A Plain Reading of Scripture

[Glass*Soul]

A couple of weeks ago, I ran into the phrase "a plain reading of scripture" in a topic. I don't even remember the context, but it stuck in my head.

So, I'm curious. What does it mean to take a plain reading of scripture?

For example, I immediately thought of the Parable of the Talents from Matthew 25:14–30.

“Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag," each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. 18 But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.

“After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. The man who had received five bags of gold brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more.’

“His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’

“The man with two bags of gold also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two bags of gold; see, I have gained two more.’

“His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’

“Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’

“His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

"‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

Here's what I would take as the plainest possible reading of the parable:

If a Putin-esque tyrant, who has the power of life and death over you and is known to reap where he does not sow, gives you money with clear instructions to invest it? Do it. Invest it. Even if you're terrified at what will happen to you if the investments don't pan out and you lose some of the principal, go ahead and at least try. It's your only chance to survive. If it does pan out, you'll be rich.

It seems like an oddly timely parable, if you keep your reading that starkly plain, but I've never heard a sermon on it to that effect.

So, how does it actually work?

 

[AlexDTX]

A couple of weeks ago, I ran into the phrase "a plain reading of scripture" in a topic. I don't even remember the context, but it stuck in my head.

So, I'm curious. What does it mean to take a plain reading of scripture?

For example, I immediately thought of the Parable of the Talents from Matthew 25:14–30.



Here's what I would take as the plainest possible reading of the parable:

If a Putin-esque tyrant, who has the power of life and death over you and is known to reap where he does not sow, gives you money with clear instructions to invest it? Do it. Invest it. Even if you're terrified at what will happen to you if the investments don't pan out and you lose some of the principal, go ahead and at least try. It's your only chance to survive. If it does pan out, you'll be rich.

It seems like an oddly timely parable, if you keep your reading that starkly plain, but I've never heard a sermon on it to that effect.

So, how does it actually work?

I have never heard of a "plain reading of Scripture'. I have no idea. I understand the point of the Bible, but even among believers, there is dispute in meanings.

 

[variant]

It seems like an oddly timely parable, if you keep your reading that starkly plain, but I've never heard a sermon on it to that effect.

So, how does it actually work?

I'm not sure the advice is bad on it's face, but the passage would be a better lesson if you read it metaphorically.

 

[Winken]

If the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense. If it doesn't, turn to the Holy Spirit for Spiritual interpretation and application.

One might pause to consider this:

1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written, eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. (The heart is deceitful above all things: Jeremiah 17:9. The "things of God" are foreign to it.)

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit (capital S) searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. (How? Spiritually. Who hath God revealed them to? An authentically Spiritually-birthed, born again Believer in Christ Jesus as Savior-Lord).

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the "s"pirit of man which is in him? (small "s"; worldly, non-Spiritual), even so the things of God knoweth no (non-Spiritual) man, but the "S"pirit (capital S) of God. (Only those who have confessed Jesus as Savior-Lord are occupied by the Holy Spirit and therefore know God Spiritually).

12 Now we have received, not the "s"pirit of the world (small "s", worldly, "man", not Holy), but the Spirit (capital S) which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us (those who are born again) of God.

13 Which things also we (born-againers) speak, not in the words which man's (worldly) wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit) teacheth; comparing (contrasting) "s"piritual (small "s") things with "Spiritual" (capital S).

14 But the natural man (worldly, unborn again, atheist) receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are Spiritually discerned.

I pray that the atheist in the OP stays tuned. God offers Spiritual Birth to him. Check it out: Romans 10:8-13.

 

[Glass*Soul]

I have never heard of a "plain reading of Scripture'. I have no idea. I understand the point of the Bible, but even among believers, there is dispute in meanings.

Maybe I'm wrong in thinking its a thing. I just googled it and the 7th entry down is this thread. LOL

 

[Glass*Soul]

If the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense. If it doesn't, turn to the Holy Spirit for Spiritual interpretation and application.

I'm going to jump in right here and ask, if the heart is deceitful, then how do you discern if your non-plain interpretation is from the Holy Spirit or a result of your heart deceiving you with great cleverness? Don't you need some sort of measuring rod outside of your own inward experience? If it just boils down to I'm a Christian therefore I have special inside information, it seems like there could be huge room for self-deception.

I pray that the atheist in the OP stays tuned. God offers Spiritual Birth to him. Check it out: Romans 10:8-13.

That would be me. You can actually address me directly.

 

[Paidiske]

Maybe I'm wrong in thinking its a thing. I just googled it and the 7th entry down is this thread. LOL

No, no, it's a thing. Very much a thing. You might get better google results with the "plain meaning" of Scripture, which is how I tend to hear it.

From what I understand, the idea is to read the Bible without any outside influences, and to believe just what it says. So to exclude bias, interpretation, and so forth, by assuming that this particular English translation and edition is God's personal word to me right now, dictated by the Holy Spirit to perfectly meet my current needs.

The problems with this, from my point of view, are:

- Many parts of Scripture aren't written to be read this way.
- There's no such thing as reading without outside influences.
- Even if my first two points weren't true, and it had originally been possible for someone to read the text for a "plain meaning," we are now so culturally and linguistically removed from the original set of shared assumptions of author and reader, that we lose much of what they would have understood.

Imho, interpretation, scholarship and so forth are essential. Not that the Spirit can't inspire your understanding, but that the "plain meaning" of the texts on the page doesn't actually necessarily convey what the author intended to convey about God, and who we are in relation to God.

If that makes sense?

 

[Glass*Soul]

I'm not sure the advice is bad on it's face, but the passage would be a better lesson if you read it metaphorically.

The version in Luke 19 ends even more starkly.

“His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’

“Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’

“‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’

“He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”

It gets even more interesting if you compare the parable of the talents in Luke 19 to the parable of the sower in Luke 8. In the latter, the Gospel is sown everywhere, but the devil steals away some of the seed. The one who reaps where he does not sow in Luke 8 is the devil. Yet the parable of the talents is almost universally interpreted as depicting God reaping where he did not sow.

Is the powerful tyrant going on a journey the good guy or the bad guy in the parable of the talents?

 

[Glass*Soul]

No, no, it's a thing. Very much a thing. You might get better google results with the "plain meaning" of Scripture, which is how I tend to hear it.

From what I understand, the idea is to read the Bible without any outside influences, and to believe just what it says. So to exclude bias, interpretation, and so forth, by assuming that this particular English translation and edition is God's personal word to me right now, dictated by the Holy Spirit to perfectly meet my current needs.

The problems with this, from my point of view, are:

- Many parts of Scripture aren't written to be read this way.
- There's no such thing as reading without outside influences.
- Even if my first two points weren't true, and it had originally been possible for someone to read the text for a "plain meaning," we are now so culturally and linguistically removed from the original set of shared assumptions of author and reader, that we lose much of what they would have understood.

Imho, interpretation, scholarship and so forth are essential. Not that the Spirit can't inspire your understanding, but that the "plain meaning" of the texts on the page doesn't actually necessarily convey what the author intended to convey about God, and who we are in relation to God.

If that makes sense?

That does make sense to me.

There's probably some reason this is niggling at me, particularly in relation to the parable of the talents, that I can't quite get at. Maybe its because every sermon, lesson, and commentary I've encountered on it seems to come to the same conclusion, as if its plain as the nose on your face. Like its baked right into the page. But is it? If you do actually read it at face value its a really horrifying story about an evil person.

 

[Winken]

I'm going to jump in right here and ask, if the heart is deceitful, then how do you discern if your non-plain interpretation is from the Holy Spirit or a result of your heart deceiving you with great cleverness? Don't you need some sort of measuring rod outside of your own inward experience? If it just boils down to I'm a Christian therefore I have special inside information, it seems like there could be huge room for self-deception.



That would be me. You can actually address me directly.

Sorry I'm late .... the answer is Spiritual and straight-forward, the latter in plain sense terms. The sinful nature accompanies all of us from birth to "death." It is the heart that is deceitful above all things. At the precise moment of confessing Jesus as Savior (Romans 10:8-13) one receives the Holy Spirit, which includes "the whole armor of God." (Ephesians 6:10-18). One is then equipped with the Spiritual Nature, that Nature which stands as a bulwark against the sinful. The Holy Spirit stands forever present, vigilant, and Spiritually prepared to answer any challenge from the sinful. What happens? The one who is Spiritually Birthed, born again, side-steps into a sinful reaction to whatever is being presented. For example, rather than relying solely on the input from the Holy Spirit, one responds with "yes, but......." then goes on to cite some "theological" concept, some writer from the 5th century, some one posting in these forums, rather than simply prayerfully listening to what the Spiritual Nature is receiving as it is revealed by the Holy Spirit.

Now.......one who is not born again cannot possibly understand that, nor can a Spiritually rebirthed person who is drifted into secularism or religiosity.

 

[Winken]

No, no, it's a thing. Very much a thing. You might get better google results with the "plain meaning" of Scripture, which is how I tend to hear it.

From what I understand, the idea is to read the Bible without any outside influences, and to believe just what it says. So to exclude bias, interpretation, and so forth, by assuming that this particular English translation and edition is God's personal word to me right now, dictated by the Holy Spirit to perfectly meet my current needs.

The problems with this, from my point of view, are:

- Many parts of Scripture aren't written to be read this way.
- There's no such thing as reading without outside influences.
- Even if my first two points weren't true, and it had originally been possible for someone to read the text for a "plain meaning," we are now so culturally and linguistically removed from the original set of shared assumptions of author and reader, that we lose much of what they would have understood.

Imho, interpretation, scholarship and so forth are essential. Not that the Spirit can't inspire your understanding, but that the "plain meaning" of the texts on the page doesn't actually necessarily convey what the author intended to convey about God, and who we are in relation to God.

If that makes sense?

You did soooooooo well in your opening two paragraphs, the Spiritual response, then drifted into the balance of your presentation, which is intellectual.

 

[Paidiske]

You did soooooooo well in your opening two paragraphs, the Spiritual response, then drifted into the balance of your presentation, which is intellectual.

The Spiritual and the intellectual are not mutually exclusive, in my view. Is not the intellect part of God's good creation? Are not our intellects redeemed along with our bodies? Will there be no intellect in the resurrection?

 

[Winken]

That does make sense to me.

There's probably some reason this is niggling at me, particularly in relation to the parable of the talents, that I can't quite get at. Maybe its because every sermon, lesson, and commentary I've encountered on it seems to come to the same conclusion, as if its plain as the nose on your face. Like its baked right into the page. But is it? If you do actually read it at face value its a really horrifying story about an evil person.

Your problem, of course, is that you are an atheist. You have not come under the convicting power of the Holy Spirit. In your posts you continue to reply upon your sinful nature. One thing that you should become aware of is the audience, the time-frame, the purpose of what is contained in scripture.

Who was the audience in your Luke 19 and Luke 8 post? Who was the writer of Luke? When did he write? What was his purpose? Each of those is prayerfully submitted to the Holy Spirit for answers, something that you cannot possibly do. You are wallowing about in non-Spiritual internal debates with yourself, not turning to the offer of Spiritual clarity and eternal life.

Hint: Luke was a Gentile Greek, who wrote to a Greek audience. He traveled with the Apostle Paul. His message was for them, for Hellenistic Jews, who didn't have a clue about Jesus as the Promised Hebrew Messiah, and Savior of us all. What did Luke write in Luke 19? The plain sense is obvious for me; you would have to have the discernment of the Holy Spirit to comprehend that. In short, some (not Christians) were given assignments, carried them out in response to them, and the Jewish folk prospered. Another did not carry out his assignment. His audience received no insight into the mission of Jesus, the Jewish Messiah, and went away empty. In Luke 8 the answer is right there.

 

[Winken]

The Spiritual and the intellectual are not mutually exclusive, in my view. Is not the intellect part of God's good creation? Are not our intellects redeemed along with our bodies? Will there be no intellect in the resurrection?

The intellect is the mind, will and emotions, products of brain, our brains.* The Spiritual is the Gift from God pertaining to that which is Holy.

[Edit]

*learned words, thoughts, deeds; behavior.

 

[Paidiske]

It would be off topic for me to debate you here, but I disagree with that kind of dualism. Perhaps we could start a different thread to address that topic?

 

[Winken]

It would be off topic for me to debate you here, but I disagree with that kind of dualism. Perhaps we could start a different thread to address that topic?

Of course.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Be sure to post a link

 

[Glass*Soul]

Your problem, of course, is that you are an atheist. You have not come under the convicting power of the Holy Spirit. In your posts you continue to reply upon your sinful nature. One thing that you should be come aware of is the audience, the time-frame, the purpose of what is contained in scripture.

Who was the audience in your Luke 19 and Luke 8 post? Who was the writer of Luke? When did he write? What was his purpose? Each of those is prayerfully submitted to the Holy Spirit for answers, something that you cannot possibly do. You are wallowing about in non-Spiritual internal debates with yourself, not turning to the offer of Spiritual clarity and eternal life.

Hint: Luke was a Gentile Greek, who wrote to a Greek audience. He traveled with the Apostle Paul. His message was for them, for Hellenistic Jews, who didn't have a clue about Jesus as the Promised Hebrew Messiah, and Savior of us all. What did Luke write in Luke 19? The plain sense is obvious for me; you would have to have the discernment of the Holy Spirit to comprehend that. In short, some (not Christians) were given assignments, carried them out in response to them, and the Jewish folk prospered. Another did not carry out his assignment. His audience received no insight into the mission of Jesus, the Jewish Messiah, and went away empty. In Luke 8 the answer is right there.

 

[Glass*Soul]

Your problem, of course, is that you are an atheist. You have not come under the convicting power of the Holy Spirit. In your posts you continue to reply upon your sinful nature. One thing that you should be come aware of is the audience, the time-frame, the purpose of what is contained in scripture.

Who was the audience in your Luke 19 and Luke 8 post? Who was the writer of Luke? When did he write? What was his purpose? Each of those is prayerfully submitted to the Holy Spirit for answers, something that you cannot possibly do. You are wallowing about in non-Spiritual internal debates with yourself, not turning to the offer of Spiritual clarity and eternal life.

Hint: Luke was a Gentile Greek, who wrote to a Greek audience. He traveled with the Apostle Paul. His message was for them, for Hellenistic Jews, who didn't have a clue about Jesus as the Promised Hebrew Messiah, and Savior of us all. What did Luke write in Luke 19? The plain sense is obvious for me; you would have to have the discernment of the Holy Spirit to comprehend that. In short, some (not Christians) were given assignments, carried them out in response to them, and the Jewish folk prospered. Another did not carry out his assignment. His audience received no insight into the mission of Jesus, the Jewish Messiah, and went away empty. In Luke 8 the answer is right there.

I was aware of Luke's identity, but thank you for telling me. The thing is that Luke is quoting Jesus, so it is Jesus' audience, time-frame and purpose that matters here. That is doubly true when one considers that the parable also appears in Matthew which was intended for Jewish readers.

Given the time-frame, no one in the story is a Christian. Christianity hadn't begun yet. Who are the some who are given assignments? Who is giving out these assignments? What sorts of assignments are they? Who is this audience are you referring to?

It sort of sounds like you are using the phrase "plain sense" to indicate aspects of the story that are not in the text but that you have privileged access to.

 

[Winken]

I was aware of Luke's identity, but thank you for telling me. The thing is that Luke is quoting Jesus, so it is Jesus' audience, time-frame and purpose that matters here. That is doubly true when one considers that the parable also appears in Matthew which was intended for Jewish readers.

Given the time-frame, no one in the story is a Christian. Christianity hadn't begun yet. Who are the some who are given assignments? Who is giving out these assignments? What sorts of assignments are they? Who is this audience are you referring to?

It sort of sounds like you are using the phrase "plain sense" to indicate aspects of the story that are not in the text but that you have privileged access to.

Holy Spirit access. I wouldn't have it any other way. The audience was the Jewish folk / Hellenistic Jews in that day. I'm confident that many proselytes heard about it, perhaps converted to Judaism, wherein they were given the opportunity to acknowledge Jesus as the Promised Hebrew Messiah.

The ministry of Jesus was to provide these assignments to people groups --- reaching out to groups who would share the message. He, of course, used the message in an effort to provide understanding to His listeners. He did that with parables, of course, along with instructive, plain sense commentary.