Yesterday we had an interesting discussion based on some thoughts about people quoting biblical interpretations as if they were biblical quotes. Once we are one step removed from the text, we use that interpretation as a launching point for new interpretations.
- “Since the Bible says the Old Testament was nailed to the cross, we know that…”
- “Given that the Bible says Christians must obey all laws, then…”
- “Seeing that the Bible has commanded us to take up a collection every Sunday…”
Maybe part of the solution is what we talked about last week, spending more time reading God’s Word and less time expounding on it. We’ve got to get back to the original starting point… even if we end up at the same place!
- “Colossians says that the written code that was against us was nailed to the cross. I think that’s talking about the Old Testament, so…”
- “Paul talks about submitting to the authorities. Part of how we do that is by obeying the laws those authorities create. Therefore…”
- “Paul talked to the Corinthians about setting aside money each week as a collection for the church in Jerusalem. This would seem to mean that we should also have an offering each week. That’s why…”
As Travis pointed out, this would seem a bit wishy washy to some. People want the preacher to speak with authority. I disagree with them. I want God’s Word to speak with authority. I will do my best to help people understand what that authoritative word has to say, but I want them to be aware that I am a fallible expositor of that word. (None of my regular readers needs to be reminded of that!)
Do you have better suggestions? How can we avoid imposing our interpretations on the text itself?
you are right. a big part of it is how the Preacher looks. sadly it’s the members that propagate this.
how the message is presented. rhetoric and debates cause us to behave in an ungodly way with God’s Word,
i my opinion, as I see it, I would suggest, etc.
As long as we speak on the Bible, to some extent, we will impose our image/interpretation/views on it. I don’t know how many times I have looked up a passage that I was going to use in a class or sermon, only to discover that it didn’t really say what I had remembered that it said.
I believe that it helps me to stay currently in the word that I am speaking from and to be willing to grow and adapt my beliefs from what I “was taught” and from what I remember to what I now see that the word actually says.
We talk about the word as having life, but if it isn’t growing in us, changing and improving us, it is dead. I don’t know of anyone who claims “the text is dead,” but I have heard some dead text sermon points.
Even Matthew, and John saw or heard things differently, and they both can’t be truth, because they are diametrically opposed. when we use one “text message” to determine what we believe we are stumbling down the road. When we say the bible is faultless, we are making excuses.
Mat 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
Mat 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
( it is evident to me and should be to all, that John recognized Jesus for who he was, before he baptized him, according to Matthew)
Mat 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer [it to be so] now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
Mat 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
Mat 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Jhn 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
Jhn 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
(Apostle John, evidently heard the story differently, than how Apostle Matthew told it, Matthew said John knew Jesus before he was baptized, Apostle John, said he did not, there is no “yeah but” room here.)
Jhn 1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
So Tim, what do we do in a situation such as this? Which Apostles version do we throw out, or do we just read the parts we like. and use them for reference?
laymond, if I were you, I would toss out John.
he seems to be way off on the divine nature of Jesus.
Brian, does that mean you are going to toss out Matthew.
Or does that mean, you think they are both right. Please expound. How can John both know Jesus was the Son of God before he was baptized, and not know him until after he was baptized. Brian you know some things are just impossible. someone has it wrong.
Laymond,
Did John actually say that JtB knew Jesus was the Son of God before he was baptized? Or is that your interpretation of what John said? Actually, your comment here feeds directly into the topic of this post.
Could it be that John knew of Jesus by reputation? And knew that He was a righteous man? They were relatives (if we can believe Luke’s account), even though Zechariah was a priest. He could easily have heard something about Jesus and His mother’s visit to Elizabeth prior to his own birth. Several people knew something about Jesus – without knowing Him as the Son of God. Many who knew Him thought of Him as a prophet or other great teacher. Then when John baptized Him and saw the Spirit descend on Him, he realized that Jesus was the one who would baptize with the Holy Spirit.
In other words, there is more than one way to interpret these texts. It is not essential that someone understand them the same way you do. I always try to accept that my understanding of a particular text may be inaccurate. Does this make we “wishy-washy”? I do not think so – but it does mean that I am more willing to consider another viewpoint that some people appear to be.
Jerry, let’s add in another who was not convinced that John the Baptist was fully convinced at either time.
Luk 7:19 And John calling [unto him] two of his disciples sent [them] to Jesus, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?
(I believe this is the same John the baptist, Luke is writing about, that baptized Jesus)
Unless of course you believe John did this before Jesus was baptized. I guess you could be right on everything you said, but I really doubt it.
Laymond,
At the time of the quote you reference here, John was in prison. His understanding of what the kingdom of God was and of the work of Messiah in it was limited. He apparently thought that if he had been right in announcing Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, He would have been doing more about John’s imprisonment than He was. Hence, his question delivered through his disciples to Jesus.
I agree that I could be wrong on how I see this. But I doubt it. (If I doubted that I am wrong I would keep quiet about what I think until I could be more sure. As I told one brother, “I believe that my opinions are the very best in the world. Because as soon as someone convinces me he has a better one, I adopt it. To this point, your contention that John and Luke contradict one another is unconvincing to me.)
Jerry, do you mean to tell me parts of the bible are uninspired? When does the bible cease to be inspired, and become tortured words of an ailing man?
Laymond,
What did I say that made you think I was saying parts of the Bible are uninspired? I believe you misunderstood what I said.
The Bible reports facts accurately. It is accurate in saying that John sent disciples to ask Jesus if He were the One or if they should look for another. That question reflects doubt. His own misunderstanding of what Jesus was supposed to do plus his own imprisonment led to that doubt. Yet, Jesus said that no one born of woman was greater than John AFTER he had received this question.
Remember that not everything in the Bible is true, even though it is true that someone said it. The Bible sometimes quotes the Devil – as when he told Eve, “You will not surely die.” That statement by the Devil is not true. It is true that he said it. The fact that the Bible accurately reported a lie does not mean that the Bible is partly uninspired.
You are going far afield from the theme of this post. First you affirmed that the apostles John and Matthew contradict each other about when John the Baptist knew Jesus as the Son of God. When I pointed out a possible way of reconciling their accounts, you simply said that you doubted I was right. I admitted I could be wrong in my explanation – that there may be a better one, but now you suggest that I am the one who doubts the inspiration of the Bible. I do not get what you are trying to say on this blog. I did say that so far your position does not seem preferable to mine. Hence, for now I cannot accept your position – and will not be able to do so until you present something much more cogent to support it.
Respectfully yours,
What I was trying to point out was, how easy it is to have differing views, and I chose the event of Jesus baptism, they all get Jesus under the water, but with added personal touches.
Matthew seemed to say JTB knew that Jesus was mightier than he before baptism,
Mark didn’t embellish at all.
Luke seemed to say Jesus prayed to God and was acknowledged as God’s son.
and he added one other thing , “the physical body of a dove”.
John seemed to say the only way JTB knew Jesus was the expected one, was when the spirit announced it.
And we wonder why we as humans, could get it wrong. or misrepresent what the bible says. And Jerry, at least I used scripture, you just made up your version. “what if, or could it be” So who is “misrepresenting the bible” the most.
I just taught on this very dilemma, Laymond, so it is pretty interesting that you have brought it up.
There is no contradiction – rather, there is evidence of humility and growth on the part of God’s prophet. John knew Jesus was the Messiah – he knew the family stories surrounding their births, and while others may have forgotten or explained it away, John is a prophet. He believes.
Look specifically at the source of John’s consternation. He doesn’t doubt that Jesus is the Messiah – like Peter will in Matthew 16 (here’s a little Matthew motif for you), John resists the idea that the Messiah must suffer. John doesn’t want a Messiah that needs to be baptized. But if the Messiah of Israel is *also* going to bear the sins of the world, he must start by bearing the sins of Israel – and where does he take them on? Right here – he is baptized into Israel so that he can bear the sins of Israel, and the world.
AFTER the baptism, John announces, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” Further, he announces that he now understands that his baptism of repentance into the remission of sins was – first and foremost – to truly reveal the Messiah to Israel. The true Messiah – the sinbearing king.
Much of your argument, Laymond, rests upon how we interpret John’s claim not to have known his own cousin. I don’t think the weight of the evidence leans towards the idea that he’d never met him or never known things about him. I think the weight of the evidence supports the idea that John is trying to explain that baptizing Jesus transformed John’s own thinking about Jesus’ own identity and mission.