I was pondering a little Christian theological conundrum this morning.

Every seminary student is taught sometime early in his Masters program how to interpret Scripture according to the rules of hermeneutics.

[As an aside, my son is over my shoulder asking about the origin of the word ‘hermeneutics.’  Well, I explain it comes from the Greek ‘messenger god’ Hermes to which he reminds me that Hermes was also the god of deception, thieves, the conductor of souls to the underworld, trickster, etc…  Hmmmm.  Seminarians ought to get a clue here, but, I digress.]

Continuing, hermeneutic rules have to do with how to interpret the text.  While the list of rules can vary depending on the teacher/text and denominational/religious division, almost always, on every list, near the top is a rule that says obscure or unclear passages must be interpreted by or through the lens of clear passages.  Further, all Scripture leads to harmony and therefore, a clear passage or two that contradicts an obscure or unclear interpretation should immediately override the misunderstood unclear passage.

So, I was pondering this hermeneutic rule, or shall we say, law and the multiple Christian doctrines that violate the law in order to thus violate Scripture.  Interesting.

Make the (hermeneutic) law, break the law so you can then break THE Law.

Here is a very simple example:

NINE times in the Torah we are given sparklingly clear instruction concerning the seventh-day Sabbath.  Further, we are several times told that the Sabbath will be observed in the Millennium as well as in the new heaven and new earth.

NO WHERE are we EVER told that the day changed or that it is prophesied that it would change.  I even offered $10K to prove the point.

The very simple bottom line is this: Theologians and pastors BREAK their own hermeneutic ‘law’ so that they can then justify breaking THE Law.

To the pastor reading this:  you haven’t a leg to stand on.  Christendom listened to Julius Caesar…