Oh. We’re not talking about interpreting the Bible? Well….I am, so deal.
I usually just don’t say anything when I hear Biblical interpretation leave the road and head for the ditches. But doggone it, there’s some fairly basic stuff here that could be very helpful to those of you who genuinely love the Bible.
So in no particular order.
1) Get a decent book on Biblical interpretation and read it. I don’t mean a Bible handbook or introduction. I mean a book on Biblical interpretation. So, even though you don’t need more books, I command you to purchase the following two volumes. (Used & Cheap. Fear not.)
Graham Goldsworthy, Gospel Centered Hermenuetics .
Julian, Crabtree and Crabtree, The Language of God. If you can only get one. Get this one. Read it out loud to yourself several times.
Those of you who claim to “just read the Bible” are not. You’re interpreting the Bible. Actually, you’re bringing your interpretation to the Bible and either you don’t know it or you think that your interpretation and God’s word are the same thing, in which case you need to go join one of several blogs I could recommend.
In all seriousness, evangelicals have a remarkable problem when it comes to treating the scriptures with respect. It’s astounding how many Christians tend to act as if any thought that comes into their head pertaining to the Bible is de facto true because they believe the Spirit is guiding them. If your use of the Bible were like handling a gun, you might have shot several people by now. Put that thing down and learn some basics on using the weapon.
if you can’t afford the books, then try this free Biblical Theology course from the Worldwide Classroom at Covenant Seminary.
2) Now, let’s take the issue of what to do with an event in a historical narrative. I could pick any of hundreds, but let’s use one I have been involved with recently: Ezra’s verse by verse expounding of the Law in Nehemiah 8.
A Bible teacher I know has been expounding Nehemiah 8:1-8. In this passage, Nehemiah goes through the book of the law and other priests explain it and give the sense of it to the people. My friend sees in this an authoritative methodology for preaching. All preaching must be verse by verse through Biblical books. Many Bible teachers sees this as a Biblically authoritative matter and a crucial issue in the demise of churches.
I preach and teach through books from time to time, and do not disagree that this is of value, but I do not see it as the only Biblically authoritative model for preaching. (This has been claimed in Southern Baptist circles for years, and the results are hardly impressive. “Verse by verse” preachers int the SBC characteristically ignore context, overall message and Christ-centered interpretation to simply “ride” whatever aspect of the passage is most appealing to them. Instead of getting a walk-through of a passage, one hears a passage “used,” in a blatantly cavalier manner.)
Nehemiah 8: 1-18 is the one of a very few examples of verse by verse teaching in the Biblical record. It’s a good example, but Ezra’s reading and explanation of the law was an event in Hebrew history, not a command for all believers. We have no reason to believe this continued in Jewish life. (Synagogue worship followed a kind of lectionary, with comments on the text of the week.)
If Ezra did verse by verse exposition, does that mean we are all under a scriptural command to do the same? I don’t believe so. Jesus didn’t do it. He told parables and taught topcially. Paul didn’t do it. He preached the Gospel using lots of citations from various places in various books, often cited rather creatively. The apostles didn’t do it. Read the sermons in Acts. The author of Hebrews- the longest sermon in the New Testament- doesn’t do it. That book cites passage from all over the Old Testament in a very eclectic manner.
Ezra’s methodology is never cited in a corrective passage, like I Corinthians or Revelation 2-3, as being the key to church health. This particular methodology is never mentioned in the pastoral letters as the assignment of a preaching elder like Timothy. There is good reason to believe that verse by verse exposition of Old Testament books was a rarity in the Gentile churches until bishops like Augustine and Origien began preaching the Old Testament Christologically using a verse by verse method heavy on allegorization.
Ezra’s method is also characteristic of teaching (didache) rather than of proclamation (kerygma), which always centers on God’s exaltation of Jesus as messiah and Lord. Ezra’s situation demanded that he conduct a “Bible school” for the returned community.
Traversing the long landscapes of Biblical books a verse at a time cannot be done at the expense of a clearly Christ-centered message, and this means we must come to the Biblical books with our Gospel-shaped theology as a presupposition. Gospel ministers know what is the message of the Bible, and they are called to put that message- Christ and the Gospel- front and center in every examination of any Biblical book.
(I examined a lot of this in a classic IM post on how to preach books of the Bible.)
So I’d conclude there are many different models for preaching and teaching in the Bible, and we’re free under the leadership of the Spirit to use as many as are appropriate in any congregation to accomplish the maturing of believers in Christ. For example, formal worship may use a shorter, application-oriented homily from the Gospels, while a mid-week Bible class may go through books in a more “verse by verse” fashion. An evangelistic presentation may deal with only a small portion of scripture, while a discipleship class may use a selection of scripture.
Remember, the fact that something happened in the Bible doesn’t mean you can use that event as authoritative and mandatory for all believers and all situations.
3. The mark of a real interpreter is a respect for the fact of Biblical interpretation in every Christian tradition and community, and real humility for where he/she stands in the process.
There are people who know far more than you do. There are scholars who have dedicated their lives to understanding the Bible in ways you and I can barely even understand. There is a deep influence of culture and language at work in interpretation. We all bring baggage, sin, wrong assumptions, arrogance, ignorance and well-intentioned errors to the process of interpretation.
If a room full of various kinds of Christians are each asked to interpret the “rock” passage in Matthew 16 or the key passages on Baptism or the accounts of the Lord’s Supper, there are going to be deeply divergent methods, assumptions and conclusions.
Now some of those “interpreters” will simply proceed under the assumption that whatever they’ve done has arrived at the true interpretation and everyone else is making grievous errors. And maybe they are right. But perhaps they are wrong. Or, far more likely, is the prospect that the Biblical texts simply don’t give us enough information to always authoritatively answer the questions. Perhaps legitimate competing presuppositions turn the whole matter around. And, yes, we often have to consult our tradition to know exactly what we believe. Yes….shocking news!….most of us BRING some of our conclusions with us, and no amount of interpretation will change our mind.
(The other day a Catholic friend announced that everything he believes is plainly taught in scripture. Folks, I would say that if there aren’t things you believe that AREN’T plainly taught in scripture, but ONLY taught in tradition, you probably aren’t being an honest Catholic. And the very same things can be said of any of our traditions. We Baptists are quite sure the Bible supports that American flag in the sanctuary and deacons running the church, right?)
Imagine for a moment that a person is convinced that a true work of the Holy Spirit only occurs in a spontaneous, unstructured environment. Will they see the liturgical aspects of the Psalms? Will they see the ordered worship of the Old Testament? Or suppose someone comes to the text with a particular view of church government. Will they see the texts that do not support their view? Will they have an interpretation that fairly hears those passages?
As I said, the mark of a real interpreter is an appreciation for the fact, process and limitations of all of our efforts to understand the Bible. We might take note that our over-confidence regarding what the Bible says has embarrassed us over and over in Christian history. Will we ever learn the lesson that a true interpreter knows his/her interpretation is a human work, and a fragile one at best?
In the end, will they treat other interpreters as loving God, the Bible and the church as much as they do, or will they suggest that anyone who REALLY reads the Bible will come to their conclusion?
Someone, somewhere- and I can tell you where- will look at this last point and tell you its all about the postmodern rejection of certainty. You can be sure they will be 120% sure of that, and always will be.
The Internet Monk Archives 
In my experience in studying the scriptures I have found that my study method grows and changes with me. I believe there are many layers of truth to be discovered in the scriptures and I am always looking for interpretations that bring something additional, something enlightening, something I haven’t caught before.
To this end, I try to read with the Spirit, I like to listen to others give their interpretation, I like to listen to the teachers and leaders give their take, I like to read commentaries and blogs, and so on.
Is there a wrong way to read the scriptures? Of course there is. If the scriptures are wrested so that they seem to justify committing sin, that is certainly out of line.
One thing I think that we get wrapped around the axel about is passages that don’t seem to make sense or seem wrong. It is tempting to try to twist them around to fit our ideas, but I’ve learned that I should just let them be and keep reading them along with everything else and studying them and praying for understanding. I have faith that sooner or later answers come.
LikeLike
More for MDS
I was not expecting this to be a travel week, which is really making life interesting. GRIN.
I agree with you in one way. One does not see the “vibrancy” that one tends to see in various Protestant communities. In fact, the influx of converts into Orthodoxy has helped to bring some of that vibrancy into Eastern Orthodoxy.
And, yet, I have also observed some things that have made me think. I have met many “cradle” Orthodox who are the children of the children of the children of the children. . . . You get the idea. Particularly, belonging to a denomination that is of Arab origin, I have met people who can literally trace their ancestry in Christianity almost to the time of Christ. That is something that is rather rare among Protestants. It seems as though each Protestant generation has to struggle to preserve their children in a way that the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic do not.
And, so, it makes me realize that there is a different type of faithful stream flowing through the Catholic Churches (EO’s and RC’s). I used to denigrate that stream. I would say that it is nominal. I would say that it is not truly alive. I would say that they do not understand salvation. I would even hint strongly that they have reproduced generations of unsaved people. But, when all is said and done, I look back and have to repent of that attitude. When all is said and done, they have accomplished what many non-EO’s and non-RC’s have not been able to accomplish. They have successfully passed on the faith for generations. And that is something of which to stand in awe.
I have read some people who says that Protestantism is a “hothouse” religion. That is, it relies on a constant stimulus in order to keep people involved and engaged. While that is an insult, there is a partial truth there. Nevertheless, I would not mind some of that hothouse experience being present among the Orthodox. What I would not wish is for us to become focused on a hothouse type of experience. I would like the heat to be turned up in such a way that we do not become reliant on experience to shore up our faithfulness.
So, I do not have a full answer to what you are saying. I have seen the Lord working to “warm up” the Orthodox. May He also work with Protestants to teach them the ability to pass the faith on for generation after generation.
LikeLike
The whole purpose of the Communion rite is not that we can just adore the consecrated Host. He said, “Take this and eat it,” not “Take this and adore it.”
The revelation therefore is not that we have Jesus with us in the moments between the consecration and the eating. It is that we have Him here in ourselves and in each other perpetually.
In this light, just consider the Letter of St. John — how can you say you love God if you don’t love your brother …?
LikeLike
congregant
LikeLike
I’m not a glutton in that sense.
The monstrance is symbolic of the majesty of Christ, artificially illuminating for the “general” congregatant adorers what was specifically revealed to those receiving “special” revelation into the Beatific Vision.
But we all can see the real state of our brethren who are all living monstrances. When I focus the very same reverence on my neighbor communicants that I do on the symbolic monstrance, I see the Incarnation illuminating their helplessness and neediness — not their unworthiness. I can do nothing with Original Sin — neither mine or anybody else’s. But my original wounds begin to be healed when I reach out in love and compassion to my neighbor who is in need of something I can give.
LikeLike
Surfnetter, no need to eat every host you see. Sometimes, it’s important to put the Eucharist in perspective: which is what the monstrance, artistically, is supposed to accomplish.
LikeLike
Here’s a criticism of Roman Catholic theology from a former atheist/charismatic evangelical/ fundamentalist-pentacostal/self-styled non-denominational/devout practicing Roman Catholic (in chronological order):
The center of Catholic life is the Eucharist, perpetually adored in the tabernacles of every church, chapel and cathedral. We must enter these sanctuaries with worship and reverence in our hearts and outward attitudes.
But the Incarnate Body and Blood of our crucified Lord and Savior is in the earthly form of food and drink, meant for consumption by the faithful congregants. And, so, the consecrated hosts there, either enclosed in those specially designed and blessed metal containers or exposed in ornate monstrance, do not really achieve their own fulfillment until they are ingested by what the metal containers represent, i.e., a living and breathing human container.
Perhaps the teaching of more than a little Buddhist-style reverence of the real thing rather than the symbolic is what’s needed here ….
LikeLike
I must expound here upon what I’ve posted in other threads — before the Babylonian captivity and the return under Ezra and Nehemiah, there was no Bible. There were scrolls spread out and hidden all over the place, rarely read or studied.
We’ve all been taught that the only way to get to the true “Faith of the Fathers” is to exhaustively study the Scriptures. This is the offspring of Rabbinical Judaism — the two tiered student/teacher v the illiterate masses model.
Now, we are told that whoever has the time, wherewithal and scholarly knowledge to peruse the great expository theological volumes can get to the Truth. And then maybe you can make a living teaching others — either in the classroom or from the pulpit, be they actual or virtual.
But the Hebrew Fathers of the Faith, of whom Abraham is the Chief, had only the voice they heard, the gift of Faith to believe that what they had heard was true (despite how it seemed to them and their cultural communities), and the courage to act upon that belief.
We are graced with having the reports from those who saw with their own eyes what the Fathers longed to see but didn’t. Again I say that the only real study that needs to be done is to look with virgin eyes and hearts upon the attitude and actions of the One who is and was the only full representation of God that human eyes and ears have ever beheld. After that honest and open examination, all else becomes clear ….
LikeLike
Hmm,
Remind me not to write when very tired. One of the lines should have said, “. . . likes to quote the figures that show that during the revival, the Roman Catholics grew every bit as fast. . .”
Also, some of my logic does not quite flow like I would like. Oh well, maybe a good night’s sleep. And, would you believe tomorrow I have another trip?
LikeLike
OK, finally to answer MDS a bit.
I find it helpful to look at couple incidents, one in the Old Testament and two in the New Testament. They help give me an idea of what God might be about.
The first incident is the rebellion of Rehoboam against Jeroboam. God actually sends a prophet to tell him to go ahead and rebel. You see, Israel had become a rather bad country. Moreover, King David’s sin still had to be fully punished. And so, in order that Israel learn a lesson, the rebellion was not only permitted, but actually partly instigated by God! Nevertheless, what became the Kingdom of Judah was considered by God to still be the inheritor of the promises.
The second incident is in the New Testament, that of the Samaritan woman, St. Photine. Please note that when the question of worship comes up, Jesus’ first comment is to clearly point out that the correct Temple, with the approved worship, is the one in Jerusalem, and not the one in Samaria. He quickly turns the discussion back on the woman because she is just trying to deviate the discussion. But, there is an interesting principle here, as the Samaritans were the descendants of that northern Kingdom. (Hmm, ok history buffs, I know lots more detail, but I am over-summarizing on purpose.)
And, finally, there is the Scripture from St. Paul where he says, “Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says, “I will make you envious by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding.” And Isaiah boldly says, “I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me.” But concerning Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.”
Again, it is only a guess on my part, but I think God is doing the same as he did with Israel, when he split that nation up. The Church sinned badly. And, so God split her up for the purpose of teaching her a lesson and making her jealous. But, there is still a correct Church, a correct place of worship.
The Reformation clearly forced all of Christianity to examine itself, to return to a better use of Scripture than she had had in a long time. It is interesting to me that some of the greatest geographical expansion of both Orthodoxy and Romans came after the Reformation. Apologetics, missiology, exegesis, etc., all improved in both EO’s and RC’s.
The Second Vatican Council’s statement acknowledging that there are brethren outside the RC’s was the remarkable concession that the Reformation had some of God’s mark upon it. Having said that, the 18th and part of the 19th century were bad centuries for all of Christianity. There was a reason why the Schleiermacher types sprung up!
Now, part of our problem is that our vision is somewhat limited. The same East Africa revival in the 1950’s that led to the phenomenal change in middle and southern Africa was a revival for the Roman Catholics as well. No Protestant likes to quote the figures that show that during the Roman Catholics have grown every bit as fast in those areas as Protestants. When the revival struck, it struck everyone!
Few chunks of Christianity in the USA are really alive. And that colors our perception. Moreover, for you, the cultural perception of what worship is probably colors your perception of the EO’s. I can remember talking to a young lady raised Greek Orthodox who visited a Baptist church with her friend a few times. She told me that she could not believe how short and unfulfilling the worship was! Her cultural perception said that a worship with no chanting, no litanies, and no Eucharist was a boring worship.
Well, I could say more, but this gives you an outline of my thought and this is already too long a post.
LikeLike
For those into sci-fi/fantasy you should check out Summa Elvetica: A Casuistry of the Elvish Controversy
Yeah, from Marcher Lord Press. Don’t know much about it, but I really like the concept. The Church sends a representative (the main character) to determine if “Elves have souls”. If so, they’re people. If not, they’re animals and the Elven lands are open to exploitation. You can see the potential (for intrigue, if nothing else) in this premise.
(I belong to two Christian genre writers’ groups, and MLP is associated with one of them, the Lost Genre Guild.)
Fr Ernesto, WebMonk:
My only pro publishing credit to date is the novelette “Mask of the Ferret” in the anthology Infinite Space, Infinite God, edited by Karina Fabian. The anthology was originally released as an E-book and won the EPPIE award for E-book SF; the hardcopy book came out a few months later.
“Mask of the Ferret” itself placed in the WISFA award for small-press SF at Capclave this past year.
Since this is a small press operation, publicity and marketing is catch-as-catch-can; we desperately need some reviews and shout-outs. Maybe you or IMonk could review the anthology on your blogs?
The story with the litany of saints mentioned above is a novella called “Dyads”, which has been accepted for Infinite Space, Infinite God II (don’t know the publication schedule). I just got through the last batch of editor-demanded changes this morning.
As long as I’m embedding links, here’s where my HUG handle came from.
LikeLike
My theology of the Apocalypse is probably more mainstream than my spelling of it
LikeLike
Re Sci fi Catholicism- I vaguely recall reading the fairly classic A Canticle for Leibowitz, post-Apocolyptic monks preserving scientific knowledge.
LikeLike
For those into sci-fi/fantasy you should check out Summa Elvetica: A Casuistry of the Elvish Controversy
It asks the question, what would the Catholic Church look like/ act like etc. in a fantasy setting, like say if elves existed. I’m hoping to get it for Christmas myself.
DD
LikeLike
Ditto for me H.U.G.!! I’ve read precious little that deals with religion in a serious way in the future.
LikeLike
H.U.G. – I am a very strong science fiction fan. I definitely want to read your story once it is published. Drop me a note if you have already published works in science fiction.
I am going to put off MDS for the moment; I was out of town for a meeting, and I have to go out of town again today. (Real Life has a tendency to not let me muse as often as I would like. Also, the Sunday bulletin has to be done by today, GRIN.)
LikeLike
I just finished Fr. John Polkinghorne’s “One World –
the Interaction of Science and Theology”
Because of his conviction that “Reality is a multi-layered unity” (p 115), he emphasizes a way of interpreting the Bible which realizes that it is a
part of the same reality as science and reason.
He calls his method “critical realism”. This
leads him to not accept as literal some Biblical
statements (the day the sun stood still (Josh. 10)
and the coin in the fish’s mouth (Matt.10)).
But it also leads to accept the literal nature
of other Biblical statements (the Resurrection of Christ,
the concept of God’s continuing sustaining relation
to the world).
Back in my fundamentalist days, we would have poked
fun at this apparent inconsistency. Now, a little
further down the path, I just try to understand
what subtlties in reality and the nature of
Scripture cause him to see things this way.
I found the book reverent and a stimulus for
thinking about how I interpret the Bible.
LikeLike
Willoh,
Would you like a rattlesnake for services? How about a pastor who gets to decide who you should marry? There’s a verse for both of those and they “heard God” about it.
And that’s the point. We are all sinful creatures and don’t always filter the voices we follow like we should. Simply saying the Holy Spirit will teach me has had some dire consequences in the past. Why would you be different?
Also, if you can’t submit to the earthly authority God has set up, you really can’t submit to Him. You may think you are but you’re just deceiving yourself.
DD
LikeLike
The Word of god is so personal, so powerful, and has such impact on our very lives, that it is simply beyond my understanding that any thinking rational being would use Traditions, Experts, colleges, or opinion of others to come to an understanding of God’s will for our lives.
When the fate of your eternal soul hangs in the balance, would you not rather trust in the Holy Spirit who is without error, perfect in wisdom and motive, to drive a meaning deep into a repentant heart.
Perhaps it is my failing to trust too little, but my relationship with god is so personal that I will allow no institute, individual, book or school to intrude. the preceding are human and therefore less than perfect, while God ,perfect in nature and practice, promises over and over He will provide wisdom if we only ask.
I have seen organizations and individuals too often bend fold and mutilate Holy Script until it meets their selfish purpose. Let us each be Bereans.
Read the opinion of others, but take those opinions with the weight of the dust that wrote them. God has promised to guide us, Jesus promised Paracletus, is that not enough?
LikeLike
aren’t we all going to have faux-African names in the future?
That’s what i was told.
LikeLike
We Catholics of course have the Pope, but something he said once would apply to Protestants as well. He said that the Bible is best interpreted through the lives of the Saints. In other words the biographical examples of extraordinary Christians gives us guidance and real world examples of how to live our lives as good Christians. — Memphis Aggie
I’ve always viewed Saints as “Officially-recognized Heroes of the Faith”, and examples to emulate. Saints from Apostles and Popes to ex-slave cooks (St Bartholemew the Black) and hairdressers (Pierre Touissant) and just about everything in-between.
(The following are excerpts from a litany of saints from an SF space-opera novella I’m currently revising/arguing with my editor. I tried to give the whole sweep and variety of saints –)
From the past:
Saint Ignatius Loyola, pray for us…
Saint Ivo of Chartres, pray for us…
Saint Thomas Aquinas, pray for us…
Saint Thomas More, pray for us…
Through the present:
Saint Teresa of Calcutta, pray for us…
Saint Faustina of the Divine Mercy, pray for us…
Saint John Paul the Great, pray for us…
Saint Pierre the Hairdressr, pray for us…
To the future:
Saint Gillian of L5, pray for us…
Saint Jubal of Luna, pray for us…
Saint Agustin of Mars, pray for us…
Saint Amber the Semihuman, pray for us…
LikeLike
Big V – “Do I really need someone to interpret the Bible for me, or do I need to read a book (another’s point of view) about how to interpret the Bible?â€
The Church is first and foremost a community of believers. It is up to the community guided by the elders to interpret. Solo interpretation is wide open to error. The Apostle Paul warns to watch out for false teachers and to “test everything” as a community. I know these instructions are more germane to prophecy but I (and my Church) believe they are very helpful for scripture as well.
Basically, I do believe the Holy Spirit will guide us as we read scripture. The caveats are (1) my personal scripture reading / study is for my own edification and growth in relationship with Jesus, not for coming up with my own interpretation of scripture (2)the guidance of the Holy Spirit is amplified in groups – “where two or three are gathered in my name.” (3) as a Christian, I am part of the community the Church.
My two cents.
Paul in the GNW
LikeLike
We Catholics of course have the Pope, but something he said once would apply to Protestants as well. He said that the Bible is best interpreted through the lives of the Saints. In other words the biographical examples of extraordinary Christians gives us guidance and real world examples of how to live our lives as good Christians. Of course Catholic Saints wouldn’t be acceptable but surely the lives of exemplary Evangelicals (Billy Graham?) would teach us quite a bit. Obviously not every issue can be addressed this way but if it were me I’d only read the books of those scholars whose life has produced good “fruit”.
LikeLike
I have often heard it said that all the various interpretations are the driving force behind the proliferation of denominations – 26,000 worldwide, according to one source. Perhaps.
We are involved with a non-church type of organization. In our city, there are three similar organizations, all small. I asked the former president of one of these organizations why the three do not combine to form one larger, strong organization. He thinks it will never happen because “then there would be just one president, one secretary”, etc.
We were involved with a church that merged with another. They were even the same denomination. It was the same problem. There could not be two pastors, two church boards, etc. Almost everyone left.
My conjecture: Rather than various interpretations birthing thousands of denominations, I would suggest that most people would rather be a big fish in a small pond, hence thousands of denominations, which by their nature give rise to many interpretations of Holy Scrupture.
LikeLike
BigV: “Do we really need someone to interpret the Bible for us, or do we need to read a book (another’s point of view) about how to interpret the Bible?â€
Yes. We need to read the Bible for ourselves and interpret the Bible for ourselves. We also need others, who know more than we do (especially the Hebrew & Greek languages) to interpret the Bible for us. We need to read from the wealth of knowledge of Scripture that the history of the Christian church has given us. And we need the Holy Spirit to use anything and everything to make the meaning of Scripture plain to us.
sidenote: acknowledging that I need help learning how to interpret Scripture is NOT saying (a) that the Holy Spirit doesn’t help me interpret Scripture correctly & alone, or (b) that we need the tradition of the church in order to be able to understand the Bible – it’s simply acknowledging that, as a sinner, I need all the help I can get – especially from those Christians who are wiser than I am
LikeLike
Big V, I definitely need somebody to interpret the Bible for me.
I needed somebody to translate it for me, organize it for me, read it to me, and help me figure out how to apply it to my life and continually remind me what it means to believe it and accept it.
I need to see people who are better, more knowlegable Christians than I am, so I have someone to refer to as a legitimate example and begin to figure out for myself who Jesus is.
LikeLike
Big V: ““Do I really need someone to interpret the Bible for me..”
Yes. Kinda.
I believe that the Holy Spirit can and does illuminate the Scripture to believers. I believe that Jesus meant it when he said the sheep know His voice. I also know that even sincere sheep sometimes listen to the wrong voice. That being said, how do you check what you are being “taught” to be certain you are hearing the right voice? One of the ways is to compare it to what those folks who have gone before us have to say. If your interpretation veer from what is considered orthodox over the years then you need to really study it out to be certain because God is not giving new doctrinal revelation.
Just my two cents.
DD
LikeLike
To All –
I think the question I’m asking is, “Do I really need someone to interpret the Bible for me, or do I need to read a book (another’s point of view) about how to interpret the Bible?”
My other question is, “Do you?”
Thanks again.
LikeLike
Patrick Lynch –
Absolutely, those who actually walked with Jesus had a terrific advantage! But you know, they were still men just like me. Sometimes I have a temper like Peter’s; I tend to be self-centered, much like James and John; I have doubts like Thomas, etc. And how long had Jesus been telling His “crew” that he would die and come back from the dead? Don’t those of us who have Jesus really have “Everything?”
Taking His “crew” out of the equation, how about the Philippian jailer? How do you think he would have grown in his Christian faith?
Thanks
LikeLike
Big V, if you want to get technical, the Apostles had a 3-year course in Christianity from Jesus himself – and then spent the rest of their lives in the mission field. And then they wrote the New Testament: the sourcebook for all those other books and all our subsequent theology, which we use to teach each other. They didn’t have “nothing”; they had Everything. It’s we who have to get by claiming that we “have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ” and wondering secretly how seriously we could mean that. Not them. They could tell people what Jesus looked like, what he liked to eat, what he did when he wasn’t sermonizing from Mounts, whether he was funny or kind of shy or both. Most importantly, they were friends with Jesus the man.
Anyways, at the very least, they were clearly some pretty able guys to be able to do all that stuff, inspiration aside.
LikeLike
Big V: Are you saying that we can’t grow as Christians by simply reading the Bible, allowing the Holy Spirit to deal with us, then acting on what we’ve learned from both? If that’s the case, how did those poor unlearned fisherman and other early Christians get by without Keller, Merton, Peterson, Lewis, on-line Bible courses, Christian blogs, and Seminary degrees?
This is why I recommend the Bible as literature — specifically, as someone else mentioned, the overarching story of the People of God as presented and reinterpreted again and again in the scriptures themselves. I think those simply, poor, unlearned fisherman and other early Christians were very steeped in their own story. When Jesus spoke of a young man going away to a far country, they didn’t have to do research to known it was a metaphor for exile. They lived it. When he said, “a house on a rock” they didn’t need to reserach to find out he meant this to be strongly associated with the temple, they lived in the prepetual shadow of its influence.
This still leaves, for me, the real problem of scriptural reading in the context of an Evangelical bible study.
My long term goal is to help people grow up more ‘in the story’ and with the symbols, in my teaching, parenting, and participation in church. That way perhaps we can raise young men and women, intellectuals or not, who hear the scriptures more naturally in this way.
LikeLike
So many different aspects of this post and conversation so clearly resonate with me. Let me just add that in mentioning Scot McKnight’s book “The Blue Parakeet” ScottL (#10) added a great deal to this conversation. IMO anyone who is thinking through, wrestling with or interested in Biblical interpretation should get this and read it post haste! There’s a link in comment 10 — which I’d repeat here is I knew how.
Btw Michael… Thanks for the Baptist comment on flags in the sanctuary deacons running the church. I had to pick myself up off the floor.
LikeLike
ropata
Thank you for my first big laugh of the day.
The rest of you scholars get back to work!
LikeLike
imonk –
Are you saying that we can’t grow as Christians by simply reading the Bible, allowing the Holy Spirit to deal with us, then acting on what we’ve learned from both? If that’s the case, how did those poor unlearned fisherman and other early Christians get by without Keller, Merton, Peterson, Lewis, on-line Bible courses, Christian blogs, and Seminary degrees?
Also, I get the impression that you hold those who are properly educated and in Christian ministry in high esteem. Must I be fed by a “professional” to grow in Christ? Your thoughts, please.
Bless you, Bro.!
LikeLike
Remember, the fact that something happened in the Bible doesn’t mean you can use that event as authoritative and mandatory for all believers and all situations.
NO – Say it ain’t so!
LikeLike
Concerning Biblical interpretation, there is an interesting phenomena that I’ve seen within evangelical circles, and is not uncommon. It concerns the ignoring of scripture that contradicts ones felt opinions concerning the “clear teaching” of scripture.
I took part in the launching of a particular evangelical denominational church at a time when I had nothing else to do. When it grew and the time came for the selection of elders and I was under consideration, I was asked if I would sigh a statement saying that I would not drink. This was not expected of the congregation, but felt to be something marking out an elder as above reproach. I said I would not as I felt it sent a signal that encouraged legalism, and it seemed to me that Jesus attacked legalism more than he did drinking. I was immediately screamed at by someone on the board. He stood up and shouted, “I am not a legalist.” I told him I didn’t accuse him of being one, and gave a number of scriptural reasons for my opinion, to which he replied, “You can make scripture say anything you want it to say.” I was flummoxed. If I was not permitted to use scripture to explain my views, what could I say? I didn’t care to settle in with blows.
Since then, I’ve seen this same attitude displayed again and again. It is very odd that in churches that say they hold the Bible in high regard, they only do so when it agrees with their pre-digested opinion, but immediately throw it to the dogs when it doesn’t.
LikeLike
Fr. Ernesto,
Thanks for giving a clear presentation of the basics for Orthodox/Catholic understanding of Biblical interpretation. I more or less fell into the working paradigm you describe after I became a Christian. Though I went to Presby. SS and church when young, I abandoned the idea that I was a Christian while in college after realizing I really didn’t know what a Christian was. This led to eight years of researching religion of all kinds, visiting gurus, doing T.M. and the like. I spoke with Christians and read scripture during this time as well, but the cacophony of ideas concerning Christ and the Bible bewildered me. When I found my way back to faith while reading “Mere Christianity”, I was all too well aware of the endlessly competing voices within Christianity. I didn’t trust myself or anyone else to make sense of it all, so I turned to the history of the Church. I worked my way through denominationalism to the Reformation, to the Church Councils, and the earliest days of the Church. In time I settled on what you’ve described as being the most legitimate, least distorted, and safest way to approach Biblical and doctrinal understanding.
After all of this, modern American evangelicalism is insufferably shallow and all too thin a broth to survive on. But the paradoxical piece is that in spite of its shallowness and all the ugliness and “bad taste” inherent in it, there is an aliveness there that usually seems lacking in Catholic and Orthodox churches.
There is a mystery here that I’ve yet to grasp. Since mystery is at the center of the Orthodox understanding of God and faith, perhaps you might have a thought as to why these elements seem somehow separated? Even better, do you have ideas as to how they might be brought together and joined?
LikeLike
One of my favorite theology profs (now deceased) would say to us, “Theology is a way of reading the Bible.”
LikeLike
Haven’t even finished yet, but I had to thank you for point #2:
I preach and teach through books from time to time, and do not disagree that this is of value, but I do not see it as the only Biblically authoritative model for preaching. (This has been claimed in Southern Baptist circles for years, and the results are hardly impressive…) … Jesus didn’t do it. He told parables and taught topcially. Paul didn’t do it. He preached the Gospel using lots of citations from various places in various books …
Thank you! Where did this idea — this completely unbiblical idea — that you have to do verse by verse preaching and nothing else ever come from?
I know of a couple of pastors that I admire greatly in many ways, but this is the only way they will preach and, good it may usually be, it often gets in the way of them preaching what their congregations really need to hear on a particular Sunday. I have heard the “Way of the Master” folks sneering at “so-called topical preachers.” Where did we get this stupid idea?
Thanks for this dose of sanity.
LikeLike
I would echo DaveD’s sentiments.
There is a line in the movie “The Right Stuff” where, while watching a newsreel about Sputnik, Senator Lyndon Johnson asks Werner Von Braun “Was it their Germans who got them up there first?” And Von Braun responds, “No Senator, our Germans are better than their Germans”
I think so much theology and biblical interpretation is about who has the better Germans. Or who you think are the better Germans.
If so many smart Christians have, over 2000 years, studied every microscopic aspect of Scripture and cannot come to a consensus, what hope do I have of ever knowing which interpretation is the closest to being true? In the end, isn’t it all subjective? Truly the cry of post-modern despair.
How do you teach or preach without turning every lesson or sermon into a comparative theology course?
LikeLike
ropata, as a long-time fangirl of The Thing (since age seven), you have just demonstrated yet again that Roman Catholicism is indeed the only religion for me! 😉
LikeLike
Good post Michael.
One of the things that strikes me is that so many people believe their interpretation of any given topic/scripture but ignore any scriptures against it. Take the Rapture for example. I go to a staunchly pre-trib church. I am pretty soundly post-trib. However, for every verse I can quote to support my position I can also bring up one that supports them…and vice versa. As a result, I will not argue the Rapture with anybody. I may discuss it, ie trade scriptures, but if it starts getting riled at all I’m done.
Quite simply there’s no way to truly know which interpretation is correct.
I think this circles back around to a basic problem with American Evangelicalism. We only seem to study the verses that agree with us and skim over the rest. I want to know the truth not just be right.
DD
LikeLike
Part of the Orthodox/Catholic argument over Biblical interpretation is simply that the Early Church received from the Apostles a deposit of interpretation about the Old Testament, Jesus, and worship that provided the context within which the New Testament was to be interpreted. [They also received a deposit of worship, practice, etc. but that is not for this post.]
That is, when St. Paul says that he received what he is passing on, and insists to the Corinthians that it must be this way and no other, he is clearly telling them that not all is simply a matter of interpretation. They have freedom in the worship, but only to a point.
The same was true of the Early Church. Part of the reason the “Landmark” argument is so appealing to so many is that there is a fairly united approach to many issues in that Early Church. So, rather than say that they may have received a deposit, folks would rather argue that they fell from the great themes of the New Testament. Hmm, that is, of the New Testament as the Landmarkists interpret it.
Having said that, there were many issues on which the Early Church did not have an united stand and was content to not have an united stand. For instance, the whole Augustinian/non-Augustinian debate on the sovereignty of God, free will, etc., was never fully resolved nor did they seriously try. Pelagius was condemned, but, after that, significant freedom of belief was allowed.
That is, Holy Tradition does not give us the correct interpretation on all matters. But, it does give us the correct view/interpretation on certain matters. It provides the limits within which the Church functions. One example where all Christians do agree is that a group that functions outside the confines of the Nicene Creed is not a Christian group. In other words, we are saying that any Biblical interpretation which results in a contradiction of the Nicene Creed is plain old wrong.
Without Holy Tradition, Church history has shown that all is possible. Hermeneutics are very valuable, but can only take one so far. In fact, post-modernism does have a certain point. Words, in and of themselves, devoid of a living context, cannot be fully intepreted. The Scriptures, devoid of the living context (Holy Tradition) provided by the Early Church, can be interpreted in a plethora of mutually contradicting ways.
LikeLike
If anybody is interested in a great book about prophecy, John P. Milton’s book _Prophecy Interpreted_ is wonderful! This is not the same man as the 17th Century English author of _Paradise Lost_. This guy was a Lutheran (ELCA) and a seminary professor. Unfortunately, the book is out of print, but I found it on Amazon used and in decent shape for just a penny.
Pax Christi, y’all!
LikeLike
Chris E,
I appreciate your response to my questions. I’ll check out the Keller site.
LikeLike
This is my pet subject at the moment. I’ve just finished a semester of biblical interpretation classes at uni. Apart from a brief historical overview, much emphasis was put on historical-critical methods as the be-all-and-end-all of approaches. Running simultaneously with this class was one on Hebrew prophecy where commentaries were considered anathema because of their (highly speculative) historical-critical bias. It was all about ‘reading the text’. Add to this mix a course last year on methods of reading the Hebrew Bible which was very into more contemporary literary approaches and you might get an idea of why it’s on my mind.
Without considering the merits of each, the one thing that came through strongly was that there is no single, definitive method of interpretation. There is no ‘one meaning’ of scripture and no single method will find it even if there was.
The biggest issue is exposing people to the fact that not only is there more than one method of interpretation but that all have some validity and all can add to an enhanced understanding of scripture. It’s not a competition between them, rather each has its own value to contribute and is more or less useful depending on what you are trying to achieve.
LikeLike
I’ll try that Arturo Azurdia link on preaching again:
http://faithbyhearing.wordpress.com/2007/03/04/preachingmust-the-means-match-the-message-with-arturo-azurdia/
LikeLike
Even expository, verse-by-verse preaching, done by fallen men, can ignore hard (whether hard to accept, or hard to understand) truths. However, I do believe that in our time, with our having the Old and New Testaments, and with the canon being closed, this sort of preaching is generally the most “Biblical” kind, in the sense that, done faithfully, consistently, and honestly, it will literally expose a congregation to the whole counsel of God’s word.
As for the *Biblically derived* argument for expository preaching, D.A. Carson has some good input in his recent “9 Marks” interview here: http://media.9marks.org/2008/11/25/observing-evangelicalism-with-don-carson/
Also, Arturo Azurdia gives a very good talk on preaching and the question of “Must the means match the message?” here: here:http://faithbyhearing.wordpress.com/2007/03/04/preachingmust-the-means-match-the-message-with-arturo-azurdia/
Any “expository” sermon in a Christian church which does not point explicitly to Christ and the Gospel is not a Christian sermon. Period. Expository sermons must also be *evangelistic* sermons, in order to be truly *healthy* expository sermons.
LikeLike
I agree with the commenter above who says that small groups can be a very poor place to study the Bible. The best way around this is to pick your material very judiciously. The book of Proverbs – for instance – is not as usefully studied in a small group as a Gospel – because it’s more prone to ending up being understood as some form of works rightheousness. Also, pick good study guides – Matthias Media’s stuff is very good, some others less so.
Secondly, download and listen to “Preaching Christ in a Postmodern World” by Ed Clowney and Tim Keller. It’s free and will you hours of good thought provoking teaching. It has ideas on both contextualisation and gospel-centeredness, whilst being careful to keep both separate.
Few useful thoughts I picked up:
– When working out the divisions of scripture you’ll teach/preach over, think about your audience. They might not be ready for a verse by verse exposition of Romans. It might be better to pick out a few concepts and teach them over a couple of weeks. Preaching Esther a verse at a time might be overkill – there are probably not that many useful divisions in the story.
– Try to think about the whole counsel of God, Dr Keller said that he’s influenced partially by themes of the liturgical year, though he’ll bring those themes out through a variety of scripture so that his congregation moves through the bible over time.
– Try to think about how many sermons/studies you have left to do to a particular group. How can you best use your time.
There’s lots of other stuff in there, including material on how to do gospel centered application from the various types of Biblical genre.
LikeLike
Thanks for the thoughts imonk. One thing Scot McKnight brings out in his new book The Blue Parakeet is that we should first and foremost approach the Bible as story. Sure, it has many genres of literature, it has commands, its has prophecy, etc, etc. But we must keep it in the context of the larger redemption story.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on allegorizing Scripture or taking one verse or phrase from the Scripture to make a point? I believe the NT writers did it: Galatians 4:21-31 (allegory) and 1 Timothy 5:17-18 (using a verse somewhat ‘out of context’).
So, can one take the phrase, ‘I will make a way,’ from Isaiah 43:19 and proclaim how God is one who makes a way even in the impossible situations, while also referring to the birth of Isaac to a 100-year old man, Romans 4:16-21, Hebrews 11:1-3, and Matthew 19:26?
LikeLike
I agree with Myrddin that first and foremost the Scriptures should be treated simply as literature and as much as possible be allowed to define itself. While the contents of Scripture are of greater importance that other books, it is still the same method of communication.
It seems like many leaps made during interpretation would never be made in another piece of literature in the same genre.
LikeLike
Very helpful! What book would you recommend on bib. authority and the convoluted and hot-button “I” issue?
LikeLike
I found How to read the Bible for all its worth by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart to be very useful for someone who is just starting out in their understanding of the topic. Very much written with no preconceptions of what their reader may or may not know.
LikeLike
Our passage for today will be Matthew 16:18:
κἀγὼ Î´ÎµÌ ÏƒÎ¿Î¹ λεÌγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ ΠεÌÏ„Ïος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταυÌτῃ τῇ πεÌÏ„Ïᾳ οἰκοδομηÌσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησιÌαν, καὶ πυÌλαι ἅδου οὐ κατισχυÌσουσιν αὐτῆς.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (KJV – the Bible Jesus read)
The Message translation makes this perfectly clear, “And now I’m going to tell you who you are, really are. You are Peter, a rock.†Not like a rock but literally, “you are, really… a rock.†Therefore, as any good literal Bible reader would agree, Pope Peter I would have looked like this.
LikeLike
Some of the issues you raised are why I am reticent to do Bible studies in the small group I lead. I find that people who have been Christians for a time simply use Bible studies to show off what they think they know, whereas those “less knowledgeable” tend to grow in their feelings of inadequacy. Further, small groups seem a poor venue for the kind of earth moving that genuine Bible study entails. Consequently I tend to choose books that get at larger theological issues and that provide a framework for orthodox thinking so that scripture is not quite so free floating and open to manipulation.
As there are no avenues in our church to learn scripture, I’ve also begun discipling in groups of three to four people. These numbers include the discipler.
Do you feel the books you have suggested would be a valuable addition in a discipling format such as I’ve outlined? What about small group? Are there effective ways of doing Bible study that would bypass the issues I’ve mentioned?
LikeLike
Both good books. I would say that hermeneutical ability and exegetical skill are not identical, but obviously related.
LikeLike
I don’t know what your thoughts are iMonk, but an influential book on my exegetical skill was D.A. Carson’s “Exegetical Fallacies.” For awhile it made me a cynic as I listened to fallacy after fallacy from the pulpit at my church, but personally it really helped my exegetical skill and ability to communicate the text.
LikeLike
I would also recommend understanding the Bible as literature – a carefully and sometimes poetically constructed story with interpenetrating themes, motifs, storylines, symbols, etc.
A good primer for most people might be something like Leland Ryken’s How to Read the Bible as Literature. It’s accessible and might open up a lot for people as well.
LikeLike
Very, Very, Well said. The objections you will get, and you will get them, must be filtered through the single verse which continually guides my interpretation, teaching, preaching and meditation.
1Corinthians 8:2 And if any man thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know.
which of course follows that annoying verse about love and knowledge…
What an Awesome God!!
For most of us I am convinced the first thing we hear from the throne in heaven wil be “You believed WHAT!?!?! Where did you get THAT from?”
LikeLike