Rex made an excellent point yesterday. Too many doctrines have arisen that would never occur to someone who were to merely read the Bible. I don’t think the Bible was meant to be a puzzle that was hard to solve; it was meant to be communication between God and His people in a way that they could understand.
It’s an interesting exercise to try and read the Bible as if we’d never read it before, as if there were no church history and no body of Christian literature. To merely read the Bible for itself. A lot of things take on a different look.
Tradition gets in the way. Culture gets in the way. Preferences and practices get in the way. Preconceived ideas and previous teachings get in the way.
It’s not easy to try and read the Bible with fresh eyes. But it’s oh so helpful.
Some related posts:
Wow! Love this thought. Too many times, we go to Scripture to prove our points, instead of letting Scripture define our points. Frustrating how we end up condemning ourselves in other areas by the arguments we manufacture.
Good thoughts and teaching. Your Aunt Lois (2) in Austin and in Everett both have fresh eyes, in Austin she had both eyes scraped and in Everett she had cataracts on each eye removed. So the first thing they did was go and read the Bible with these fresh eyes and have thanked the Lord for this renewed ability to read clearly. How is that for timely example for your thoughts?
Tim,
i’m not sure about this point anymore.
*Someone* at *sometime* introduced these various doctrinal questions we find peculiar, didn’t they? Where’d they get the idea to ask the question? Surely, judging that everyone who ever asked what strikes us as a peculiar doctrinal question did so *not* based on just their reading of scripture is far beyond our place to make, isn’t it?
But more to the point, was the Bible written so that all Christians in all places in all times could just pick it up on its own and easily come to the same understanding? i used to think so, but i really don’t see any indication in the scriptures themselves that this was God’s or the human author’s intent. Each document the NT contains was written to a particular audience in a particular set of circumstances that had a particular relationship to/history with the author or relevant parties or customs. i do think the author’s meant for their immediate audiences to understand what was said. But i’m not sure more than that was intended.
All in all though–i think you’re right about IM in particular. It’s likely a “gnat” as Jesus describes in Matt 23. Yet we often give it camel-sized attention. Losing each other–losing our brothers and bonds and loyalties–now that is camel-sized. (i’d gladly throw my guitar in the trash if that’s what it took to keep my brothers by my side. Is some wood with strings on it really more important than their love and camaraderie?)
–guy
–guy
A point needs to be made here. The Catholic church over the centuries developed the bible. Since we, at least I think most are protestants here forget that the bible is a compilition of Jewish books and New testament letters. Did Paul while dictating letters imagine for a moment that they were going to be read by protestants in the 21st century? History has evolved way beyond what any 1st century Christian imagined.
Defying intelligent thought leads to ignorance and embarressment.
Of course reading the bible in the point of view of 1st century Jewish Christians , and Gentile Christians is an intelligent approach. This is what I have tried to get across in many comments. One must remember as I quoted about instraments quoting the old testament is quoting scripture where gentiles were considered dogs and aliens of the promises of God.
What’s interesting, H.B., is that the biblical writers held a much higher view of Scripture than you do. In one of Paul’s last letters, he tells Timothy that the Old Testament scriptures can make you wise unto salvation and prepare you for every good work.
What if the Bible is what it says it is? What if it really is an inspired book, living and active, able to speak across the ages? What if it is more than just a compilation of men’s writings, but a compilation of writings by men who were led by God?
There is a sense of knowledge that merely puffs up, rather than building up. The gnostics were proud of having an insight that no one around them had. This pride was their undoing.
I would also point out that Paul had a much higher view of the Old Testament than you do. He felt that it affirmed the inclusion of the Gentiles. Read Romans 15 if you don’t believe me.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Thanks Richard for the family info.
Guy, I do understand what you are saying. We have to avoid the arrogance that says that everyone went before us was blind and ignorant. We don’t through out the testimony of Christians throughout the centuries, but we must lay it alongside Scripture. Should there be a discrepancy, we know where our loyalties must lie.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Guy,
I forgot to say that I agree with you that the Bible never says that it can be easily understood by all. Stories like that of the Ethiopian eunuch seem to say just the opposite.
Tim
I am sorry I missed a conversation which I apparently triggered with a comment in yesterday’s post but besides a couple of meetings today, I just returned from reading the Bible with a young family that has never read the Bible before and is full of questions about who Jesus is and what he did…so I think I have a great excuse :-).
Any ways… I too would agree that we need not reject everything that has been said about the Christian faith before or that we can read scripture as a complete blank slate with no presumptive opinions…even this family I am reading scripture with has some presumptive opinions about the way things should be. I would say instead that we need to read scripture in tandem with Christian history so that as we reach certain conclusions, we can ask at the same time what sort of conclusions those who have read scripture before us reached and why did they reach such conclusions. We may or may not revise our conclusions in consideration of the conclusions others who went before us reached but we dare not pretend to be seekers of God and yet ignore the seekers of God went before us (and at times suffered greatly in order to pass their faith on). And yet, as I say that, there are many CoC’s today which still ignore all church history and try to read scripture in a historical volume which is why there are some absolutely horrid doctrines (e.g., the Holy Spirit being nothing but the written word of God) that have and continue to exist in some congregations.
This need to read scripture in tandem with church history is also a reason why evangelism church activity that must take place within Christian community. It is the Christian community that has (or should have) the historical knowledge of what doctrines and moral/ethical beliefs past Christians have reached and why they reached such conclusions.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Tim, Yes…particularly your last statement in my observations and own experience — preconceived ideas, presuppositions, etc. tend to be the most difficult to overcome. A spirit of innocence/humility and a sense of wonder can be a significant benefit to our searching God’s Word, seeking for His will…and we just might learn a thing or two along the way… ;-) Blessings, Don
Awesome discussion. Those who say they see are usually left in their blindness. Those who realize they are blind and cry out to the Lord, are usually cured.
Tim: I must remind you that any gentile caught in the inner court of the temple was subject to immediate death by the temple guards. Clearly when our Savior acknowledges the fact that dogs eat the crumbs fallen from the father’s table further substantiates the positions of gentiles when Christ walked this earth. You absolutely cannot deny these facts. You can label me a neo gnostic, I really don’t mind. What I do mind is the refusal to accept that there lies a difference between Jew and Greek and it was very evident when Christ was teaching His Jewish people about the law and not to go to the gentiles to preach…….I clearly understand the depth of this, don’t you?
No, my friend, you clearly don’t understand much about the nature of Jesus’ ministry and even less about the nature of the gospel writings. I’m sorry to be so blunt, but I tire of the air of superiority. Until you see that the gospels were written for Christians, you won’t understand much of what Jesus was about. They aren’t newspaper reports of what Jesus did. They were written for the church, at least two of them directly for the Gentile church. They contain Jesus’ teachings for us Gentiles as much as Jews.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim: the only way we can look at what was going on is from a past perspective. We look at his life from our position of hindsight. The thing that disturbs me and others like me is the fact that some perceive his ministry as being much more than it was.
You can’t ignore the fact, or maybe you can, that there was NO christians at the time of Christ. Only followers of the Jewish Messiah, in Israel, fulfilling prophecy for the coming of the Kingdom announced by John the Baptist. That’s it. Rome didn’t recognize him, the Jewish Sanhedrin didn’t recognize him as what he was, being the Son of God. The alienation of the gentiles, giving them over to a reprobate mind was still the issue. Grace as we know it in this age was not announced until the revelation given to the apostle Paul. This represents his ministry, his teaching, his announcement that the program now included gentiles.
Remember there wasn’t any remission for sin for any gentile at the time. NO cross, no sin forgiven for any gentile. If you and I were walking with Christ at the time he was here, he would tell us get circumsized, become a prosylite, follow the law.
One other thing he told the rich young ruler, sell everything you have and follow me.
The gentiles had nothing to do with anything Christ did in his earthly ministry except acknowledge the fact that they were washing their hands in the matter. He was not a concern for Rome at the time, they considered him a rabbi and teacher……..
I missed one other point. The gospels were written as proof of what Christ did for the gentiles to prove the prophecies being fulfilled. As we know the greeks and other gentiles had no idea of who he was and what he did. The key man to do this was Paul…
H.B., I’m sorry, but that misses the mark by quite a bit. Read the gospels not as some first century Newsweek magazine, but as teaching material written for Gentile Christians to teach them how to live. Then you’ll begin to understand what’s going on.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim: When you make a point to counter what I have mentioned you never include scripture. I try to include scripture to explain my position. Why don’t you?
I never include scripture? What is Romans 15, the funny papers? I didn’t put the reference to 2 Timothy 3 because I assumed you were familiar with the passage. In this one thread alone, I’ve given you two passages to refute your views. So your last comment is completely off base.
H.B., one of my big problems in dealing with people who pick and choose scripture is that invariably, when a passage is quoted that doesn’t align with their view, they merely say, “That doesn’t apply to us.” If you’re willing to deal with the whole of God’s inspired word, I’ll gladly share scripture. If you’re not, then what’s the point?
All nations were to be taught to obey all that Jesus commanded the apostles.
Paul, in one of his later letters, quotes from the O.T. and calls it Scripture. He also quotes from the gospel of Matthew, also calling it Scripture!
What writings would Timothy have known from his childhood? Second Thessalonians? No, Paul is talking about the Old Testament. Read what he says about the Old Testament and tell me if you are willing to say the same.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim: First of all Timothy was of a Jewish mother and his father was Greek. Acts 16:1. Jewish heritage comes from the mother not the father
Don’t you think that when Timothy was a little boy he was taken to temple by his mother and grandparents? The fact that he later was circumsized to satisfy who?
Obviously Paul thought it important to have Timothy circumsized as an adult. But why?
Conventional thought is somewhat skewed by church doctrine.
Paul when he quotes from Matthew is quoting from writings of prophets not Matthew persay. When Christ refers to what was written in the quote you mention, he is talking to a particular audiance, commanding them to honor what was preached by the prophets. The whole point of this was that the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand. The end of the age he refers to was the end of his age and the Jewish age of a people being set apart. Or could it be that he was looking to take Israel into the kingdom as a nation. Healing, and working miracles was getting the nation ready to enter. You must be cleansed from sin and unrighteousness. This as we look back is progressive revelation.
This is why the Gospels are not for us, not about us and not to us. Teaching from the gospels is like expecting someone who speaks english to understand German without any background of German. There are 2 points to consider here. In Paul’s letters he constantly refers back to knowing what scripture was taught. Not taught to gentiles but to the Jewish listeners at the time he was trying to persuade them that the law was no longer applicable. To the gentiles he points out what grace has been given to them freely by the cross. No works, no tithes, no law and no circumcision.
Sitting in the pew in baptist, methodist, COC in Christian Union churches I found this constant teaching from the gospels not lining up with the letters that Paul wrote.
I found this to be very frustrating and none of the pastors had any idea of how to bridge the gap. It was like trying to put a puzzle together with the wrong pieces.
When I understood that the gospels were a continuation of fulfilling prophecy and that the offering of salvation was only to Israel at the time of these writings it all fit together. 16 years of study has brought me into and thru progressive revelation.
And a thorough understanding of where we fit into todays plan for salvation.
Its grace by which we are saved, (unmerited favor) not of works lest any may boast.
Eph. 2:8-9
My point finally is this, that we all are saved. Nothing we can say or do will change this. God in his infinite mercy knew that we couldnot save ourselves from this life to enter the next one. That is why our blessings aren’t here but in heavenly places so beautiful there no words that can be uttered, or thought of.
He did this because : Not everyone reads
Not everyone hears
Not everone has opportunity
H.B.,
Your comments about Timothy change nothing about what the passage says about the Old Testament. You and Paul have very different ideas about what Scripture is. And your analysis of Matthew is to change what was written to make it say what you want. “All nations” were to be taught to obey all that Jesus taught. I’m sorry that doesn’t fit your philosophical take on the gospels.
I’m sorry that the Bible has been so hard for you to understand. I see that your frustration has led you to accept some speculative teaching. I hope that you will grow past that and read the Bible as the word of God.
I don’t see any point in continuing this back and forth. Do you?
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim: I think it is good to look at scripture from points of view that are not harmonius.
It allows people to think thru open dialogue that maybe, just maybe that what is thought to be gospel actually isn’t. To challenge the status quo has always been looked upon as heretical, objectionable and completely wrong. I guess the Catholics looked at Martin Luther in those terms when he nailed his document of dissent. To determine that any group has the corner on the “proper understanding of scripture” is really absurd. Bible interpretation is open to us all. We don’t have to agree on every point, but I am not making up my points of view. Darby, Schofield, Anderson, Bullinger, and Larkin just to name a few have written many books on progressive revelation and dispensationalism. I am not locked into any specific church dogma or doctrine that is definitive by creed and tradition. This has allowed me to dig deep into bible study and seek answers to questions that I have had about, miracles, prayer, the Jewish/gentile dilema, covenants, blessings and what God is doing in this age of grace. Finally I do have an honest appreciation of what Christ did for me over 2000 years ago. I understand that His love has completely enveloped me. I am secure in knowing that fact. I am content with that peace that passes all understanding. Peace and love to all that may read this, Gary