Thursday, August 22, 2013

Matthew 3:7-12

Scripture

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father,' for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

"I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."
-- Matthew 3:7-12

Observation

This passage is an immediate continuation of Matthew 3:1-6 and forms one logical unit with that passage (in fact all of Matthew 3 is one logical unit). The only reason I have split this chapter up is that my comments on vv1-6 and now on vv7-12 have gotten too long to be a single post. As you read and think about vv7-12, bear in mind that all these things are an immediate continuation of what happened in vv1-6.

Who?

  • John the Baptist
  • The people of Jerusalem, Judea, and the region around the Jordan
  • The Pharisees
  • The Sadducees
  • God

What?

  • v7a: John sees Pharisees and Sadducees come to "his baptism."
  • vv7b-12: John warns Pharisees and Sadducee of the coming judgement. John tells the Pharisees and Sadducees:
    • v7b: They are a "Brood of vipers." Asks who warned them of the coming judgement
    • v8: Tells them to bear fruit in keeping with repentance
    • v9: Tells them not to presume to say to themselves that Abraham is their father; God can raise up new children for Abraham from the stones
    • v10: Tells them the axe is at the root of the tree and that every tree that doesn't bear "good fruit" will be cut down and burned
    • vv11-12: The one who is to come
      •  v11: John baptizes with water for repentance; the One who is coming is greater. John is not worthy to carry His sandals. He will baptize with the Holy Spirit and Fire
      • v12: The one who is to come has his winnowing fork in his hand. He will clear the threshing floor, gather His wheat into the barn, and burn the chaff.

Where and When?

The location and historical setting is the same as in Matthew 3:1-6. In fact, that passage is really just establishing the setting for this passage.

Interpretation

The first three chapters of Matthew form a sort of preamble to his Gospel. In these three chapters, Matthew is setting the stage for the rest of the book. He is establishing the major characters whose actions and interactions will determine the course of events, namely, Jesus and the Pharisees and Sadducees, and he is establishing God as the primary mover of everything that happens in Jesus' life. We have already seen in chapters chapters 1 and 2 that Matthew is building up Jesus as the protagonist of this story, emphasizing the fulfillment of prophecy and the miraculous events surrounding His birth. As we will see, this buildup will culminate in the events of His baptism. In these chapters, Matthew is also establishing the Pharisees and Sadducees as the primary antagonists.

Digging Deeper

As we discussed my previous post about the literal interpretation of scripture, the Bible is, among other things, a book. As such, the same basic rules and techniques apply to reading and understanding the Bible as apply to reading and understanding any other book. This includes the understanding of literary terms and devices. As this study continues, we will be building up a list of literary terms and devices that are useful in understanding the Scriptures.

This list will include the terms:
To view the list, click here.

There were numerous religious groups in first century Palestine (see here for more details); the Pharisees and Sadducees were the two most prominent sects of the day. The Pharisees were the fundamentalists of their day. They were associated with the local synagogues where ordinary Jews would worship every Sabbath. They believed that the Bible was true; they believed in the reality of the spiritual world; they believed that the dead would  be resurrected on the last day, all things that Jesus Himself taught. The two main problems with the Pharisees were that they elevated the rabbinical traditions above the teachings of Scripture and that they believed that they could obtain right standing with God through their external actions.

The Sadducees, meanwhile, were the rich, liberal mainline denomination of their day. They were wealthy, elite, and powerful. They were closely associated with the priesthood and the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem. They were prominent in the Sanhedrin, the ruling council of the Jews. They did not believe in the reality of angels or demons; they did not believe in life after death. Like the Pharisees, they believed that righteousness was achieved by external acts. The Sadducees took a lower view of the rabbinical tradition, but unfortunately, they also took a lower view of Scripture. The two groups competed for political power, and they detested each other.

John's comments to the Pharisees and Sadducees are both colorful and theologically dense. We will break down his comments, bit by bit so that we can see what he is saying in each part.

v7a: He saw the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism.

The Pharisees and Sadducees did not come to God or even to John, they came to his baptism.
This might just be a slightly odd phrasing, but more probably it indicates that they were interested in baptism as an external symbol of righteousness rather than as the outward sign of true repentance in their hearts. This idea will be borne out in the remainder of the passage.

v7b: You brood of vipers!

Obviously, this is not a complimentary statement. John is saying that the Pharisees and Sadducees are twisted and full of poison. The word "viper" recalls the Serpent in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3) who deceived Adam and Eve, leading them into sin. By calling them a "brood" John is essentially calling them children of the Devil.

v7c: Who warned you to flee the wrath that is to come?

There are a couple of things that I'd like to draw out of this sentence. First, God has wrath, and it is coming. This is an unpopular idea, but according to the Scriptures, there are many things God hates: dishonesty, hypocrisy, pride, envy, strife, murder, adultery, rape, drunken rages, etc. In essence, He doesn't like any of the petty, selfish, small-minded, vicious things about us, and he really doesn't like it when we act those things out and hurt ourselves other people. He loves us like a (good) father loves his children, and He doesn't like to see us do things that are self-destructive or things that hurt His other children. The unpopular biblical word for all of these inward attitudes and outward behaviors is sin.

The wrath of God is reserved for unrepented sin.The ideas of sin and wrath are not unpopular because people like the sinful things about themselves--in fact, these are the things we usually hate about ourselves. Nobody1 wakes up in the morning and thinks, "I'm so glad that I reduced my sister to tears yesterday by picking at her relentlessly until she broke down," or, "Isn't it wonderful that I've destroyed my wife's self-esteem by looking at pornography? Maybe I'll do it some more today so that I can grind her further into the dust," let alone, "I'm so glad that man stabbed his wife to death. She was so pretty, and look! She was pregnant!"2 God doesn't like the very same things about us that we, ourselves, hate3, and for much the same reason: neither we nor He like what those things do to us or to those around us.

The wrath of God is real, but He has deferred its execution in the hope that people will turn from their wicked ways. As 2 Peter 3:9 says:
The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
The promise spoken of here is the return of Christ (Maranatha!) which will happen in the final days. At that time, God will bring final judgement for sin, but He delays that day in order to give you and me a chance to repent. Again in Romans 2:4, God says:
Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?
He loves us and rejoices when we turn to Him and away from our sins. As Jesus says in Luke 15:3-7 (emphasis mine):
So he told them this parable: “What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open country, and go after the one that is lost, until he finds it? And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost.’ Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.
God loves repentant sinners! Come to Him! If you are weary and burdened, if your heart is heavy with what you have done and what others have done to you, come to Him! It is easy to think that if God were really good and actually had power, that He should step in and put a stop to all the evil things people do, but it's not true. He is waiting to execute His righteous judgement to give you the chance to come to Him. Come!

So now we come back to the second point, the coming of the Pharisees and Sadducees to John. They are not repentant. They are not acknowledging that they are wrong and coming to the Lord to be washed clean. They are coming because John is popular and the people think he's a prophet. They are coming because they want to bolster their outward appearance of righteousness with the people who believe in John, and John is sarcastically calling them out because of it.

v8: Bear fruit in keeping with repentance.

True repentance is an inward action, but it always has an outward reflection. Just as pettiness, selfishness, and viciousness arise from a sinful heart, so kindness, mercy, and justice arise from a humble, repentant heart. The fruit of repentance was not evident in the lives of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Notice that John is not condemning them. He is using his harsh statements to get their attention; he is calling them to repentance. God's heart yearns for the repentance of sinners, including stuck-up, religious sinners. As God's mouthpiece (see our discussion of vv1-6), John is expressing God's desire for the religious leaders to come to Him, drop their pretenses, and walk humbly with Him. We will see this theme repeated throughout the Gospels as Jesus interacts with the Pharisees and Sadducees. In every interaction with them, Jesus calls them to repent.

v9: And do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father,' for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.

Abraham was the ancestor of the Jewish people. His story is told in the book of Genesis, starting in Genesis 11:31 and going on until Genesis 25:18. In Genesis 12:1-3, God makes a covenant with Abraham:
Now the Lord said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."
Because of this covenant, Abraham was rightly regarded as the founder of both the race and the faith of the Jewish people (You can read a pretty good article about this covenant here). Throughout his life, Abraham walked with God in faith and obedience.

When the Pharisees and Sadducees claim to be children of Abraham, they are not simply claiming to be his descendants (which they were). In those days, children and fathers were thought be of the same nature and character. As we will see later, this is one of the main reasons the Jews objected to Jesus' claims to be the Son of God. By claiming Abraham as their father, the religious leaders were imbuing themselves with the aura of Abraham's faith and obedience in the eyes of the people.

John tells that mere biological inheritance does not make them Abraham's children in that sense--in fact that God can raise up true children for Abraham, a people who will love and obey God and walk faithfully with Him, from the rock. Their pride in their ancestry does nothing to give them true righteousness.

Taken together with John's earlier statement that they are a "brood of vipers" it is difficult not to think of John 8:39-47, in which Jesus says (emphasis added):
They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. You are doing the works your father did." They said to him, "We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God." Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."

v10: Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

John is now speaking metaphorically about the wrath of God. The Pharisees and Sadducees are the trees, and the One "who is coming after me" (see the next section) is wielding the axe, and He is ready to start chopping. The good fruit John is speaking of here is the same fruit he has already spoken of, the fruit of repentance. Again John is calling the Pharisees and Sadducees to repent. The image of being "thrown in to the fire" evokes the ideas of Hell and damnation to modern readers. Those images are quite applicable, but in context, the fire spoken of is probably a more generic image of God's judgement.

v11: I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

As we saw in vv1-6, John came with his baptism of repentance to prepare the way for the coming Messiah.  John here acknowledges that the Messiah who is coming is greater than he and adds the information that He who is coming will baptize with "the Holy Spirit and fire."At least implicitly, all three persons of the Trinity are present in this verse: John has been sent by God the Father to prepare the way for the coming of God the Son who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.

In the Greek, the word "baptize" is "baptizo" (βαπτίζω). The word literally means "to immerse." Originally, this word was used in the dyeing trade to describe the process of dunking a piece of white cloth in a vat of dye so that it would take on the color of the dye. Similarly here, to be baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire means to be immersed in the Spirit of God and to have your life "colored" by His presence in you. During the course of his ministry, Jesus makes many promises concerning the coming of the Holy Spirit into the lives of believers (see especially John 14:17-31). In Acts 1:4-5, just before His ascension, Jesus tells His disciples:
And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, "you heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."
These promises are fulfilled in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit comes upon the disciples.
When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.
The coming of the Holy Spirit transformed the disciples so that they were indeed "colored" by His presence. Peter, who had denied Christ a few weeks before, immediately went out and preached a sermon which drew 3000 people to Jesus. Acts sums up what people who are baptized with the Holy Spirit are like as follows:
And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
It should be noted that the "fire" here does not specifically connote God's judgement as in v10 and v12, but His power. It is, however, the same word and has a related meaning. Malachi 3:2 says of the coming Messiah:
But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap.
A refiner's fire is used when smelting metal to remove impurities. When metal is heated to a high enough temperature, the impure gunk that is mixed in with the metal burns up and the remains, the dross, floats up to the surface of the molten metal where it can be skimmed off and thrown away. In this metaphor, the same fire which burns away the impure in judgement produces the purity and goodness of the saved. This idea of God purifying his people and refining them with fire is repeated often in the Old Testament. See here for more references. (Fullers' soap is used in cleaning wool. The fulling process is eliminates the oils and filth in the wool and prepares it to be woven. It is a similar image of judgement/purification. See here for more details on fulling.)

v12: His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.

Winnowing is another picture of God's judgement; His separating the good from the bad. In ancient times, when the harvest was brought in, it would be taken to a threshing floor, a wide, flat place with a hard, usually paved floor. On this floor, the sheaves of grain would be beaten with a flail or walked upon by donkeys or oxen to break the outer husk off of the edible inner kernel of grain. This outer husk is called chaff. It cannot be eaten and is essentially worthless.

Winnowing is the process of separating the chaff from the kernels once the threshing is complete. To winnow, one waits for a strong wind and then throws the grain and the chaff into the air together using a winnowing fork, a device similar to a pitch fork. The wind blows away the lighter chaff which would be collected and burned up.

Here again, God's judgement is a separating process which removes the bad parts from the good. The bad parts are destroyed and the good parts are put to their proper use.

Summary

In this passage, Matthew introduces the Pharisees and Sadducees as the primary antagonists in his Gospel. In later chapters, they will frequently be seen in conflict with Jesus. Their conflict with John the Baptist reminds us that their antagonism is not toward Jesus as a man, but toward God and His unfolding plan of salvation. John has come to proclaim the coming of Jesus, the Messiah, through whom God will save His people. Jesus has come to proclaim the good news of the Kingdom of God. The Pharisees and Sadducees, who have different ideas about how salvation should be achieved, do not appreciate this challenge to their worldview. Additionally, they have a political power base with the Jews which this new move of God threatens.

It should be noted, however, that God is not against them. He is against their behavior and against their philosophy, but He desires that the Pharisees and Sadducees should themselves repent and be saved.

Application

God's wrath is real and is reserved for sinners (i.e., all of us) who refuse to repent. Sinners who are religious are in a particularly precarious position because their religion can provide them with the illusion that they are in right relationship with God, even if they do not have repentant hearts. God wants you to humble yourself and turn to Him and away from your sin.

Reflection

  • Is there any sin (dishonesty, hypocrisy, pride, envy, strife, murder, adultery, rape, drunken rages, lust, self-righteousness, gossip, etc.) that you need to repent of?
  • Ask the Lord to grant you a repentant heart.
  • Read Psalm 51 and pray each line as though it were written by you about yourself.

Footnotes

1 Or at least nobody I know, thank God.
2 These are obviously not the excuses we make for ourselves when we act this way. Our thinking is usually something more like, "Man, I really got her! Did you see the look on her face?" or "I am so frustrated! I need to do something to help myself calm down." I have no real insight into the thoughts of a murderer.
3 This, of course, begs the question: if we hate sin so much, why do we keep doing it? The short answer to this is that we are broken in such a way that we are inexorably drawn to sin, in spite of its loathsomeness. At root, we love ourselves and our own way and our own pleasures more than we love God or other people or what is good and right. We can see how detestable sin is (especially in other people), but, in our brokenness, we continue to return to it, like a dog to its vomit.

Friday, August 2, 2013

The Literal Interpretation of Scripture

The literal interpretation of Scripture is an idea that is often misunderstood, both outside the Church and inside it. To a modern (or postmodern) person, to read something literally means to blindly take it in a strictly non-figurative sense. When someone is accused of interpreting of the Scriptures literally, what is usually meant is that the accused takes a rigid, narrow-minded view of what the Bible says. This accusation is usually leveled at the kind of person who thinks the earth, which God created in six 24-hour days, is flat; that women should only ever wear dresses; that smoking, drinking, playing cards, and dancing are evil; and that fun, in any form, should be abolished1. The accusation is usually leveled by someone who is offended at the position the accused has taken on some moral or political issues. In our relativistic culture, narrow-mindedness is almost the last sin which is generally recognized. Someone accused of literally interpreting the Bible is thought to be narrow-minded, intolerant, bigoted, rigid, uncharitable, and probably stupid, bereft of the mental capacity to recognize a simple figure of speech.

Unfortunately, these accusations are sometimes true. It is easy to find examples of conservative Christians who do hateful or intolerant things and use the Bible to excuse or explain their actions--if your only source of information about Christians were the news, I'm not sure how you would escape the conclusion that all Christians are like that. More usually, however, these accusations are false--even the most narrow-minded bigot you can imagine does not think that because Jesus says, "I am the door," (John 10:9) that He therefore has hinges and a knob. To the contrary, Christians who do and say hateful and wicked things usually have a highly developed, symbolic understanding of the Scriptures; they need it. If they were to pay attention to what the Bible actually says, in plain, ordinary language, they would not be able to justify their actions!

Historically, the term "literal interpretation" has a very different meaning than what people usually think of when they hear the term today. When originally coined, it meant "taking words in their natural meaning" (from the Online Etymological Dictionary). By the time of the Protestant Reformation, scholars had developed a four-fold method Biblical interpretation which had drastically skewed the way the Bible was understood:
Medievalists developed a fourfold approach to interpreting the Bible: the literal, showing what God did; the allegorical, showing what at surface level God hid; the moral, revealing what believers should do; and the mystical, or anagogical, showing the heavenly life in which, for Christians, things will end. In effect, the method obscured the true meaning of the Bible by imposing arbitrary meanings on it. Theology took precedence over careful literal-historical exegesis.
-- J.I.Packer2 (emphasis in bold mine)
In the context of this elaborate scheme of biblical interpretation, the literal meaning of the text was what an ordinary person would understand if he read the text. This was considered to be the lowest, basest, most common meaning of the text, fit for peasants and other people "who could not grasp the intricate  nature of language (i.e., figures of speech, mysterious sayings), while the deeper meaning was for the learned or more spiritual."3, 4

To the Reformers, however, this literal meaning was the primary meaning.In fact, this school of interpretation was one of the significant things that the Reformers were protesting. They believed that this assignment of arbitrary meanings to the Scripture was used to support and reinforce the false beliefs and corrupt practices then present in the Church:
The Protestant Reformers of the sixteenth century reacted against the misuse of the Bible in Late Medieval theology. They insisted that authority rested not in leaders or fathers of the church but in a proper understanding of the text derived from correct methods of literary interpretation. Reformers starting with John Wycliffe (c. 1330-1384) insisted on the grammatical-historical approach to the Bible. The German reformer Martin Luther (1483-1546) broke with the nonliteral, allegorical approach that was dominant in his training and returned to the patristic emphasis on the centrality of Christ in Scriptures. He was adamant that the Bible be approached not through fanciful allegories or merely to support established dogma but through ordinary language and literal, historical and grammatical exegesis.5, 6
The literal sense, the actual words and their ordinary meaning, is the only one of the four-fold senses from which we can understand what God is telling us in the Scriptures. In other words, when God inspired the words of Sacred Scripture, He said what He meant.There is no need to go seeking mysterious, hidden meanings in the text7. We just need to understand what He has said.

To interpret the Bible literally, therefore, does not mean to take a strict or narrow-minded view of what the text says but simply to try to understand what it says. Understanding what the Bible says (or what any book says, for that matter) involves several key things:

  • Vocabulary
  • Grammar
  • Awareness of context

Vocabulary

Understanding individual words is the bottom level for understanding any verbal communication. If you don't know the words I am saying you cannot possibly derive meaning from the sentences I am speaking. For example, if I were to say to you, "The nurse came in with a sphygmomanometer," you would have no idea what was going to happen to me unless you happened to know that a sphygmomanometer is a device for measuring blood pressure. Similarly, when reading the Scriptures, if you don't know what is meant by words like sin, righteousness, justification, or holiness, you will often fail to understand what the Bible is saying.

If you think of verbal communication as a Lego model, words are the individual blocks. If you don't have very many blocks, you can't build very many or very interesting things. Building up your vocabulary is like buying more Lego kits. The more words you have, the more ideas you are able to express and understand.

Grammar

Contrary to popular belief, grammar is not solely a means by which teachers are able to torture their students8. While it is effective and amusing in this capacity, grammar is actually the rules by which words can be strung together to form meaningful combinations. It is grammar that tells us the difference between "Robert ate the cake," and "The cake ate Robert." (It is also grammar that makes Yoda funny: "The cake! The cake, Robert ate, hmmm?")

If words correspond to Lego blocks, grammar corresponds to the way that the studs on one block fit into the recesses on another. When you put two words together without following the rules of grammar it is like putting two Legos next to each other without fitting them together correctly. You can't build anything significant unless you use them the way they are intended to be used.

Context

According to Google's dictionary, context is defined as follows:
con·text
/ˈkäntekst/
Noun
  1. The circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.
  2. The parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning.
In terms of the Lego analogy, context is the way all the surrounding bricks influence how you think about each individual brick or group of bricks. Bricks (words) taken in isolation do not convey the same impression by themselves as they do when they are put together into a larger model. For example, these are reddish-orange flat 4x6 bricks:


By themselves, they are not very interesting, but when used to form the skin of a giant space Kraken tearing apart a Super Star Destroyer they are pretty awesome!


Context can be viewed at many levels. At the most basic level, context should be considered by looking at a passage's immediate surroundings: what was said before it and what was said after it. At a broader level the topic being discussed forms part of context--a drain is something very different if you're talking about plumbing than it is if you're talking about what chasing your toddler does to your energy level.

Often, the context of a piece of writing includes the historical situation of the people in the story and/or the original reading audience. The culture the author and the culture of the people about whom the author is writing form an invisible context that surrounds what he writes. By understanding more about those cultures, you gain better understanding of what you are reading. If you had never heard the legend of the Kraken or if you had never seen The Empire Strikes Back, your reaction to the Kraken/Star Destroyer model might have been something like, "What is that thing that octopus is holding?" However, if you knew what both the Kraken and the Super Star Destroyer were (as I hope you did!), your reaction might have been more like, "Dude! That thing is huge! If only the Rebel Alliance has been able to harness the power of the Space Krakens in their struggle against the Empire!"

Context also includes the genre or type of literature that is being read. By knowing the genre, you know a lot about what to expect out of what you're reading. For instance, if you were reading an column by Dave Barry, (like this, or this, or any of these), you would have very different expectations than if your were reading the Wikipedia article on Special Relativity. With the Dave Barry column, you would expect to find jokes and hyperbole and a keen commentary on the human condition. With the Special Relativity article, you would expect to find formulae and diagrams and discussions of experiments. Similarly, in the Bible, you would have different expectations when reading a poem than when reading a history and still different expectations when reading a letter or a prophecy.

Literal Interpretation

The Bible comprises many books written in different styles at different times, by different (human) authors. In order to understand what the  Bible says you must understand all of the things we have been talking about and apply them correctly. In the words the Reformers would have used, you must interpret the Bible literally. To do this, you must understand:
  • The basic meaning of the words
  • The grammar by which the words are fit together
  • The immediate context of the text
  • The historical context of the text
  • The literary context of the text
This sounds pretty complicated when you write a 10 page essay about it, but in reality it's just a long-winded explanation of something very simple: read the Bible the same way you would read anything else. When you read Dave Barry, nobody has to tell you that it's funny or that he's exaggerating; you know that because you can read.

When you read the Bible, it works the same way. There are, of course, difficulties--the Bible is obviously more complex than a Dave Barry column, but for the most part, the Bible says what it means. When God says, "I hate dishonesty," He means that He hates dishonesty and that you, therefore, should be honest. When He says, "I hate divorce," He means that He hates divorce and that you, therefore, should not get divorced if you can help it. When He says, "I am the door," he means that He is the only way in to His Father's kingdom and that He wants you to come in. When He says, "I am gentle and humble of heart," He means that He is not harsh or mean and that if you come to Him, He will be kind.

Footnotes:

1 I do not mean to imply that I am specifically for or against any of the particulars in this list. I am merely attempting to paint a picture of what most people think of people who understand the Scriptures literally--except for fun, of course. That really should be abolished.
2 Most of the information in this post comes from J.I. Packer. I seem to remember reading this material originally in a book called The Authority of Scripture, but this book seems to be either a figment of my imagination or at least to be out of print. The quotations here are taken from a book called, Understanding Scripture, which is a collection of material by several authors. I can't recommend this book enough. It's quite awesome.
3 More J.I.Packer. I have the Kindle edition of the book, so I'm not sure how to give page references...
4 The four-fold method of interpretation had a long history. It had developed from the school of allegorical interpretation founded by church fathers like Origen and Clement of Alexandria. Acceptance of this method was never universal. Throughout church history, many of the greats, including St. Jerome, St. Augustine of Hippo, and St. Thomas Aquinas, rejected this approach and embraced the literal-historical method.
5 Surprise! More Packer! Emphasis mine.
6 Exegesis means interpretation or explanation. It is originally a Greek word which, literally translated, means to "lead out of" the text, that is, to allow the ideas to come out of the text as it leads you.
7 It is easy to feel superior to the medievals, but modern people are just as susceptible to looking for arcane and hidden meanings in the Scriptures. This type of biblical interpretation is foundational to many cults. Christian Scientists, for example, believe that all truth in the Bible is spiritual rather than physical. In order to properly understand what the Bible is saying, you must interpret it through the lens of Mary Baker Eddy's book, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, which provides all of the "true" meanings of the words in Scripture. These meanings have much more in common with the Gnostic heresies of third century than they do with historical Christianity and the plain meaning of the words in the Bible. On a more popular level, Michael Drosin's 1994 book, The Bible Code was nothing but an esoteric interpretation of the Bible that looks for hidden wisdom in the Scriptures while ignoring their plain meaning.
8 Robert Carrington may believe that torture is grammar's primary use, but most scholars disagree...