurative language at times. However, when figurative language is properly interpreted, it will become easy to understand.

What about the phrase, “unless there is a very good reason not to do so”? What would be “a very good reason” not to go with the most obvious and direct meaning? The “very good reason” must come from other Scripture. If the simple, straightforward meaning contradicts other clear Scriptures, we need to investigate and interpret it differently. Obviously, our own preconceived ideas, or disliking what a passage says, are not good reasons to interpret the Bible differently.

Let’s look at a few examples which illustrate the clarity of Scripture principle. 

Exodus 20:11

“For in six days the Lord made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them…”

Moses wrote the book of Exodus. In Exodus20:11, God is speaking, and Moses is quoting what the Lord said. Assuming the clarity of Scripture, what do you think the Author (the Lord) and the author (Moses) meant by the words, “six days”? How do you think the original audience (the nation of Israel) would have understood “six days”? Did they understand six days to mean six 24-hour periods, or would they have thought that Moses was referring to some other timeframe? Practicing Principle 2 you’d say, “It’s obvious that the people of Israel would have understood six 24-hour periods.”

However, some people don’t assume the clarity of this verse. They try to manipulate the the account of Creation Week to fit their own scientific beliefs of evolution or progressive creation. They would say that the “six days” refers to “six geologic ages.” That’s bad hermeneutics! We should always assume the clear and obvious meaning of Scripture, unless there is a very good reason not to do so. And that “good reason” must be from Scripture - not from theories of science, and not from our own opinion. Other Scriptures on this subject confirm the truth that it didn’t take long for God to create the universe. (For example, see Hebrews 11:3 and Psalm 33:9.)

In addition, if the author/Author had wanted to convey that the days of creation were longer than 24-hour days, there are different Hebrew words that could have been used. So when we apply the clarity of Scripture to the Creation account in Genesis 1-2, we’re even more convinced that these were literal 24-hour days.

Some people turn to 2 Peter 3:8 as an argument: “A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day.” They look at this verse and say, “See, the creation days were actually thousand-year periods!” Again, this is bad hermeneutics. When we look at the verses that surround 2 Peter 3:8 we clearly see that it’s not an equation. It doesn’t mean that every time we see the word “day” we can substitute a “one thousand year” time period. That would be illogical! (For example, Jesus was not in the tomb for 3,000 years!) In this verse Peter is simply teaching that God is not bound by time. In fact, this verse actually argues that God can accomplish, in a very short time, something that normally looks like it would take a long time!

2 PETER 3:3-6

“In the last days scoffers will come, mocking the truth and following their own desires. They will say, “What happened to the promise that Jesus is coming again? From before the times of our ancestors, everything has remained the same since the world was first created.” They deliberately forget that God made the heavens long ago by the word of his command, and he brought the earth out from the water and surrounded it with water. Then he used the water to destroy the ancient world with a mighty flood.”

From reading this passage, do you think the apostle Peter believed that the great Flood of Genesis 6-8 was a small, local flood - or a worldwide flood? 2 Peter 3:6 certainly indicates it was a worldwide flood. Peter used Principle 2 here when he interpreted Genesis 6-8. When Peter read in Genesis 7:18-23 that all the high mountains were covered, all flesh perished, and every living thing was wiped out, he accepted that the words said what they meant. Clearly this historical event was a great worldwide flood. So the principle of the clarity of Scripture isn’t something that was invented by modern-day Christians. The authors of the Bible practiced it when they interpreted Scripture.

By the way, notice that in the context these verses, Peter spoke about three different universal cosmographies:
- a heavens and earth before the Flood
- a heavens and earth since the Flood
- a future new heavens and earth

The fact that different cosmographies existed before and after the Flood would indicate that the Flood was a catastrophe of global proportions. We’ll discuss context in Principle 4. In our study of Scripture, we’ll find that several principles of hermeneutics can be helpful in determining the meaning of a text.

Matthew 5:27-30

“You have heard the commandment that says, ‘You must not commit adultery.’ But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. So if your eye—even your good eye—causes you to lust, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your hand—even your stronger hand—causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It’s better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.”

We’ve learned that we should always go with the straightforward meaning unless there’s a very good reason not to do so. Let’s look at a passage that fits the exception clause. The straightforward meaning of Matthew 5:27-30 is that if you have a problem with lust you should gouge out your eye or cut off your hand. Is the Lord Jesus teaching self-mutilation? No! Remember, we should interpret Scripture clearly - unless there’s a very good reason from Scripture not to do so. 

Here are four reasons from Scripture that indicate we should not follow the simple meaning of Matthew 5:27-30:

• The rest of Scripture indicates that lust is not a problem of the eyes, but of the mind and heart. A person can still lust, even if he or she has only one eye.

• The rest of Scripture indicates that mutilation of the body doesn’t solve the problem of lust. Lust is a problem of the mind. Colossians 2:23 says, “…rules may seem wise, because they require strong devotion, pious self-denial, and severe bodily discipline. But they provide no help in conquering a person’s evil desires.”

• The rest of Scripture indicates that maiming oneself does not keep a person out of hell. The question of going to hell is determined by whether or not a person trusts in Jesus Christ as personal Savior (see John 5:24; 1 John 5:12).

• The rest of Scripture indicates that we should care for our bodies, not maim them. (See 1 Corinthians 6:15; Ephesians 5:28-29).

So what is the proper interpretation of Matthew 5:27-30? In this passage Jesus was using highly figurative language to emphasize His point: we must deal ruthlessly and decisively with the problem of lust. In other words, we must strictly avoid problematic places and media and websites that appeal to the root of the problem.

Most of the time God’s Word means just what it says in plain language. While verses like Matthew 5:27-30 may sound difficult and confusing at first, they can be readily understood when we look at the overall scope of Scripture.