click on image to enlarge

Notice the three sections of the chart. There are three audiences that everyone needs to recognize in the process of interpreting the Bible. In the bottom left, you have the “ancient audience.” This represents the original audience and the original author. The top portion represents the “timeless audience” which transcends the time and the culture of the original situation. It is that which applies to all people of all places of all times, without regard to cultural and historical issues. Finally, we have the “contemporary audience” in the bottom right. This represents the audience of today. Here we will find application of the Bible with regard to our time, culture, and circumstances.

In Biblical interpretation, it is of extreme importance that one goes in the order of the chart. The goal is to find out what the Bible meant, what it means, and how it applies to us. So many people start with the third step and fail miserably in understanding God’s word. Others start with step number two, attempting to force their own theology on the text. It is important that all steps are covered to ensure interpretive fidelity.

Step one: Exegetical Statement

What did it mean then?

The first step is the most important. Here the goal is to ascertain the original intent of the writing. It is very important that one enters into the world of the author and the audience. Sometimes this will be easy, sometimes it will be very difficult, requiring quite a bit of study.

Here are the different issues that you must consider:

Historical issues: There will be historical circumstances that will aid in your understanding of the text. Here, you will ask questions of “occasion.” Who is the original author? Who is the original audience? What purpose did the writing have? When Moses wrote the Pentateuch, what was his occasion or purpose? Was it to give an exhaustive history of the world to everyone or to prepare the Israelite religious community to exist in a theocratic society under Yahweh? When Paul wrote his letter to the Corinthians, what was his purpose? Knowing that in 2 Corinthians he was writing to defend his apostleship as other false apostles were opposing him is essential to understanding every verse. As well, what was Paul’s disposition toward the Galatians when he wrote to them? Was it to commend, condemn, or correct? The occasion will determine so much of our understanding.

Grammatical issues: It is important to understand that the Bible was written in a different language. The New Testament was written in Greek. Not only that, but it was a particular kind of Greek called “Koine.” Most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew (small portions in Aramaic). Naturally, other languages will have characteristics that communicate well in the original tongue but can get lost in translation. Greek, for example, works off inflections (word endings) which determine their part of speech. Word placement can add emphasis. These types of things are often hard to translate. I am not saying that everyone needs to be a Greek and a Hebrew scholar to understand the Bible, only that there are grammatical issues that can nuance our understanding of the passage. A good commentary will normally bring these to recognition.

Contextual issues: Every book was written for a purpose. The smallest component of a writing is a letter. We don’t take each letter in isolation, but understand that with a group of letters, it makes a word. But we don’t take the word in isolation, understanding that a group of words makes a sentence. And we don’t take sentences in isolation, understanding that a group of sentences makes a paragraph. But we don’t stop there. Each paragraph either represents or is a part of a larger whole that we call a “pericope.” The pericope is the basic argument or story that is being told. The story of David and Goliath is a pericope of many paragraphs. As well, Christ’s parables make up individual pericopes. Finally, the pericopes are smaller parts of the entire book. The purpose of the book will shape the context in which each pericope should be interpreted.

Here is how it looks:

click on image to enlarge

Literary issues: We must remember that there is no such thing as a type of literature called “Bible” or “Scripture.” The Bible is made up of many books from many different types of literature called “genres.” Just like in your everyday life, you encounter many genres and know almost instinctively that they follow different rules of understanding. You have fiction novels, newspaper editorials, commercials, television dramas, academic textbooks, and tickers at the bottom of the news stations. All of these need to be understood and interpreted according to the rules of the genre. In the Bible, we have narratives, histories, parables, apocalyptic prophecies, personal letters, public letters, songs, proverbs, and many others. Each of these are to be interpreted according to the rules of the genre. Just because they are in the Bible does not mean that the rules change. For example, a proverb is a common type of literature that is found in the Bible, but also in many other cultures. A proverb is a statement of general truth or wisdom that does not necessarily apply in every situation. A proverb is not a promise. If it is in the Bible, it is still not a promise. As well, theological histories are just that—theological. Being in the Bible does not turn it into a technically precise and exhaustive history that is supposed to answer every question that we have. We must determine the type of literature we are dealing with if we are to understand it.

Click on image to enlarge

Step two: Theological Statement

What does it mean for all people of all places of all times?

Here is where you are moving from what was being said to what is always being said; from was being taught to what is always being taught; from what the (original) author was saying to his audience to what the Author (God) is always saying to all people. The audience here is timeless and universal. You are extracting the timeless principles for all people, of all places, of all times.

Principle: A general truth that that applies universally. A doctrine. A fundamental law. The underlying reality. The essence of the action. The reason for the norm.

Sometimes it is very easy to find the principle as there is no cultural baggage to extract or interpret. Other times it can be very difficult. As well, there are not always principles to universalize. More often than not, the text will only be communicating what was done without any mandate to follow the example. An easy illustration of this is when Paul told Timothy to bring him his cloak (coat) he left in Troas (2 Tim 4:13). This is not to be universalized in some way where Christians are supposed to be bringing people coats, clothes, or anything else to warm themselves with. It is simply what Paul needed in his time and we must allow it to be limited to such. Therefore, you much distinguish between what is prescribed and what is merely described.

On the other hand, we also have material that is already in its principlized form. For example, when the author of Hebrews says that Jesus Christ has said that “he will never leave you or forsake you” (Heb. 13:5), in the context, this is already a principle. In other words, there is no reason to think that he is only saying this to the recipients of the book in the sixties, but there is every reason to believe that this refers to all Christians of all times. We must simply ask if the passage applies universally or locally.

One way to determine this is to follow the “analogy of Scripture” as you can see on the original chart. Here you are to ask if the Bible, in other places, confirms, repeals, or denies the principle or action. For example, much of the Law in the Old Testament does not find any application to us today, either theologically or in practice. Why? Because Christ fulfilled the law in many ways. The New Testament explicitly tells us that we are not under the law. Therefore, when it comes to animal sacrifices, we no longer need to practice this in any way. Christ’s sacrifice fulfilled this law.

At other times, principles will not be overshadowed by a fulfillment and even, often be confirmed in multiple places elsewhere. This lets us know that that the principle is universal and not limited to a particular moment in redemptive history. For example, the command not to commit adultery is never repealed and is confirmed in many other places. This is the analogy of Scripture.

Once a solid interpretation has been made, one must look for reinforcement for the principle in other places. These places should never be thought of as more authoritative than Scripture itself, but as an interpretive aid in responsibly coming to a conclusion. Here are the four places to look:

1. Reason: Is the interpretation reasonable? Does it make sense? I am not talking here in a subjective sense, but in a very formal sense. If your interpretation directly conflicts with other known information then the filter of reason will drive you back to Scripture to reassess your conclusion. Truth cannot contradict itself. The filter of reason will provide a valuable avenue of assessment concerning your interpretation.

2. Tradition: What do others say about it? Here, you will be dipping into the well of the interpretive community asking for help. If we believe that the Holy Spirit is in all Christians, we hope to find aid from the advice of the Spirit led community. Not only are you to look to contemporary scholars and theologians, but also to the history of the Church. What has the church said about this passage/issue throughout time. If you come to a different conclusion than the historic body of Christ, it is a good sign that you have taken a wrong interpretive turn somewhere. Though this is not always the case.

3. Experience: Don’t be surprised here. Albeit fallible, our experience is a very important interpretive guide. If your interpretation militates against your experience, this could be a sign that your interpretation is wrong. For example, when we interpret Christ in the upper room discourse concerning prayer “in his name,” we could get the idea that we can ask for anything in his name and expect to receive it. “Please give me a new 2010 Camaro, in Jesus’ name.” “Please heal my mother, in Jesus’ name.” “Please remove this depression, in Jesus’ name.”  Been there done that. We all have. When the magic formula does not work in our experience, we return to the Scripture to search for other interpretive options. As well, we should. God expects and requires the analogy of experience in our interpretation of Scripture. The Bible is impossible to understand without an assumption of experience. While experience can lead us wrong and we don’t believe that it can contradict rightly interpreted Scripture, it can help us to figure out how to rightly interpret Scripture.

4. Emotion: Like with experience, we must be very careful here. Our emotions can be extremely important and also extremely misleading. First, they are important by analogy. When we read about God’s love, in order for us to understand this love, we are expected to have had some degree of the emotion ourselves. For us to know what “the peace that passes understanding” is, we have to have experienced some sort of peace in our lives. If we have not,  our understanding is going to be two-dimensional. Second, our emotions can direct us to the right understanding. We are told that the Holy Spirit convicts us of the truth. This internal conviction must be a valid source of information. If we feel that an interpretation of a passage is wrong because it does not seem to be emotionally satisfying, this could be an indication that it is indeed wrong. Yet, we must be careful here as our emotions are guided by many other sinful elements that can mislead us to the wrong interpretation as well. Nevertheless, it is a part of the theological process to recognize the part our emotions play in our understanding of the Scripture, both good and bad. If we deny them and act as if they have no part to play, we are only fooling ourselves.

Extraction of the Principles

Once your interpretation has been filtered through these things and affirmed, the cultural baggage must be completely extracted. Again, this involves a separation of the principles from the way in which these principles are applied in various contexts. The danger of skipping step two is tremendous. Skipping this step can make the Bible irrelevant as people fail to realize that there were often cultural issues that determine the application of the principle. These cultural issues are not timeless and will find little relevance in other places. For example, Paul tells the Romans to “greet each other with a holy kiss.” While the principle of showing affection transcends culture, if you don’t extract that principle and apply it properly in your context, you might find yourself in a heap of trouble as you attempt to kiss someone who will take it the wrong way. Interpretation: the act of greeting people with a kiss will not be an acceptable way of showing affection in some cultures. You can just shake my hand. You cannot skip step two.

Another example: Paul speaks of the necessity of women’s head coverings to the Corinthians. What we must ask ourselves is whether or not women wearing head coverings is an eternal requirement of God or if there is some underlying principle that it represents. When I was at church last week, most of the women there were not wearing hats or any sort of covering at all. Does this mean that the women of this church do not believe or submit to the Scriptures? Doing a historical study of this issue reveals that head coverings, in this culture (as well as many today), probably represents both a women’s submission to their husbands and their sexual modesty. In that culture, a woman’s hair was a representative and revelation of her beauty. Failing to wear a head covering was sexually provocative in this culture. This has implications toward the marital bonds and fidelity. However, it is modesty and fidelity that is at issue, not simply the wearing of a hat. In this case, extracting the timeless principle means that the cultural baggage of expression—the hat—gets discarded so that the real issue can come into focus.

We must do our best to distinguish that which is time-bound from that which is timeless. Then, and only then, are we prepared for step three.

Step three: Homeletical Statement

How does it apply to me?

Finally, we are ready to apply the Scriptures to the 21st century. Having performed the first two steps, we now have all that is needed to contextualize the principles into our own situation. Having worked the passage down to its basic principles, we must reengage the principles, properly applying our own culture and context.

For example, continuing with the head covering illustration, we must take the basic timeless principle and apply it to ourselves. In this case, here in 21st century Norman, Oklahoma, head coverings or hats have no relevance toward modesty. The way to be sexually promiscuous today would involve many things including the length of skirts and the height of tops. The principle of modesty still applies, just in other ways.

Again, this only applies to the materials that have made it through the process in tact. Historical details, incidentals, and descriptive material will never find this type of immediate and practical application. Like with so much of the Scripture, the primary application will be to believe it. I believe that God delivered the Israelites from bondage. It is a historical event that expresses God’s faithfulness to his promises. Broadly speaking, I can use this as an illustrative of God’s faithfulness to his promises. But there is no reason for me to extract a timeless principle and say that God will deliver all people from all their pain in this life and then apply it to my immediate situation saying God will deliver me from these difficulties that I am going through. It is only the timeless principles that qualify for specific timely application.

God has promised a lot of things. God has not promised a lot of things. So many times I want to read into the Scriptures promises that he has never made. I remember my mother did this before my sister Angie died. She read one of the Psalms about God’s deliverance and directly applied it to Angie’s depression and her physical deliverance. It destroyed her when Angie died. She thought God had failed her.

It is so important for us to follow this process properly and faithfully. For if we properly interpret the Scriptures consistently, we will be less prone toward discouragement, disillusionment, and distancing ourselves from God. The Bible is so rich and full of application and information, but is not a magic book or a wax nose. It means what it means. Proper biblical interpretation through following the steps outlined above will serve us well.

That is how to study the Bible in a nutshell.Similar Posts:

• Bible Interpretation In a Nutshell
• Should I Go Out to Dinner Tonight? Let’s See What the Bible Says
• "The Bible Says it, therefore it's True" . . . And Other Stupid Statements
• The Exegetical Process: What Does it Mean to You?
• You Talking To Me?: Personalizing Biblical Narrative and Prophetic Discourse

I have found one of the biggest differences between good Bible reading and Bible reading that is disjointed or otherwise skews what is being communicated, is how we understand the relationship between what is transpiring through the Bible’s narrative vs what we read as directed towards us.   It is understanding what is descriptive vs what is prescriptive.  In fact, I would include prophetic discourse in that as well.  Our understanding of how these two are related will depend, in large part on  instruction and training we receive with respect to how to understand each of the Bible’s 66 books.  This instruction would include understanding that each author is communicating to a particular audience, addressing particular situations or norms, what type of book it is (narrative, wisdom, letters), and how it correlates into God’s overarching narrative in salvation history.

Through my own personal experience and observation of many, there is an inverse relationship between the level of instruction and the tendency to personalize passages as being directed towards us.  What do I mean by that?  I have observed that without instruction, there is a tendency to read the Bible as if everything is being communicated directly to us.  I did just that for many years, especially related to the prophetic books and using that as an indicator of what God was communicating to me personally.  With a personalized focus, there will also the tendency to expect  what transpired through the pages of narrative to be replicated today, especially if it is believed as direct communication.

I believe it is of utmost importance for every Christian to understand how to read their bible, which starts from understanding what it is and how it was put together.  As long as we use language like “manual for living”, it will be nothing more than a self-help guide so that we can stay on track with our Christian life and abide by Christian living principles.  But I believe that is a misrepresentation of God’s self-revelation, which displayed throughout all 66 books.  And this must be considered according to the trajectory that is being laid out through the bible’s narrative.

Don’t get me wrong, there is instruction in there for us, particularly in the New Testament letters.  These were written to situations that were going on the Church, general exhortations to the Church and/or warnings and exhortations to individuals.  Even with the letters, they were addressing an historical and cultural reality that must be taken into consideration.  There are also general principles to glean from how God relates to his people.  The wisdom literature (Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiates, Job)  provides timeless principles as well, although we must be aware of historic and cultural references.

As Christians, we want to understand what God is communicating to us through the pages of scripture.  If we start with the premise that He is communicating Himself as He intersected with human history, this will temper how much we understand is being directed to us personally vs what He is doing in the course of salvation history.  Thus, when an author is addressing a particular situation, or audience or providing prophetic discourse, it must be seen as what God is doing in that particular setting in relation to what he is doing overall.  In that discourse, there will be language and concepts used in a way that the original audience would understand.

But specifically when it comes to bible narrative, it is important to understand that the authors are explaining what happened.  And for that, I think a brief sketch is in order.  As the pages of the biblical narrative unfold, we see God’s intentional actions towards his creation, His calling out of a people to Himself,  His promise to them, His instruction to them and provision for their consecration to Him. This is why the first five books are classified as the Pentateuch, meaning Law.

Then the narrative continues.  They enter the land that was promised but reject God’s leadership.  They eventually get a king and a promise of eternal kingship.  But the earthly kings, generally did not do what was right and this eventually leads to the seemingly end of God’s promises.  Enter the prophets who spoke as direct communication from God to His people.   It is significant to note that the prophets as God’s spokespeople (see Hebrews 1:1), were addressing the situation that was going on with Israel.  That has to be at the forefront when we read the prophets.  In that, there is a prophetic foretelling of God’s promises and correction, especially related to the unveiling of His Son.

Thus, there must be a Christo-centric focus to how we read narrative.  The gospels are explaining of Christ’s fulfillment of the law and prophets (Matthew 5:17) and how he was establishing something new.  What is explained in the narratives must be reconciled to what God had accomplished and promised throughout the Old Testament narrative.   How he addresses the religious leaders and cultural norms is not necessarily a blanket prescription for us, though as Christ followers we do want to pay attention to how he deals with people and what exactly he is teaching.  He is revealing God to us, and thus we see the heart of God in His actions.  He is addressing cultural expectations and norms while all the while gradually unveiling how He has come with respect to God’s promises and what He has come to establish.

He calls eyewitnesses so that they can teach others what this all means for them.  Thus, right before his ascension, he tells these eyewitnesses what the must do – be his witnesses (Acts 1:8).  So the book of Acts is explaining what happened with the establishment of the Church, the shift from an external manifestation of God’s glory to the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit – Christ in us the hope of glory (Colossians 1:27).  We see the conflict between the old establishment and the new inclusion of Gentiles as the people of God, even though this had been promised through the Abrahamic covenant.   Acts explains how all this unfolded, as thus the transition from a Jewish orientation towards the establishment of churches in the Gentile world, replete with the cultural conflicts that church faced.

So based on this brief sketch, I wanted to cite some examples of passages that have been used as a personally directed reference but not  rightly correlated with what is going on in the biblical text.   It should demonstrate the caution we should use when examining what God was doing then vs. what is directed for us now as a direct communication or prescription for our Christian life.

Jeremiah 29:11 – “For I know the plans that I have for you, declares the Lord, plans to prosper you and not harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”

What is going on?  The Israelites have been taken into Babylonian captivity.  They were removed from the land that God had promised them, the kingship was gone and all seemed lost.  Jeremiah is sent to them to remind them that God was not done with them yet according to what He had promised them.  Thus, in vs 14 He indicates “I will bring you back from captivity.  I will gather you from all the nations and places where I have banished you.”  This is the plan God was referring to and if you keep reading he talks about some unfavorable plans he has for them as well.  While I don’t think it is wrong to say that God has plans for us, this verse is referencing a particular promise made that have nothing to do with us.

John 14:26 - “but the helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.”

 What’s going on?  Jesus has gathered the apostles one last time to give them instructions before His sacrificial death, resurrection and departure.  They had learned of the Father’s plan related to the Son, from Jesus directly.  Now Jesus is bringing in the force of God’s Trinitarian outworking to let them know that what they have learned from him directly, the Holy Spirit will bring that back to their attention as they go out to make disciples (Matthew 28:18-20) and be his witnesses (Acts 1:4-8).  Personalizing indicates that the Holy Spirit will make us remember things.  Extreme examples including espousing a lack of preparation for a test or sermon or that we don’t need teachers because the Holy Spirit will give us the information.  But that is not what this verse is referencing.

Genesis 8:22 – “As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter,  day and night will never cease.”

What is going on?  God is making a promise after the flood that he will never destroy life again.  He is indicating that life will continue to regenerate itself and there will always be seasons.   This is not a principle to be used for our personal harvest.  Unfortunately, there has been a philosophy of sowing and reaping that has been built around this one passage that I think is dishonest to what is being communicated and should probably do that in a separate post.

These are just a few examples and I could cite many more, such as 2 Chronicles 7:14.  Personalizing is bound to happen when we lift a verse out of its original context.   This is why it is really important to understand the situation the narrative is addressing before making applications to what it means for us personally.  A couple of links that I highly recommend.

Greg Koukl’s article Never Read a Bible Verse

Michael Patton’s article Bible Interpretation in a Nutshell

 Similar Posts:

• If God Has Stopped Speaking Then Why Do I Still Hear Him?
• Does the Holy Spirit Interpret the Bible?
• Yes, We Should Follow ‘Man’…But ‘Man’ With Understanding
• Some Thoughts on Biblical Convictions and Being Biblical
• The Problem with Vision

• How to Study the Bible in a Nutshell
• Credo Clip: Is the Bible Reliable?
• Credo Clip: What Books Belong in the Bible?
• It Does Not Matter What the Bible Means to You
• Should I Go Out to Dinner Tonight? Let’s See What the Bible Says

But his problem was clear. He thought that just because something was in the Bible that something was true, good, and representative of God’s will. What I had to convince him of was that if it is in the Bible, it is not necessarily true.

We follow the Bible in what it teaches, but not everything it records is intended to be teaching in the proper sense. Our goal as Christians is to be good interpreters of the Bible, being able to discern when something is being taught or when something is being told. This way we don’t get flustered, and find ourselves in the odd place of trying to defend the morality of adultery, incest, or child sacrifice (you know, that crazy story of Jephthah in Judges 11:30-39?).

Here are five ways that we can mistakenly believe that the Bible is teaching truth or principles when it is not.

1. Some parts of the Bible are incidental to the bigger picture, not intending to teach any principle.

Be careful that you don’t try to find a principle in every passage. Not every verse or chapter of the Bible has an “application” in the traditional sense. For example, the chronologies of Matthew and Luke are not intending to teach a principle in and of themselves. They are simply attempting to give necessary background material so that Christ as the Messiah can be substantiated. (And don’t get me started on the prayer of Jabez!)

2. You have to distinguish between prescriptive and descriptive passages.

This is related to the previous and is especially relevant to narrative books such as Acts. We must be very careful with narratives since their primary purpose is to tell a story that is relevant to the bigger picture of redemption, not to give us prescriptive commands to live by. For example, in Acts chapter 1 we are told that the Apostles “cast lots” to discover who God wanted to replace Judas among the twelve. This is not giving principles on how to elect a pastor! It is simply saying this is what happened, nothing more, nothing less.

Another example (although not narrative) appears in Paul’s second letter to Timothy. Paul tells Timothy to “bring him his cloak” (2 Tim 4:13). There is no abiding theological principle saying that Christians are to bring people coats! It is simply teaching us that Paul asked Timothy to bring him his cloak. Paul was cold! Nothing profound.

Throw into this mix the story of Lot, his daughters and Jephthah’s sacrifice of his daughter. The Bible was giving an account of man’s depravity, not looking at these events with approval.

3. Different types of literature have different types of truth.

You cannot interpret a Psalm the same way you do a Proverb. And you can’t interpret a Proverb the same you you do an epistle (letter). And you can’t interpret an epistle the same way you do apocalyptic material. They all follow different rules. And the truths that they communicate will be understood according to those rules. For example, a Proverb is a general truth of wisdom that does not necessarily apply or hold in every situation. Just because the Bible has proverbs does not mean that we are to sanctify the way we interpret the proverb. In other words, just because it is in the Bible does not mean that it is a truth that does necessarily apply in every situation. Psalms are songs and need to be understood under such imagery. Epistles are letters and need to be understood under the “rules” that apply to a letter. And then there is Ecclesiastes…don’t get me started there!

4. Sometimes the author does not want you to take him literally.

Authors can exaggerate, speak candidly, be sarcastic, or be in bad moods. This will effect the way we are to interpret them. This will also effect the “truth” that they are teaching. For example, Paul says that “all Cretans are liars” (Tit. 1:12). Does this mean, since it is in the Bible, that at the time Paul wrote this every individual who lived in Crete continually lied? No. We use exaggeration as rhetoric all the time. We don’t intend people to take us literally.

Another example is in Paul’s first letter to Timothy. He says about false teachers: “If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing” (1Ti 6:3-4). The Greek word used for “nothing” is meden. It means “no thing” or “nothing.” (Wow!) Does this mean that in order to be faithful to the truthfulness of Scripture, we have to take Paul literally here? Does this mean that the false teachers did not understand what 2+2 is? Of course not. The meden is limited to what Paul is talking about. It is a rhetorical overstatement—hyperbole—that Paul uses for effect. The false teachers did not understand anything with regard to the doctrines which they were teaching.

The Bible can record using figurative language. While it is true that God, in his essence, does not have eyes (though he can see better than anyone), anthropomorphic language is very common in the Bible.

5. Sometimes the Bible records falsehood.

I was at a website the other day that had a daily Scripture at the top of the page. This particular day it had Matt. 4:9 “All of this I will give to you if you will worship me.” Out of context, that looks fine. God will give us many blessings if we worship him. The problem is that this is a quotation from Satan when he tempted Christ! This verse is in the Bible, but it is not true. We need to be careful that we are mindful of who is talking, when, and how their words are to be understood. I hear people quoting Job’s friends all the time as evidence for certain characteristics of God. But Job’s friends are not presented in a positive light. Some of what they say is true, but much is wrong—even if it is in the Bible.

When interpreted correctly, I believe that the Bible always speaks the truth. However, when proper hermeneutics (bible study methods) are not used, the Bible does not always speak the true. If the Bible says it, this simply means that God wanted whatever it says to be included. We believe that the Bible is true in whatever it teaches, but whatever it says is not always meant to teach in the way we often assume. Be careful with God’s word. It is the most wonderful book in the world, but it is also the most dangerous.Similar Posts:

• "The Bible Says it, therefore it's True" . . . And Other Stupid Statements
• Bible Interpretation In a Nutshell
• How to Study the Bible in a Nutshell
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Four – What Did John Believe?
• Case Studies in Inerrancy: A New P&P Series

Common Errors in the Word Study Process

Anachronistic Fallacies

• Granting more interpretive weight to the etymology of a word than is appropriate (etymological or root fallacy)
• Assuming that a word in the text takes on a meaning that was not yet present in the time of the author.
• Supplying a word’s meaning with a definition that preceded the author but that had fallen out of popular usage by the time of the author (semantic obsolescence fallacy)

Definitional Fallacies

• Making an appeal to an unknown or unlikely meaning of a word, due to either the interpreter’s theological presuppositions or reliance on out-of-date or idiosyncratic secondary literature
• Assuming that a word carries several or all of its possible meaning in each of its appearances when in fact the most probable meaning of any word is that which contributes the least amount of new information to the overall context (illegitimate totality transfer)
• Assuming that if a word in the New Testament means something in the majority of its appearances, it must also take on that meaning in any context in Scripture where it appears (prescriptive fallacy)

Similar Posts:

• Seven Common Fallacies of Biblical Interpretation
• Should I Go Out to Dinner Tonight? Let’s See What the Bible Says
• Good Exegesis Does not Always Produce Good Theology
• The Exegetical Process: What Does it Mean to You?
• Bible Interpretation In a Nutshell

First, let me lay some groundwork.

Exegesis is a term used to describe the process of taking meaning “out of” the text. When we exegete Scripture, the implication is that we are using a method of hermeneutic that values understanding the authorial intent of the passage in order to derive its true meaning (often called “authorial intent hermeneutic” or “historical-grammatical interpretation”). In other words, exegesis attempts to understand the meaning of the text on its own terms. To properly exegete Scripture we must understand many things about the individual book. Among other things, we must seek to understand the purpose for the writing (the occasion), the audience, the cultural and historic backgrounds, linguistic issues such as syntax, word usage, and contextual boundaries, type of literature (genre), and attitude and personality of the author. All of these factors come into play with a good exegete. There is nothing more important, as we will see, than having good exegesis. God does not speak to man outside of the vital role represented by the human author. As Kevin Vanhoozer states in The Dictionary of the Theological Interpretation of the Bible, “We may legitimately presume that the divine intention corresponds to the human intention unless there is good reason—given the nature of God or the broader canonical context—to think otherwise” (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005, 329).

Having said that, it is important to realize that good exegesis does not automatically produce good theology.

But before I go there, let me further elaborate on some of the differences between exegesis and theology. I also need to introduce a third: pastoral or practical studies. You may have seen me write on this before.

Three types of Christian scholarship:

1. Exegetes (study) - Level one studies 

original research; learning; data; facts

 These are the type of people who are continually doing research. They primarily involve themselves in first hand resources. In biblical studies, they are concerned with original language, backgrounds, historical criticism, and textual issues. They are often (though not always) very timid to take theological stands due to their realization of the complexities of the issues involved. Because of this, they are sometimes accused of “academic agnosticism.” They are very precise thinkers and normally find it difficult to teach because they are always qualifying everything.  More often than not they limit their studies to very particular areas.

They find all the pieces of the puzzle.

Viewpoint: TREES

• Why they might dislike theologians: “They often lack the precise information and are sloppy with the facts.”
• Why they need theologians: To process the data and come to conclusions from a broader understanding.
• Possible problems with exegetes: Truth often dies the death of a thousand qualifications. They can lack common sense. Their precise studies can blind them to the obvious.

2. Theologian/Philosopher (think) – Level two studies

systematize; reflect; theories

 Theologians are the thinkers. They are not so much concerned about researching and discovering original data, but with the bigger picture of what the data means and exploring original ideas. They spend their time reflecting on issues and coming to conclusions about truth. They systematize the data in order that creeds can be reasoned, established, and defended. They are much broader in their thinking and studies, having to be familiar with many areas of scholarship in order to provide a systematic understanding of the complete truth. They are concerned with biblical studies, history, philosophy, psychology, sociology, logic, and the like.

They put the puzzle together.

Viewpoint: FOREST

• Why they might dislike exegetes: “They lack wisdom.”
• Why they might dislike pastoral-types: “They compromise the truth for acceptance.”
• Why they need exegetes: To provide accurate data from which to derive their conclusions.
• Why they need pastoral-types: To test the truth in the real world.
• Possible problems with theologians: They can be traditionalistic, being concerned with their preconceptions more than the truth. Can be rash about coming to conclusions without having done sufficient homework.

3. Pastoral/Missional (apply) – Level three studies

integrate; contextualize; communication

 These are concerned with how to distribute the information to others. They are focused on how the information can be applied to real life. They spend their time thinking about church, mission, and strategies. They are didactically (teaching) purposed. They are discerning as to what applies, when and where. They are more hands-on with the real world which gives them a great understanding of whether or not the truth , when tested, actually works. This is often the determining factor of the reality of our faith.

Pastoral types display the puzzle.

Viewpoint: TREES

• Why they might dislike exegetes and theologians: “They are ivory tower scholars who cannot relate to the real world.”
• Possible problems with pastors-type: Methodology can take priority over the truth. They spend so much time thinking about programs and contextualization, they can compromise the information in favor of acceptance.

While most of us will see ourselves more in one than the others (I find myself in 2), we need to be careful. Of course we need to recognize the dangers and listen to the critique of the others, but more than that, we need to be continually committed to finding balance. Our gifts and calling are going to clearly drive us to one more than the others so I am not saying neglect one to brush up on the others. But I am saying that if you neglect the others, it will make you less proficient in the one. I have seen sloppy theologians. I have been a sloppy theologian. I have seen exegetes who seem to continually miss the obvious. I have seen pastoral-types compromise. All I am saying is that you need to be aware of where you stand and committed to excellence by being appreciative of all three.

Exegesis without Theology

Exegesis deals primarily with temporal meaning, theology, on the other hand, deals with eternal implications. Exegesis provides what it meant then, theology provides what it means for all time. Exegesis shows what an individual author had to say in the context in which he was writing, theology synthesizes this with the rest of Scripture attempting to understand what God was saying in relation to the completed revelation. In other words, exegesis looks at the trees, theology looks at the forest.

Evangelicals believe in what is called the dual authorship of Scripture, believing that the Bible is the product of God (being theopneustos “God-breathed” 2 Tim. 3:16) who fully utilized man in all ways to produce an inspired text. While this utilization of man makes solid exegesis indispensable for theology, we cannot get so caught up in temporal exegesis that we do not see this in relation to the coherent whole. If God is the ultimate author of Scripture, there must be an underlying coherent purpose in which the text lies. This assumption of coherence leads one to the next steps in interpretation.

The first is the discovery of the broader theological teaching in which the present passage fits in the progress of revelation. This is often described as the “canonical context.” It asks the question “How much did the individual author know at the time of his writing and how does this help to understand the teaching at hand?” This assumes that not all authors have complete revelation. In other words, some authors knew more about God’s ultimate purpose than others. No one would disagree that Paul had a greater understanding of, for example, the Gospel, the grace of God, nature of the Trinity, and the universal sinfulness of man than did Moses who wrote 2500 years earlier or Abraham who lived 4500 years earlier. This does no injustice to the teachings of Moses or Abraham, it simply recognizes that prophets, while inspired, were not omniscient. They simply had the information that was necessary for their part in the revelatory whole. As the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy states: “We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.” The Bible is true without conveying “omniscience” upon the individual authors. Therefore, when we exegete a particular author, we must understand that he can provide us with a teaching that is true and limited at the same time. Its truth adds to the fuller truth of that which is revealed elsewhere in the canon. This canonical approach to interpretation can be neglected by well intentioned exegetes who may have the tendency to focus only on the value of the immediate argument or teaching at hand, and thereby commit the coherence fallacy.

Another important hermeneutical concept that can be neglected by exegetes is called the analogy of Scripture. Simply put the analogy of Scripture means “the Scripture interprets Scripture.” It is often used synonymously with the canonical approach concept, but is distinct in that it is a way in which the canonical approach is accomplished. The canonical approach deals with a hermeneutical philosophy that the different books of Scripture fall somewhere within a coherent whole that creates a theological system, while the analogy of Scripture seeks to interpret the part based upon the whole. For example, we read of the curse upon the snake in Eden:

“And I will put hostility between you and the woman and between your offspring and her offspring; her offspring will attack your head, and you will attack her offspring’s heel.” (Gen 3:15)

Concerning this passage a good exegete would tell you that the text does not tell us, based upon authorial intent hermeneutics, who the snake was or what the curse meant. Moses himself probably had no idea of the full implications of this passage. To the Israelites residing in the land of Canaan who initially received this account, having no other revelation to compare this event to, it probably amounted to an obscure hope. Understanding this would be necessary for our understanding of the situation of the time and is vital to proper exegesis of the passage. But we cannot stop there. With the assumption that this passage is a part of a canonical whole superintended by God, we would take the next step in our interpretive process and seek to find if there is further revelation about this curse throughout the rest of Scripture that helps clarify and advance what, if left alone, is obscurity. Later in Scripture we are told that the snake was Satan (Rev. 12:7-9 and the overriding theme of the consistent enmity that Satan enacts with humanity) and his defeat, being “attacked on the head,” was enacted at the cross and will be fully realized in the eschaton (Lk. 10:18; Rom. 16:20; Heb. 2:14; 1 Jn. 3:8).

It is an unfortunate thing when we get so bogged down in the meaning of the text, trying to understand what the text meant, and lose sight of the big picture question “What does it mean?” Often, we can become such good exegetes that we forget to put the pieces of the puzzle together to form a coherent whole. Vanhoozer continues concerning this, “Recognizing Scripture’s divine authorship ultimately requires us to the read the biblical text as one book. As with any action, we can adequately identify what has been done in Scripture only by considering its action as a whole. The divine intention must come to light when God’s communicative acts are described in canonical context” (ibid.).

This fallacy often incarnates itself in the form of a more specific fallacy called the “proof-text fallacy.” One form of the proof-text fallacy simply strings together many out-of-context passages in an attempt to confirm a theological mandate or teaching. This is often committed by those who are committed to the inspiration of Scripture, but fail to recognize the role that man plays in the immediate intent behind Scripture. The second type of proof-texting, and the one that concerns our present purpose, comes from those who neglect the implications of inspiration, focusing on the author at hand. In other words, it can be committed by exegetes focused only on the authorial intent of the immediate text. This proof-text fallacy essentially takes one portion of Scripture and uses it as an autonomous proof-text for a dogmatic assertion. This can be illustrated by the infamous statement of James in James 2:24:

“You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

Someone might say that this passage teaches that justification is not by faith alone, but by works as well. If interpreted outside of the canonical whole, this passage could be used to support this teaching. But when its canonical context is considered, we find that such a conclusion is based upon hasty autonomous proof-texting that does not take into consideration the broader theological teaching of the whole of Scripture. Among others, Paul seems to state just the opposite in many of his letters. Most specifically and clearly this is seen in his letter to the Romans.

“For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.” (Rom. 3:28)

Understanding that the Jews did not separate between any so-called moral Law and the Mosaic Law (Matt. 22:37-40), one would be hard pressed to distinguish between the “works” that James was speaking of and the “works of the Law” that Paul was speaking of; they are one and the same. In other words, Paul could have just as well said that we are justified by faith apart from (choris, “without relation to”) works period! But he used the Law to illustrate the most virtuous embodiment of works that was known to the Jewish people. Using the analogy of Scripture, the canonical process, in conjunction with an authorial intent hermeneutic, these passages can be reconciled. First we must recognize the purpose of the writing. Paul’s purpose is clearly stated in the prologue to his letter. He sought to give a clear presentation of the Gospel to those who were in Rome, a city to which he had never been (Rom. 1:11-15). Knowing that Paul had never been to Rome and that his purpose was to lay out the working of Christ in a large influential metropolitan area, we understand that this was not a letter in response to any problem that he sought to correct. He was not reprimanding the Romans in any way. His passions are guided by his passion for the Gospel, not based upon any chaotic circumstance which had initiated the letter. Therefore, we would expect his writing to be more objective in argumentation. We would expect Paul to be able to systematically lay out his argument concerning the Gospel unimpeded by frustration or anger. It is because of these reasons that the book of Romans forms the greatest theological treatise in the whole of Scripture. James, on the other hand, was writing to circumstances all together different than Paul’s. James is writing in response to abuse in the church. His tone is more pastoral and his passions are based upon the desire to correct these abuses rather than give an objective presentation of the Gospel, like that of Paul. There were “brethren” to whom he was writing who were showing favoritism in the church setting (Jam. 2:1). This causes James to have a tone of frustration and often sarcasm as he writes. Angered by the fact that these people were evidently claiming that they could neglect people of the basic needs in life and still claim to have faith in Christ, he responds that faith without works is a dead faith that cannot save.

“What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,’ and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. (Jam. 2:15-17)

Imagine people who call themselves Christians not helping those who are in need when they have every means to meet their needs, claiming “I don’t need to help this person since I am saved by faith alone and not by feeding the hungry.” That they were claiming this is evident by James’ rhetoric. Maybe they had heard Paul’s teaching on salvation by faith alone. Maybe they had heard James himself give a similar lesson. But in the process, this doctrine was abused and misapplied to the point where James explicitly says that salvation is not by faith alone using Abraham as an illustration (note: the same Abraham that Paul used to illustrate the opposite in Romans 4!).

“You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24)

As was said before, if this passage in James were taken out of the canonical context, we could go either way with it. But, understanding the clear and more objective teachings of Paul, we understand this passage in a different light. We see that James, frustratingly writes to people who are abusing the true doctrine of justification by faith alone in order to justify their sin. The entire context presents James as one who believes that true faith will always produce works. He says in verse 18, “But someone may well say, ‘You have faith and I have works;’ show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.’” So, his purpose is not to objectively lay out the Gospel message of salvation, but the practical message of what true faith will accomplish, which is a changed life. Knowing this, it is understandable why James would seemingly counter Paul saying that man is justified by works and not by faith alone. I am a pastor, and I can see the need for such an exhortation. If the situation presented itself where my people where neglecting the needs of others claiming the doctrine of justification by faith alone as an excuse, I would have every right and obligation to question the validity of their faith. I might even go so far as to tell the people, like James, “You think your faith saves you? Well let me tell you, faith does not count if it does not produce works, because the kind of faith God gives will always produces works. You think you are justified by faith alone? You are not!” The context would determine the meaning. In the broader “canonical” context of my life, others would know very well that I believe in justification by faith alone. They would know this from other teachings that I had given them over the years. But this perspective that I add through my frustrated exhortation would be that true faith always works, and the type of faith that you claim to have alone will not save. Knowing the whole of my teaching and doing an “analogy of Michael” would explain perfectly well what I meant and there would be no contradiction, just different emphasis and perspective based upon the situation. In short, a canonical approach to Scripture helps us to understand that the Bible teaches, as the saying goes, that justification is by faith alone, but the faith that saves will not be alone. But we could never come to this theological big picture conclusion if we did not employ both the authorial intent hermeneutic along with the canonical approach to Scripture. That is why this type of autonomous proof-texting is so dangerous. We must understand that the divine authorship of Scripture demands a systematic coherency.

This coherency fallacy is understandable for those who reject the divine inspiration of Scripture since they do not believe that God was superintending the writing of Scripture, but it is inexcusable for those who believe that God is the ultimate author of the entirety of Scripture. That is why it is so important to keep the big picture in front of you at all times. To help avoid this fallacy, I would suggest keeping up with a “thru the Bible in a year” program (without losing interest after month three!) at the same time as studying individual books exegetically. This will force you to synthesize what is being said with what has been said and what will be said no matter what book you are studying. It will help you to see the beautiful tapestry of Scripture at that same time as struggling through the inherent tensions that exist. In short, never sacrifice good exegesis, but spend more time thinking about the implications of your interpretation in relation to the rest of God’s word and his world before formulating a dogmatic theology upon one exegeted text. We need to see studying less as reading the part and more as thinking about the whole in order to avoid this first fallacy.

In short, there is no exegesis vs. theology in Christian studies. At least, there should not be. We believe in authorial intent hermeneutics, but we also believe that there is an ultimate Author who pulls it all together. Be good exegetes and be good theologians.Similar Posts:

• Good Exegesis Does not Always Produce Good Theology
• Does good exegesis always produce good theology?
• Common Errors in Bible Interpretation
• Theology is the pursuit of truth, not prejudice
• Doing Theology is About Pursuing Truth, Not Prejudice

“Unless I am convicted [convinced] of error by the testimony of Scripture or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning, I stand convicted by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God’s word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us…Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen”

Martin Luther had a Biblical conviction that no negative ramifications could override.

It does occur to me that many both today and in the past, have taken hard stands on what they deem as truth based on Biblical convictions.  This includes notable figures such as Luther, persons who have adhered to doctrines that have deviated from historic orthodoxy and even heretics.  Yes, all would claim to have Biblical convictions because doctrines have been formulated based on what is in the Bible.

So I’ve been pondering lately what it means to be Biblical because it is a term that gets thrown out quite frequently with convictions of truth claims.  This is because position is taken based on a “biblical truth” simply because it is stated in the Bible.  That means that even distorted claims can be proclaimed as Biblical truth.  I would even contend that the foundation of Roman Catholicism is Biblical since Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 18:13-15 serve as the foundation for Catholic theology related to the church’s authority.

Moreover, Biblical convictions can be met with a zeal and conviction equal to that of Luther’s that can make the espouser of claims dogmatically rigid on their positions.   It is possible to have Biblical convictions about claims that might not be consistent with what the Bible is communicating and when zeal turns into a rigid understanding, it can make even the most egregious of claims seem plausible and defended.  The claims don’t have to be outright heresy, but when rooted in conviction have the impact of being believed, particularly when supported with selected proof-text passages. Don’t get me wrong, zeal is important for defending the Christian message that most certainly is in the Bible.   The basic tenets of the faith are not only defined but cannot be compromised.

But having convictions is  not the same as understanding.  One can have convictions about something that is misunderstood.  So it seems to me that “Biblical” must be qualified since that defining something as such means it is more than just what is clearly stated in the Bible.  I believe it comes down to hermeneutics – how we interpret the Bible.   Because being Biblical is not so much what is stated, but the meaning of what is being expressed through scripture.

The meaning is rooted in God’s revelation and His ultimate revelation in Christ.  Thus, as Christians I believe that when we deem something Biblical, it is expressed as what is pertinent for Christians, how we understand God and what He has provided.   It generally means what is applicable for us to understand and live our life according to.  Therefore, I think a Biblical conviction has to be based on the following evaluation:

1)  Appropriate to the consistent themes of scripture: God has revealed himself through the 66 books that express His movement in time and space in relation to His people and purpose.  There are unified themes throughout but also points of discontinuity.  Understanding how each part fits within the meta-narrative is essential for understanding what it means in terms of the overall message.  Being Biblical must be rooted in what the Bible is communicating

2) Appropriate to the author’s intent: it comes down to meaning.  The Bible is a product of dual authorship.  It is God’s revelation communicated through the pens of 40ish authors over the span of 1,500 years.  Human authors used the art of language, writing under the divine guidance to transmit a message through various genre, such as historical narrative, poetry, letters or apoctalyptic literature.
What is said must be evaluated for what the author was intending to communicate and reading the genres appropriate to the their style is important.  There is a post forthcoming that will speak more to authorial intent and meaning.  But a claim cannot be Biblical if it is not rooted in the meaning of what the author is communicating.  For example, some might say it is Biblical for us to have a vision for our lives of where God is taking us based on Proverbs 29:18.  But vision here does not mean what our contemporary understanding is.  It is the proclamation of God’s revelatory communication.  I wrote more about that here. So being Biblical should be rooted in the meaning of what is being said.

3) Descriptive is not necessarily prescriptive: The Old Testament is important because it lays the foundation for the work that Christ would eventually accomplish.   It is prophetic and speaks to the heart of God.  So being Biblical does not necessarily mean that everything in the Old Testament is applicable for us today but certainly is important for the foundation that was being laid.  But everything cannot be Biblical in the sense of prescriptive for us today.  Yet it is Biblical concerning God’s revelation.

I think another area that becomes challenging is the gospel narratives and understanding what is applicable to the revelation of Christ vs. what is instructive for Christ followers.  It is easy to assign something as Biblical, meaning expected for the Christian to perform or abide by simply because Christ taught it when in actuality it may be that it is Him he is referring to.  For example, I recall several years ago, I did a sermonette on Luke 5:34-35.  I related the old wine skins to the old nature and way of doing things and the new wine skins to the ‘newness’ of life.  But I was not being Biblical since that has nothing to do with what Jesus was communicating.  He was referring to Himself and the fulfillment of Old Testament promises that would introduce a new paradigm that would be inaugurated by his death (cf Ephesians 2:13-16).  This does go back to meaning.

4)  Prescriptive for Christian Life: So clearly there is much, particularly in the New Testament, that is applicable for life today.  This is where the rubber meets the road in terms of how we use the term Biblical.  But I also think this is the toughest one and wades in gray areas of Christian liberty.  Clearly there are commands for the Christian but there are also situations that might not be applicable to us.

Moreover, just because something is not in the Bible does not make it un-Biblical.  I often hear statements such as ‘if its not in the Bible we shouldn’t consider it’.  But there is much about living life in the 21st century that is not in the Bible.  Nonetheless, the Christian standard that is laid down by the teaching of Christ and apostolic instruction provides the basis for what is Biblical, meaning what does the Bible commend.  So being Biblical will be consistent with the NT prescription even if the specific situation is not stated.

5) Make room for doctrinal distinctions: Given the plethora of protestant denominations, it is clear that not all will agree on what is Biblical.  For instance, because of the situation at Pentecost in Acts 2:1-4, there is an expectation by some baptism of the Spirit is an event subsequent to conversion and have expectation that this should happen with Christians today.  However, as I have stated in previous posts, and is in line with the previous section on what is prescriptive vs. descriptive, I believe this was the induction of the Holy Spirit to permanently indwell believers, beginning with Jews and eventually Gentiles (Acts 10:44-46; 11:15-18).  It is not prescriptive of a 2nd baptism but descriptive of the first baptism.  A Pentecostal would define this as Biblical but I would not, since I don’t think it is to be expected today.

I admit this can get tricky.  How much do differences deviate before we can deem them as un-Biblical?  In the example above of Catholicism,  the foundation is deemed as un-Biblical by Protestants because the visible church was not what Jesus meant yet it was construed that way in the early development of Christianity.  Ok, I’m not going there.

6) Compatibility with historic orthodoxy: is the claim consistent with what has been believed everywhere by all at all times?  This is the value of knowing church history and how the Christian faith has been defined and refined through periods of evaluation and defense against heresies.    For example, the existence of the godhead, equal in substance yet distinct in three persons have been deemed as un-Biblical by some.  Yet, the Biblical evidence is clear and is supported through careful articulation of the faith that has existed throughout church history.

The bottom line is what is considered Biblical must be evaluated.  Just because its in the Bible does not mean it is expected for today.  Just because its not in the Bible does not mean it is not consistent with the what the Bible commends.  I also think Biblical convictions have to be qualified with ‘according to my interpretation’.   Yet, the Biblical evidence is clear on the sine qua non of Christianity.  I would propose creating sub-categories of ‘Biblical’.   I don’t know what these sub-categories would be but without them, I fear that what serves as Biblical convictions may not be honest with the Biblical text at all.  And non-Biblical, Biblical convictions carried out with zeal, are no help at all and can actually be quite harmful.Similar Posts:

• A Matter of Perspective
• Common Errors in Bible Interpretation
• Seven Common Fallacies of Biblical Interpretation
• Seven Possible Reasons We Find the Bible Boring
• Yes, We Should Follow ‘Man’…But ‘Man’ With Understanding

Now, please don’t get me wrong.  I do understand the need for Christians to support positions with the biblical text.  Otherwise, whatever it is we are trying to assert or refute can get reduced to mere opinion.  However, I have observed that submitting a string of bible passages to communicate that position can cause some problems that can undermine the reconciliation and convictions we are seeking to uphold.

Problem of interpretation: isolating passages by themselves does not address the meaning and how that relates to what is being refuted. Passages must be considered in their rightful context and then correlated to the overall witness of scripture.  For example, the issue of Christians and alcohol came up recently, which generated a host of passages that either supported either the acceptance of alcohol or its prohibition.  Proof-texting can allow support for both sides but something has obviously gotten lost if that is so.  Also, a word doesn’t necessarily mean the same thing everywhere it’s used, which is why context is so important.  To interpret properly, the word has to be examined according to how the author is using it.   If we throw out a string of passages simply because we think it aligns because it is using the same word or the same concept, it is quite possible that we are comparing apples with oranges.

Problem of understanding: if there is a disagreement about a particular point being made, there needs to be an understanding of where the points of dissension are.  Throwing out a series of passages does very little in reconciling competing viewpoints and given interpretive differences, can be comparing apples to oranges.  Rather, an explanation as to how the passages are related or asking questions about why a certain passage is being used in support of a position can promote better understanding.   Providing an explanation also forces us to examine our own understanding of the text and if we have possibly missed the point the author is intending to make or have taken something out of context.

Problem of communcation: proof-texting does not really promote dialogue.  It does not address where the differences are occurring.   When passages are identified that seem to conflict with our understanding,  there needs to be a dialogue about why the passages listed stand in opposition to whatever position is being refuted and specific points of difference.   And dialogue does not mean, ‘let me tell you why you’re wrong’.  It goes back to understanding.  Moreover, the interpretation and understanding factor ought to compel an examination of how we are communicating particular topics or passages.

Problem of arrogance: by throwing out a series of passages, especially if there is no explanation offered, can exude a confidence in one’s position that does not need explaining.  It can communicate the idea that the proof-texter has it all figured out and the position that is being refuted would certainly not be made if the presenter really had an understanding of what the bible is saying regarding the topic.  It can paint the proof-texter in light of having a superior knowledge of the topic.

I think the bottom line is that if we are sincere about understanding scripture more thoroughly and accurately, it behooves examination, understanding and dialogue.  Theology is done in community through an exchange of knowledge and a willingness for better understanding, which throwing out of list of passages does not do.

I personally wish that there was a Proof-Texting Police Squad ready to issue citations   What do you think?Similar Posts:

• Hidden Dismissals and Thoughts on Fostering More Honest Theological Dialogue
• Condemning Statements and Christian Affections
• Yes, We Should Follow ‘Man’…But ‘Man’ With Understanding
• Case Studies in Inerrancy: A New P&P Series
• Ten Steps to Avoiding Knee-Jerk Theology

I could not find any visual aid in distinguishing among the prevalent types of literature represented in each book, so I made one.

As well, I could not find any chart that breaks down the books according to percentage. I had to put my math cap on to do this. Here it is.

Similar Posts:

• Common Errors in Bible Interpretation
• Bible Interpretation In a Nutshell
• How to Study the Bible in a Nutshell
• The Bible Does not Always Speak the Truth
• The Exegetical Process: What Does it Mean to You?

Before you fall back in your chair, my conservative friends, we need to know that all Christians must accept accommodation theories. For example:

• We don’t really believe that Heaven is up and Hell is down (Mark 16:19). After all, which side of the earth do you have to be on for heaven to be up?
• We don’t really believe the sun really raises and sets (Josh 10:13). We call this “phenomenological” language and we are cool with it.
• We don’t believe that God has eyes (2 Chr. 16:9). After all, God, in his essence, is not material or spacial. He does not really have eyes. We call this “anthropomorphic” language.
• We believe that the Mosaic code (Law) was accommodated from a suzerain vassal treaty. This means that the code of the law as well as the way it was given was often culturally sensitive and not eternal ideals.
• We don’t believe that God’s language is Hebrew or Greek. We believe that when God gives us his word, he accommodates by speaking through man and the language of man.

The difficulty is that when it comes to accommodation theories, while we believe that God does accommodate, we don’t really know when to draw the line.

Here I introduced the specific subject of the post: 

It is popular these days to give an account for the happenings in the New Testament concerning demon possession by reference to modern science. The idea here is that what the New Testament writers (and Jesus himself) described as demon possession was really nothing more than medical conditions that could today be described and treated by modern medicine.

Those who believe this and, at the same time, seek to maintain a high view of Scripture would say that the New Testament is not really teaching that these people were demon possessed, but accommodating the the prevailing notion of the day that they were demon possessed. Christ’s miracles, in this instance, were miracles indeed, but not in the way we think.

In this view, there probably is not such a thing as demon possession. Many would scoff at those who still believe in such saying, “Why are demons so scared of Zoloft?” They would look to the neglectful abuse of many Christians in the past who have sought to blame every disease, psychotic episode, and depression on demon possession when, in reality, they did not need archaic religious remedies, but modern medicine.

“Men think epilepsy divine, merely because they do not understand it. But if they called everything divine which they do not understand, why, there would be no end of divine things.” -Hippocrates

A couple of questions:

1. Do you think it is viable to say that demon possession was an accommodation to the prevailing worldview and not representative of the way things really were?

2. Where do we draw the line on accommodations?Similar Posts:

• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 1)
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 6): Excursus: It's Not About Miracles!
• The Language of God: Some Reflections on Francis Collins’s Perspectives on God and Science
• The History of Science is the History of Bad Ideas
• Why I Am/Not Charismatic: Why I Believe the Gifts Have Continued – Sam Storms