Inevitably when two or more Christians come to different interpretations of the Bible, several methods are put forth to resolve the disagreement.

These methods are called “hermeneutics” or interpretive models.  Sometimes these models are very detailed & sometimes they are very vague & inconsistent.  What we’d like to do here is to examine some of the various interpretation methods.

Within the hermeneutical models are specifics such as interpreting a text “literally” (which even those people who espouse this method never actually interpret every text literally).  Another specific approach is to interpret figuratively or metaphorically.  Another approach is to consider context, grammar of the original language, and historical background of the topic, audience including cultural considerations.  But even these important aspects don’t resolve interpretative disputes since it is still a matter of when & how to apply these aspects to the text.

A friend of mine has been taking classes at a local Christian college.  The instructor made the statement that Haggai 2:6-9 speaks of the “end times” when God will “shake the heaven & earth” & “all nations”.  Further, citing the Matthew Henry Commentary as if his view settles the issue.

Let’s quote Haggai 2:6-9 –

But what seems to be overlooked in thinking these Haggai verses are speaking of the end times or as a prophetic reference to Christ is that Haggai was specifically speaking about the  Second Temple in Jerusalem, the former Temple (Solomon’s Temple) having been destroyed by the Babylonians. (see here)  Add to that these points:

As a Christian who believes the Bible teaches the Sovereign God who does not merely “allow” things to happen but decrees things for His “good pleasure” & sometimes immutable will – I have been trying to discern the purpose of my latest situation in that light.

I don’t want this to sound “me-focused”, as none of my articles are about “me” per se but rather as I have expressed before I try to write for posterity. So, the account may be your account.

I recently have been employed at a job which I passionately dislike because I am doing things that I don't enjoy, & things that are “illogical”.  Don’t get me wrong, I'm not unhappy especially since as I said I believe the Bible teaches everything happens for a reason; from my mundane job-account to the most horrid or most wonderful accounts.

As people know, I am constantly advocating that God's methodology is primarily typological -- first the natural then the spiritual -- thus when futurists look at Genesis & try to apply that physicality to the Eschaton, they destroy typology whereas some preterists then error in the other direction by looking at the spirituality of the Eschaton & trying to suppose to be "consistent" we must also interpret the Beginning as spiritual -- Both approaches destroy God's typological methodology.

Everytime I see or hear a person trying to build the case for a rapture based on the the word "harpazo" I think of Revelation 12:5 wherein we see this word in relation to Jesus.

And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and [to] his throne. -- KJV

Are we to believe Jesus was raptured?  Perhaps they will reference, Acts 1:2 to support that indeed Jesus was "raptured" in a sense:

Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: -- KJV

Why then the DIFFERENT Greek words here?  In Rev 12:5 & 1 Thes 4:17 "harpazo" compared to in Acts 1:2 "analambano".

You have no doubt heard it presented this way before, whenever someone questions the beliefs of another they are considered “judgmental” & like the Pharisees on the road who passed by the dying man in the ditch.  We are told “no one would first ask the dying man what he believes but would simply help him…except for the self-righteous pharisaical-type people”. In this way we are led to believe that we can’t really determine if the belief someone holds & advocates is false or not, because how dare we even ask?  No one asked the dying man about his beliefs, not even those who passed him by, that isn't the issue. (see this reference)

The problem is, the entire premise that people use to equate questioning beliefs to questioning the dying man is incorrect.  If anything the dying man isn’t advocating ANY belief.  The belief or theological identity of the “dying man” is never revealed to us & thus he better relates as an unbeliever, whereas the theological identities of those passing him by were clearly presented. 

If anything, those teaching & holding to false doctrines are better compared to either the robbers that beat the man up (by teaching him deadly doctrines) or they are comparable to those who passed him by & not giving the dying man LIFE.