Our thoughts or God's thoughts?

Theology
1

Isa 55:6 “Seek the LORD while he may be found; call upon him while he is near;
Isa 55:7 let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

What is more important, to engage our thinking in trying to understand and interpret the Bible, or what? What are the principles of good interpretation?

2

@Bruce_Leiter
Biblical interpretation is a rational and spiritual process that attempts to understand an ancient inspired writer in such a way that the message from God may be understood and applied in our day.

We must be consistent and fair to the text and not be influenced by our personal or denominational biases. We are all historically conditioned. None of us are objective, neutral interpreters. This seminar offers a careful rational process containing four interpretive principles structured to help us overcome our biases.

First Principle

The first principle is to note the historical setting in which a biblical book was written and the particular historical occasion for its authorship (or when it was edited). The original author had a purpose and a message to communicate. The text cannot mean something to us that it never meant to the original, ancient, inspired author. His intent—not our historical, emotional, cultural, personal or denominational need—is the key.

Second Principle

The second principle is to identify the literary units. Every biblical book is a unified document. Interpreters have no right to isolate one aspect of truth by excluding others. Therefore, we must strive to understand the purpose of the whole biblical book before we interpret the individual literary units. The individual parts—chapters, paragraphs, or verses—cannot mean what the whole unit does not mean.

Third Principle

The third principle is to read the Bible in different translations in order to grasp the widest possible range of meaning (semantic field) that biblical words or phrases may have. Often a phrase or word can be understood in several ways.

Fourth Principle

The fourth principle is to note the literary genre. Original inspired authors chose to record their messages in different forms (e.g., historical narrative, historical drama, poetry, prophecy, gospel [parable], letter, apocalyptic). These different forms have special keys to interpretation (see Gordon Fee and Doug Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, D. Brent Sandy and Ronald L. Giese, Jr., Cracking Old Testament Codes, or Robert Stein, Playing by the Rules).

Through the years I have video taped my Seminar on Biblical Interpretation in several formats for different groups and purposes.

A brief introduction to the Historical/Grammatical method, often called “the common sense” method:
Written
Video (40 minutes)

The original videos of the seminar (1987) to fulfill my doctrinal work at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois:
Written Lecture Notebook
Videos (Fourteen 17-35 minute lessons)

The Seminar designed to function as a quarterly Sunday School class or Bible Study (2010, Lakeside Baptist Church, Dallas, TX):
Written Lecture Notebook
Videos (Thirteen 40-55 minute lessons, 6 example Bible studies, and more)

The Seminar in a weekend version for a local church (5 lessons, Bridgeway Church in Copper Canyon, TX, 2022):
Click here for Videos.

An audio version of III (above) to help those who missed a video class to keep up with the lecture series:
Click here for Sound Files.

A full version of the Seminar reflecting Bob’s hermeneutics class at ETBU. It is provided to function as a university or seminary class. It was created in 2023 via Zoom for pastors in Mexico City.
Written Textbook (PDF)
Eight Video Lessons

Biblical Interpretation Seminar by Dr. Bob Utley.

Johann.

1 Like
3

Thank you very much, @Johann, for this summary. Excellent work!

4

I am learning a lot from Bob Utley brother @Bruce_Leiter

J.

6

@Mac brother----

“God’s interpretation is God is not after perfecting me to be a sparkling trophy in His display, He is getting me to the place where He can use me as He used Jesus by the same identification with the same Father.”
This sounds pious but ignores the very aim of sanctification: not mere utility but conformity to Christ’s holiness and glory. The Greek verb τελειόω (to perfect, complete) is used repeatedly in Scripture to describe God’s purpose for His children (cf. Hebrews 10:14 — “by one offering He has perfected [τετελείωκεν] for all time those who are being sanctified [ἁγιαζομένους]”). Are you saying God is not after perfection, contrary to Matthew 5:48 where Jesus commands, ἔσεσθε οὖν τέλειοι (you shall be perfect)? Do you deny that being made “perfect” glorifies Christ and vindicates His cross? Why redefine His purpose as mere usefulness when the text speaks of holiness and likeness to Christ (Romans 8:29, συμμόρφους, conformed)?

“If you do not walk in the light of God’s anointing, Christ in you, then you sink into the servitude to point of view, which Jesus never had.”

This is wordy and vague, and it dangerously implies a kind of mystical autonomy. 1 John 1:7 says, “If we walk [περιπατῶμεν] in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship … and the blood of Jesus cleanses [καθαρίζει] us from all sin.” Do you not see that even while walking in the light, ongoing cleansing is needed? Do you deny the present participle καθαρίζει (cleanses continually)? And what exactly do you mean by “servitude to point of view”? Scripture warns against servitude to sin (Romans 6:16, δουλεύετε, you serve), not some subjective perspective. So are you accusing believers of being enslaved to “point of view” instead of confessing the reality of indwelling sin?

“Jesus never ever had the attitude of sin, ask of yourself are you a sinner? That should be enough information to tell you who you really follow as the way.”
This is a theological trap, but it ignores Scripture’s own humility. Paul confesses in the present tense: “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am [εἰμι] chief” (1 Timothy 1:15). Not “I was” — εἰμι is present.
Are you holier than Paul? Or John, who declares in 1 John 1:8, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive [πλανῶμεν] ourselves”? Are you claiming sinlessness already, and thus deceiving yourself?

“Practicing the holiness of God makes perfect, sadly not many practice the attributes of God at all to be, that is where imperfections set in and ‘be ye therefore perfectly even as your Father in heaven is perfect’ as is commanded of us in Matt 5:48, only becomes a law that you can’t possibly obtain.”
The Greek in Matthew 5:48, ἔσεσθε τέλειοι, is future indicative, not imperative. It’s a promise and an eschatological goal as much as it is a standard. Do you understand the future aspect of ἔσεσθε, “you shall be” — and how this harmonizes with progressive sanctification? Or are you turning the gospel into law and despair by demanding immediate perfection now? Do you not see Hebrews 10:14’s tension — “has perfected” yet “being sanctified”? Why flatten this biblical tension into your own system?

“And if Jesus ever gave a command that God cannot perform in you to achieve, then what is the use in even trying to follow Jesus in his ways of the Father at all?”
This rhetorical question ignores the biblical doctrine of glorification. Indeed, God is able — δυνατός — to make you stand blameless (Jude 24), but this is consummated at the resurrection, not fully here. Do you deny that sanctification is a process and glorification is future? Do you see how your statement implies perfectionism and denies the ongoing priestly work of Christ, who μεσιτεύει (intercedes, Hebrews 7:25) because we still need it?

“Perfection is the salvation from God.”
Salvation includes justification, sanctification, and glorification. It is not equivalent to present perfection. Paul in Philippians 3:12 explicitly says: “Not that I have already obtained it or have already been made perfect [τετελείωμαι], but I press on [διώκω].” Why do you speak as though Paul was wrong about his own state?

Closing questions for you to answer plainly:
— Do you deny the present, ongoing nature of sanctification (ἁγιαζομένους, Hebrews 10:14) and the future nature of glorification (δοξάσει, Romans 8:30)?
— Do you reject the ongoing need for confession and cleansing (ὁμολογῶμεν, 1 John 1:9, and καθαρίζει, present tense)?
— Do you redefine ἔσεσθε τέλειοι in Matthew 5:48 as something fully achievable now, contrary to its future indicative form?
— Are you claiming sinlessness already, despite Paul’s confession of εἰμι πρῶτος (I am chief sinner) and John’s warning about self-deception?
— Are you willing to submit your philosophy of “usefulness” and “point of view” to the clear testimony of Scripture?

Brother, Scripture’s verbs are sharper than your formulations. Christ τετελείωκεν His people positionally at the cross, but we are still ἁγιαζόμενοι progressively and await our full glorification. Do not preach a gospel that denies our ongoing need for Christ’s blood and priestly intercession. Will you bow before the Word, or cling to your own definitions?

Johann.

8

@Mac brother—

Brother, your language aims to sound spiritual, but it reveals deep misunderstanding of what Scripture actually teaches about piety, the anointing, and the mind of Christ.
“Amen, I agree totally, it does sound totally pious to one who is of a religious mind instead of having the mind of Christ.”

First, you imply that piety (godliness) is somehow opposed to having “the mind of Christ.” Yet the Greek word for piety or godliness is εὐσέβεια, and it is repeatedly commanded. Paul writes: “Train yourself for godliness [εὐσέβειαν]” (1 Timothy 4:7) and warns in 2 Timothy 3:5 against those who “hold to a form of godliness [εὐσέβειας] but deny its power.” Are you aware that the same εὐσέβεια you seem to scorn is praised as the fruit of the Spirit-filled life? Do you reject what the Spirit commands when He says in 1 Timothy 6:6, “Godliness [εὐσέβεια] with contentment is great gain”?

Furthermore, having “the mind of Christ” (1 Corinthians 2:16) means submitting one’s thoughts to His Word, “bringing every thought [νόημα] captive [αἰχμαλωτίζοντες] to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5). On what grounds do you pit εὐσέβεια (godliness/piety) against the mind of Christ, when Scripture marries the two?

“Jesus was totally pious to his accusers as well.”

Here you confuse the sense of piety. Jesus was indeed righteous and holy before His accusers, but He was not “pious” in the superficial, man-made, hypocritical sense condemned in Isaiah 29:13: “This people draw near with their mouth … but their hearts are far” (Hebrew: יִקְרְבוּ yikrevu, draw near, a hollow external action). The Gospels record Jesus rebuking false piety (Matthew 23:28), while embodying true ὁσιότης (holiness, Luke 1:75).

Do you know the difference between external ritualism (προσερχόμενοι in vain, Matthew 15:8) and the true εὐσέβεια of a cleansed heart? Why confuse them in your argument?

“At least you are honest enough to admit the ways of the father is pious to be Gods anoint, of Christ, anointed of God as Jesus was.”

This is a tangled and unbiblical sentence. First, you conflate “the ways of the Father” with “being God’s anoint.” But the Greek word for anointed is χριστός (Christ, Anointed One), and only Jesus is called the Christ because He uniquely fulfills Psalm 2:2: “The Lord and His Anointed [Hebrew: מְשִׁיחוֹ meshicho, His Messiah].”

Believers are never called the Anointed in the same sense; we are called christoi only insofar as we belong to Him (Acts 11:26 — “Christians”). We are anointed χρίσμα (1 John 2:20), yes, but this refers to the Spirit’s indwelling, not to a messianic office. Do you understand the distinction between ὁ χριστός (the Anointed One) and our reception of χρίσμα (anointing)? Why collapse them into one?

“You are very clear that the ways of Jesus in Gods anointing just isn’t for you at all.”

This is not only presumptuous but slanderous. The ways of Jesus are commanded to all believers: “The one who says he abides in Him ought [ὀφείλει] to walk [περιπατεῖν] in the same manner as He walked” (1 John 2:6). No believer is exempt from following Jesus in holiness, love, and humility. But you seem to equate “God’s anointing” with some elitist or mystical status that others allegedly reject.

Do you claim you alone understand and walk in “God’s anointing”? On what scriptural basis do you judge another’s standing before Christ? Do you not tremble at Jesus’ words in Matthew 7:1–2: “With the measure [μέτρῳ] you use, it will be measured [μετρηθήσεται] to you”?

Where You Err
You treat εὐσέβεια (godliness) as if it were opposed to the mind of Christ, when in fact it is the fruit of His Spirit.
You confuse Jesus’ unique χριστός (Anointed One) with our reception of χρίσμα (anointing) and speak as if they are identical.
You judge others’ walk presumptuously without biblical warrant, projecting your mystical definitions on them.
You conflate hypocritical piety with true godliness, thereby confusing terms and blurring Scripture’s categories.

Final Questions for You
— Do you understand that εὐσέβεια is not hypocrisy but true godliness? Will you repent of scorning what Scripture calls gain?
— Do you affirm Jesus is uniquely ὁ χριστός, and that our anointing (χρίσμα) is derivative, not identical?
— Will you stop judging others’ hearts by mystical standards and instead exhort them in love according to the Word?
— Do you recognize that the mind of Christ submits to the Word and delights in holiness, not in elitist superiority?

Brother, the Hebrew and Greek verbs speak clearly: God βασιλεύει (reigns), Christ ἐστίν (is) the Anointed One, we must περιπατεῖν (walk) as He walked, and the Spirit καθαρίζει (cleanses) us as we pursue εὐσέβεια (godliness). Will you now align your words with these truths and humble yourself under His Word?

Johann.

11

Mr. @Bruce_Leiter asks us:
What are the principles of good interpretation?

I appreciated Dr. Utley’s outline / seminar regarding Bible study in four easy principles. (1) context), (2) overall purpose of a writing, (3) rely on various translations, and (4) to note the literary genre to apply the proper hermeneutic approach. I have also tried to help disciples study and interpret their bibles. I have seen many approaches to Bible Study, but I am always amazed at what is most often left out.

There are two who engage in every study, the learner, and the teacher; in Bible Study there is always a meeting of the disciple, who is loved, and the author, who is personified Wisdom. Many approaches to Bible study borrow heavily from academia and offer guidelines for intellectual progress and achievement. These approaches work well when studying academic subjects. They fall short when studying spiritual wisdom. The academic approach can help a student grow in knowledge and application. A Spiritual approach is focused on leading a disciple into enlightenment, which is wisdom and understanding.

Knowledge = knowing that a Tomato is actually a fruit.
Wisdom = Not putting a Tomato into a fruit salad.
Philosophy = wondering if that means Ketchup is actually just a smoothie
Enlightenment = A Tomato, like life, is better when it is allowed to mature on the vine.

Don’t get hung-up on the word “enlightenment” just because paganism has coopted it for their mystical applications.

1 Corinthians 4:5
2 Corinthians 4:3-4
2 Corinthians 4:6
Ephesians 5:8-14

When we approach The Word of God we must consider both an academic and a spiritual component to our discipleship. It is this spiritual component that I often notice is absent from most contemporary Bible Study methods; it is this expectation of enlightenment (as The Word says we should expect) that seems to be overlooked.

I would add to Mr. Utley’s (and many others) these additional, essential, and primary Bible Study hermeneutic considerations:

  • A. Yielding. The necessity of intentional humility. We do not approach Bible Study with the attitude of mastering it, but with the humble attitude of yielding, and being mastered by it. We may assume our primary job (purpose) in Bible study is to accurately interpret scripture, but it is not. We may approach Bible study with the noble purpose of being able to teach others, but we would be misguided. Our primary purpose in Bible study is to intentionally listen; to receive the message of the author, and to yield to our internal change (transformation; renewing of our mind).

  • B. Ask the Author. The best place to ask for help is from the author. No serious Bible study can or should be attempted without accepting and expecting help from the author. We may be quick to consult other disciples for quick and easy answers, but we remember they probably got their understanding from asking other disciples. We have each been given unlimited office hours with the author, we must not neglect such a rich and authoritative (see the word author in there) spring of wisdom. We must ask for help from The Author before we open the first page, not as a ritual, but as a focusing of our expectation. Ask for help (pray) at every occurrence of reading His word.

  • C. Notice cohesiveness. Since the entire Word of God has a single source, it is expected to be cohesive and consistent across all the writings. Relying on cohesiveness (letting The Bible be the first to interpret The Bible) will greatly aid the disciple in interpretation of passages whose message is obscure. Look for similar use of metaphors, similes, parables, teachings, and events to shed light on new passages you come across.

  • D. Ingest God’s Word nutritionally. Return to God’s word regularly, and out of necessity, as you do your daily meals. That which is flesh is fed by the flesh, that which is Spirit is fed by The Spirit. “Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work.” John 4:34

  • E. Proactively avoid common traps, short-cuts, and diversions.

  1. Trap; study to boost your own ego, or primarily to look smart, or to teach others from your own font of wisdom
  2. Trap: Placing a primary reliance on other disciples for ready-made interpretation. Other teachers, commentaries, authors, all have their sanctified place in our discipleship, but they are not who we should run to first to get understanding from God.
  3. Trap: Place an inordinate dependence on ancient languages, and historical context. Your best answers do not lie there but with the Author. Understanding original language syntax and historical context can be helpful, but many strong healthy disciples of Jesus have developed without these helps. Use them, but don’t depend on them.
  4. Trap: Look for spiritual candy in The Bible, saccharine treats to put on your white board, or stick to your bumper. Review (A) above.
  5. There are other traps to avoid; I’m sure many on this forum can offer their own traps to avoid. Pay attention to all of them and make a path of success for yourself.

What are the principles of good interpretation? A vibrant Personal Relationship with God is principle #1.

Transforming with you
KP

1 Like
12

Just one point here @KPuff–Utley is not a “commentary”

READING CYCLE THREE (see “Bible Interpretation Seminar”)

FOLLOWING THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR’S INTENT AT PARAGRAPH LEVEL

This is a study guide commentary, which means that you are responsible for your own interpretation of the Bible. Each of us must walk in the light we have. You, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit are priority in interpretation. You must not relinquish this to a commentator.

Read the chapter in one sitting. Identify the subjects (reading cycle #3). Compare your subject divisions with the five translations above. Paragraphing is not inspired, but it is the key to following the original author’s intent, which is the heart of interpretation. Every paragraph has one and only one subject.

It seems you have a bit of an issue with Mr. Utley, even though his central emphasis is exactly what you’ve just highlighted, a genuine, vibrant, personal relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ.

J.

13

@KPuff

Brother, I must respectfully challenge your post, not out of ego or argument for its own sake, but because it misrepresents both the principles of sound interpretation and what Bob Utley actually teaches. As a serious student of his commentary method, let me respond point by point.

“Trap: study to boost your own ego, or primarily to look smart, or to teach others from your own font of wisdom.”

Indeed, this is a true danger, pride destroys learning (James 4:6, God resists the proud). But here you set up a straw man: serious exegetical study, original language work, and robust commentary work are not inherently ego-driven. The Greek verb Paul uses in 2 Timothy 2:15 is σπούδασον (be diligent), and he explicitly calls Timothy to rightly divide (ὀρθοτομοῦντα) the Word of truth. Do you dismiss diligence in exegesis as prideful, when Scripture itself commands it? Why then does Utley repeatedly insist, “The text cannot mean what it never meant”?

“Trap: placing a primary reliance on other disciples for ready-made interpretation … they are not who we should run to first to get understanding from God.”

This sounds pious but is misleading. Utley himself emphasizes that individualism in interpretation is dangerous, because the Spirit speaks through the corporate Body and through history. He constantly warns against what he calls “autonomous individualism” and stresses that believers should check their conclusions against the collective witness of the Church and sound exegesis. Are you suggesting that one person alone, without consulting the Body, hears from God more purely than the collective wisdom of Spirit-filled teachers? If so, how do you explain Ephesians 4:11–12, where Christ gives teachers and pastors to equip the saints?

“Trap: place an inordinate dependence on ancient languages, and historical context … your best answers do not lie there but with the Author.”

Here you contradict Utley outright. His commentary method begins with grammar, syntax, context, and literary genre because, as he repeatedly teaches, “The only inspired person in Bible study is the original author.” The Hebrew verb כָּתַב (katav, “wrote”) in Exodus 24:4 shows the text was written by men, inspired by God, in their own languages and cultures, and thus those languages and cultures matter. The Greek text of 2 Peter 1:21 likewise says men spoke from God as they were carried along [φερόμενοι] by the Holy Spirit. Do you reject the very historical and linguistic tools Utley himself models? Then you’re rejecting the method you claim to honor.

“Trap: look for spiritual candy in the Bible, saccharine treats to put on your white board or bumper.”

Agreed, Utley warns against proof-texting and “verse-bites.” But here’s the irony: your entire comment is full of vague generalities, with no engagement of context, grammar, audience, or purpose. That is spiritual candy - platitudes not rooted in sound exegesis. Why do you call others away from the text’s details and then offer nothing but saccharine yourself?

“A vibrant personal relationship with God is principle #1.”

Utley agrees here, but he is clear that relationship does not replace exegesis. The text defines the relationship, not the other way around. Jesus Himself prayed in John 17:17: Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. And Paul prayed that the Colossians would be filled [πληρωθῆτε] with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding (Colossians 1:9). That requires study, not mere sentiment.

Closing questions for you:
Do you believe the Spirit contradicts the grammar, context, and historical setting He Himself inspired?
Do you reject Paul’s command to “be diligent” (σπούδασον) in rightly dividing the Word?
Why do you dismiss consultation with the Body and its teachers, when Ephesians 4:11 says they are gifts of Christ to the Church?
Do you honestly think Bob Utley himself would agree with you that ancient languages and historical context are a “trap,” when his method is precisely built on them?
Do you believe the text can mean what it never meant, contrary to Utley’s consistent teaching?

Brother, Utley’s method is clear: the text is the key to the author’s intent, and the Spirit applies that intent to us. Relationship without the Word breeds subjectivism. Word without relationship breeds legalism. Utley, and Scripture, demand both.

Will you submit to what the text actually says, in its inspired verbs, syntax, and context, or will you cling to vague platitudes that undermine the very method you claim to uphold?

Thanks.

Johann.

14

Bro @Johann
I have ZERO issues with Mr. Utley. I appreciate his ministry, and his discipleship. I likewise appreciate your pointing out to me the nuance of his “Study Guides”. I think that’s wonderful. I, in no way doubt Mr Utley’s central emphasis is a genuine, vibrant, personal relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ. Thank you for emphasizing that.

My reminders were not aimed at Utley, or at anyone else. I was only trying to reminde readers of the spiritual nature of Bible Study, not to be overlooked. I’m sure many Great teachers also emphasize the same thing.

If I came across as critical of Mr. Utley, it was unintentional. Please forgive my poor communication skills.

KP

KP

15

Good to hear KP. Most don’t read nor study their bibles at all, speaking from experience.

J.

16

Brother@Johann

To ease your mind through the “questions” you posed to me:

Of course not.

Of course not.

I, of course, do not. I think I said “they all have their sanctified place in our discipleship”, meaning God put them there for His purpose in our lives. Your use of the word “dismiss” is reactionary and an extremely poor interpretation of my words “to not place a primary reliance on”. Maybe if you read more carefully, you wouldn’t react so strongly. In love, I’m asking you to read in love, and with a clear intent to strengthen the unity of The Body.

I have no idea what Bob Utley might agree with. If he is the man of integrity you suggest, I’m pretty sure he would agree with me when I say “the way you have reframed my suggestion that too great of a reliance on something is the same as saying that something is a trap” is an unfair, unloving, and a tactical reaction to an assumed attack. I clearly said the inordinate reliance on it could be a trap, not that the thing itself was a trap. Anything we place too much reliance on can become a trap, Johann. Don’t miss that Johann; I said “TOO MUCH reliance” on something can be a trap. A man of your great understanding should comprehend the difference. Please try.

Of course not.

Again, I’m very sorry you thought Bob Utley needed defending, when I was not criticizing him; you can stop fighting when no one is pursuing. You and I have had this same conversation before, on other sujects, and, like before, it has taken us away from the subject at hand, and damaged the unity of The Body of Christ. I am not against you @Johann, I am not your pursuer. I am for you, you are my brother, and I desire that we both grow into the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; Ephesians 4:13

Blesssings.

P.S.
What CAN you agree with in what I posted?

KP

17

Correct, a misunderstanding here since this is what you wrote, and I missed it.

I would add to Mr. Utley’s (and many others) these additional, essential, and primary Bible Study hermeneutic considerations:

Please forgive me brother.

J.

18

I would like to offer my help too @Bruce_Leiter and @Johann
Principles of Good Interpretation

  1. Grammatico-Historical Exegesis
    Interpretation begins with the text’s historical and literary context. This involves analysing the grammar, syntax and lexical data of the original language (Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic) and situating the passage within its historical-cultural setting. For Isa 55. This means understanding tis post-exilic context, where Israel is called to renew covenantal fidelity after the Babylonian Captivity. This imperative to “seek the Lord” reflects the urgency of responding to God’s redemptive initiative in a specific historical moment.
  2. Canonical Context and Christological Purpose
    Scripture interprets Scripture (analogia Scripturae). Isa 55 must be read within the broader canonical narrative, particularly its messianic trajectory. The call to seek God and receive pardon points forward to the fulfilment in Christ, the mediator of the new covenant (Heb 8:6-13). The NT reveals that God’s thoughts and ways, though transcendent, are ultimately disclosed in the incarnate Word (John 1:1-14, Heb 1:1-3). This interpretation must be Christotelic, discerning how OT texts find their ultimate meaning in Christ.
  3. Theological Coherence
    Interpretations must cohere with the consistent teaching of Scripture as a whole. God’s transcendence in Isa 55:8-9 does not negate His immanence; rather, it underscores His gracious condescension in revealing Himself (Got it from Barth’s concept of Gotteswort). The interpreter must hold together God’s sovereignty and human responsibility, avoiding reductionist reading that pit divine initiative against human agency.
  4. Illumination by the Holy Spirit
    The noetic effects of sin (Rom 1:21-23) impair human understanding, necessitating the Spirit’s regenerative and illuminating work (John 16:13, 1 Cor 2:10-16). The Spirit enables the interpreter to move from mere intellectual analysis to existential encounter with the living God. This principle guards against rationalistic or overly subjective approaches, grounding interpretation in divine agency.
  5. Genre Sensitivity
    Taking the example of Isa 55, it employs a prophetic and poetic discourse, blending imperative calls with theological reflection. Recognizing the genre shapes interpretation:
    The poetic hyperbole of God’s thoughts being “higher than the heavens” signifies divine transcendence, not inaccessibility. Interpreters must respect the literary form, whether be narrative, poetry, epistle or apocalypse, and its important to do so, so as to discern the author’s intent.
  6. Application in community
    Interpretation is not an individualistic enterprise but occurs within the ecclesial community, guided by the rule of faith and historic creed. The Church’s interpretive tradition (eg. patrisitic, medieval and Reformation exegesis) provides guardrails against novel or idiosyncratic readings.
    For Isa 55, the church has historically seen this as a call to repentance and faith, applicable to both Israel and the eschatological people of God.
  7. Existential and Ethical Orientation
    Hermeneutics is not merely academic but transformative. Isa 55:6 calls the wicked to forsake their ways, implying that interpretation must lead to ethical and spiritual renewal.
    Kevin Vanhoozer’s concept of theodrama is helpful here:
    Scripture invites readers to participate in God’s redemptive drama, aligning their lives with His purposes.
    So let’s deal with it:
    Isa 55:6-7 calls for an active response:
    seeking Gof, calling upon Him and forsaking wiced ways and thoughts, right? This implies that intellectual engagement with Scripture is not merely important but necessary, as through the revealed Word that we encounter God’s call to repentance and pardon. However, Isa 55:8-9 immediately qualifies this by emphasising the qualitative distinction between God’s thoughts and human thoughts, rooted in His transcendence (aseity and infinitude) and humans’ finitude. Thus, while engaging our thinking is critical, it must be subordinated to a posture of humility, dependence on divine grace, and reliance on the Holy Spirit’s illumination (1 Cor 2:12-14). The priority is not autonomous human reason but a sanctified intellect submitted to the authority of Scripture as God’s self-attestation.
    This aligns with the Reformed Principle of Sola Scriptura, where Scripture is the ultimate norm (norma normans) for faith and practice, but I don’t agree with some aspects but I have talked about it on another thread. However, engaging the mind in interpretation is not an end in itself but a means to communion with God, who is both the object and author of revelation.
    The Westminster Confession underscores that the Holy Spirit, working through and with the Word, is the supreme judge in matters of interpretation, ensuring that our intellectual efforts are guided by divine enablement rather than mere human speculation.
    Thus, what is more important than engaging our thinking alone?
    It is engaging our thinking in submission to the Spirit and the text, oriented towards repentance, faith and transformation.
    The goal of interpretation is not merely intellectual mastery but covenantal fidelity, and worshipful obedience to the Triune God.
19

Let me respond to you point by point @KPuff as one who seeks both the Spirit’s illumination and the clarity of the text He inspired.

On “enlightenment” (φωτισμός) and spiritual expectation
The passages you cited rightly describe how God “enlightens” (Greek: φωτίζω) hearts and minds through His Word and Spirit (e.g., 2 Corinthians 4:6, Ephesians 5:8–14). Psalm 119:18 prays, “Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things from Your law.”
Yes, the Spirit gives illumination. Yet the very illumination He gives is bound to the Word He inspired (John 16:13–15, “He will guide you into all the truth … He will glorify Me”).
Question: If the Spirit’s ministry is to glorify Christ and teach what Christ said, and if Christ testified to the written Word (John 5:39), then why would you imply that historical and linguistic study is a “trap” when those are the very means by which we rightly discern what was originally said? And why do you say I’m “reacting?”

On “yielding” and humility
It is true we must approach the Word not as masters of it but as servants of its Master. Isaiah 66:2 says, “This is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at My word.”
But notice: humility before the Word does not mean neglect of the hard work of rightly dividing it. 2 Timothy 2:15 commands us to “Be diligent [σπούδασον] to present yourself approved … rightly handling [ὀρθοτομοῦντα] the word of truth.” Diligence and humility are not enemies.
Question: Do you believe that the Spirit’s work and the student’s discipline are mutually exclusive? Or do you agree with Paul that they must work together (Philippians 2:12–13)?

On prayer and asking the Author
Here we are fully agreed, James 1:5 commands, “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God … and it will be given to him.” Yet God answers not by bypassing the mind or the text, but by clarifying the meaning of His already-revealed Word. Even Ezra, who “set his heart to study the Law of the LORD, and to do it and to teach His statutes” (Ezra 7:10), combined prayer and disciplined study.
Question: Why suggest that prayer excludes reliance on faithful teachers, when God Himself gave teachers to the church for this very purpose (Ephesians 4:11–12)?

On cohesiveness and Scripture-interprets-Scripture
Excellent point, Acts 20:27 exhorts us to declare “the whole counsel of God.” And indeed, the unity of Scripture shines when we compare Scripture with Scripture. But even this requires knowing the historical and grammatical meaning of each passage, lest we string unrelated verses together and miss the original intent.
Question: How will you discern when metaphors and similes are truly parallel without first understanding their meaning in context?

On nutrition and ingesting the Word
Agreed again, Matthew 4:4 reminds us, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.”

Now-On the so-called “traps”
Here is where I must push back most strongly.
You warn against ego and spiritual candy, rightly so (Proverbs 16:18, Philippians 2:3).
But you also call it a trap to “depend on ancient languages and historical context.”
Brother, do you not see that the Spirit inspired the Word in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, in the cultural context of real people? To neglect those is not humility, it is presumption. Ezra 7:10, Nehemiah 8:8, and Paul’s own example (Acts 17:2–3) show clearly that understanding the text as originally written glorifies the Author.
Question: Do you believe the Spirit contradicts the very languages and contexts He Himself chose to convey His Word? Or do you accept that the Spirit illuminates through, not against, those means?

On the “principle #1: relationship”
Absolutely, John 17:3 teaches that eternal life is knowing the Father and the Son. But that relationship is revealed through the Word. Romans 10:17 says, “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” We cannot set Word and relationship against each other, one is the means of the other. Correct?
Question: Why imply that a vibrant relationship with God somehow replaces, rather than flows from, the text rightly understood?

So-
We agree that:
Prayerful humility is essential (Isaiah 66:2, James 1:5).
A vibrant relationship with Christ is the goal (John 17:3, Philippians 3:10).
Scripture is cohesive and must be internalized (Psalm 119:97–104).

We must also remember:
The Word is already sufficient and clear (Psalm 19:7, 2 Timothy 3:16–17).
The Spirit illumines what the Spirit inspired, He does not contradict His Word (John 16:13, 2 Peter 1:21).
Grammar, history, and context are not “traps,” but tools to uncover the original intent of the Author (Nehemiah 8:8, Acts 17:11).

My final appeal.
Brother KP, I commend your zeal to keep study from becoming dry, mechanical, or prideful. But do not teach others to despise the very means God ordained to understand His Word. Prayer without diligent study leads to mysticism. Study without prayer leads to legalism. God calls us to both.

As Proverbs 2:3–5 says:
“If you call out for insight and raise your voice for understanding, if you seek it like silver and search for it as for hidden treasures, then you will understand the fear of the LORD and find the knowledge of God.”

Will you teach your hearers to embrace both prayerful dependence on the Author and disciplined diligence in the text He gave?

Grace and peace to you, transforming together by His Word.

You asked what we can agree upon, here it is, stated plainly, with nothing reactionary on my part.

Now do YOU agree?

J.