Tag Archives: Biblical interpretation

Book. Chapter. Verse.

1 Reply

Book. Chapter. Verse.

That’s one of the basic concepts I like to teach to Bible readers. To help them think about context, I encourage them to think book -> chapter -> verse.

I’ll admit upfront that’s an oversimplification. But for new readers, it’s a handy way to be reminded of context, because they see it every time they’re given a verse reference. When I read “John 3:16,” I can immediately see that the book is John, the chapter is 3, and the verse is 16. So I teach new Bible readers that, as they seek to interpret a verse, they should first think about the book and the chapter.

For John 3:16, I want to look at the Gospel of John, and it’s structure. That’s a challenge for new readers, but they need to see the idea. I encourage them to think about what a gospel is, why the gospel of John is different from the others, who John was and who he may have been writing to. Questions of that sort.

Then I encourage them to look at chapter 3, and it’s place in the gospel. What’s going on in chapter 3? How does it tie chapter 2 and chapter 4 together (or does it?). Those questions.

Now they can look at the verse itself and consider it’s place in the chapter. How does verse 16 relate to what comes before and what comes after?

That won’t answer all questions about context. But it will get new readers started on the road to exploring the subject and seeing how it moves us from surface-level reading to a deeper understanding of the text. And it’s a concept that they have illustrated right in front of them, every time they look at a scripture reference.

Where to start reading the Bible

Leave a reply

Last week I began sharing some thoughts about what to teach a newcomer about how to read the Bible. I made some suggestions about some broad themes; let me mention a few specific ideas.

  • I don’t like to hand someone a Bible and leave them. There’s really no support for that in the Bible itself. The closest we come is Phillip and the Ethiopian; after a few hours conversation, Phillip leaves the man. However, the Ethiopian was not a complete newcomer to Scripture; he was apparently a convert to Judaism. He probably had the support of a synagogue back home.
    People need some guidance as they begin to read. The ideal is for someone to commit to walk with them in their journey through the Bible for a few months, at minimum.
  • I teach people that the Bible is an anthology, not a book. The average person supposes that the Bible was written in a fairly short period of time by a handful of people working together. It helps to show people that the Bible is made up of dozens of books written over a span of more than 1000 years.
  • I suggest that people NOT begin in Genesis. I tell people to begin in the gospels. If I were drawing up an initial reading plan, it would look a bit like this:

    Gospel of Mark
    Gospel of John
    Acts 1-21
    Galatians
    Ephesians
    Genesis
    Exodus 1-20
    Skim Exodus 21ff.
    Hebrews
    Romans

Some comments on that reading start. I want them to see Jesus first. I choose a synoptic; Mark is my preference, but anyone of the three is good. I then have them read John to get a broader view of who Jesus is.

Then we move to Acts, partly to see the beginning of the church, partly to get the context for the epistles. Galatians both illustrates the occasional nature of the letters and gives some basic teaching about the gospel. Ephesians gives a vision of what maturity in Christ is to look like.

We then read Genesis to learn about the promises made to Abraham. The first part of Exodus presents several of the mighty acts of God which form the foundation for much of the identity of God’s people. It’s worth skimming the rest of Exodus to then understand what Hebrews is talking about. At this point, the person should be ready for bigger books like Hebrews and Romans.

Those are some of the basics. Suggestions?

Teaching someone to interpret the Bible.

1 Reply

I was reading a discussion about how we teach people to interpret the Bible. That came at an interesting time, for I’m dealing with some of the same in a video course I’m preparing.

Here are some interpretive concepts that I think are needed:

  • Context: We need to recognize where a text fits within the framework of the Bible and the framework of the book it’s in. We need to understand the cultural and historical milieu of the writer and the intended audience.
  • Genres: We need to understand how to read different types of books in the Bible and different literary types within those books. You don’t read Proverbs the same way you read Leviticus. You don’t read a parable the same way you read a sermon.
  • Major themes of the Bible: We need to learn to identify the overriding themes within Scripture.
  • Limited application vs. universal application (cultural vs supracultural): We need to be able to see the difference between instructions for a specific situation and general instructions for all believers everywhere.

At the same time, some personal concepts are also needed:

  • Reverence: I believe that it’s impossible to read the Bible correctly without believing that it is more than a human book. We have to believe in inspiration, even as we may differ on exactly what that looks like. We need to respect the authority of the text. We need to avoid placing ourselves above the Bible.
  • Grace: We need to remember that we are saved by grace, not by works. We seek to be as pleasing to God as possible, not out of a fear that any misstep will send us to hell, but out of a desire to do what our God wants. And because we receive grace from God, we can extend grace to others.
  • Humility: When reading Scripture, we need this in large doses. Most of us have changed our views over the years; in fact, if we haven’t, I’m afraid we’re not growing. This should lead us to state our understandings gently, recognizing that we could be mistaken.
  • Spirituality: Without God’s Spirit, we cannot truly comprehend God’s Word. Alexander Campbell talked about needing to draw near enough to God to be able to hear and understand his voice. All of this makes prayer an essential part of Bible study.

That’s a start. I’ll try and build on some of those going forward. What sorts of things would you add?

Photo by cbcs at Morguefile.com

“The Message” isn’t always a translation

Leave a reply

There’s some debate about whether Eugene Peterson’s The Message is a translation or a paraphrase. I’d argue that it’s both, in some ways.

That is, Peterson translated from the Greek without consulting English translations, according to him. That’s a translation. Yet it seems to me that he then took that translation and “riffed on it,” producing a paraphrase of his own work!

Look at Paul’s question to the Ephesians in Acts 19:2. Here’s how the NIV translates it:

“Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”

I’m no Greek expert, but looking at the GNT, the question seems to consist of 5 words which basically state what is above. Now look what Peterson did with the question:

“Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed? Did you take God into your mind only, or did you also embrace him with your heart? Did he get inside you?”

See what I mean? The first sentence is the translation. The next two… have no basis in the Greek text. They aren’t translation. At best they are paraphrase. Essentially they are Peterson’s commentary on the translation.

How is the reader to know that? How is the reader supposed to know when Peterson is merely injecting things into the text?

Look at Romans 8:38-39. In “translating” this verse, Peterson writes:

Do you think anyone is going to be able to drive a wedge between us and Christ’s love for us? There is no way! Not trouble, not hard times, not hatred, not hunger, not homelessness, not bullying threats, not backstabbing, not even the worst sins listed in Scripture: (Tim: underline mine)

As a reminder, here’s how the NIV does it:

“For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

In another post, I’ll note how Peterson avoids discussion of spiritual powers; that’s a definite problem. What I’ve underlined shows a major theological point that Peterson has inserted into this passage… with no textual basis. Depending on what Peterson means in what he has authored here, I very well may agree with him. However… that’s not Romans 8. That’s not translation.

Again… how is the reader supposed to know?

Replacing biblical authority with that of experience

2 Replies

Let me get back to a topic from last week. I was talking about Christians and churches accepting an additional authority in spiritual matters, that being the authority of experience.

Jay Guin is doing a series of articles on church trends. The first trend he discusses comes from an article by Philip Jenkins and focuses on “gender revolutions.” Let me quote a few things from what Jay says; listen to see if you can hear the voice of experience dominating the discussion in churches:

But there was an even bigger revolution that I’d date to around World War II. Pre-WWII, most conservative churches considered the biblical passages thought to prohibit women from having authority over men (primarily 1 Tim 2) to apply universally — in the secular workplace as well as church and family.
However, by the early 1960s at least, the commentators were limiting their arguments to the church and the family, largely conceding that women may have authority over men in the secular workplace — but more by omission. They just dropped the secular workplace side of the question. Why?
Well, first, women were busily proving their competence as principals of schools and administrators in other fields. And they were bringing home much larger pay checks because of it. And so the old argument of female gullibility was disproved by experience, and few men were willing to give up a 50% raise in their wife’s pay just to make a theological point.

The near future trend is that the complementarian (hierarchical) position will continue to erode as experience shows the competence of women as supervisors and as a generation that has never known the discrimination that I grew up with become church leaders and elders.
Now, for non-Christians, anything short of full equality for women is considered grossly immoral. Millennials consider the notion that women shouldn’t be full partners in a marriage or church laughable and deeply wrong. This is going to become less of an internal debate within the church and more a question of our ability to evangelize the lost, because few unchurched people will be willing to accept imposing a subordinate role on women.

To be fair, let me note that Jay makes powerful arguments for egalitarianism based on Scripture and theology. He is not one who has accepted the authority of experience over the voice of Scripture. But many in our churches have done so. For most, a desire to change the church’s stance on women does not arise out of Bible study or new insights into the text. It comes from experience, both personal experience and observed experience.

Interestingly enough, Jay included point #2 in the same post. (I don’t think the grouping was intentional) That point deals with “Revolutions in sexual identity.” I find that interesting because I can’t help but feel that we’re going to see the exact same thing happen in the church as regards sexual identity. Experience will cause us to return to the Bible and massage the text until it finally says what we want it to say.

Note what Jay says:

While some congregations are choosing to accept gay couples or else to take an agnostic position (same difference), most churches consider homosexual sexual activity to be sinful. And, indeed, I think this is what the Bible teaches (as we’ve covered here many times). But there will be a price to be paid as homosexuals push for legislation that punishes those who refuse to adopt their agenda. I’m sure that at some point the tax exempt status of churches will be challenged if they don’t submit to the gay agenda. And some churches and related institutions (universities, publishing houses) will capitulate rather than close their doors with the loss of tax-deductible contributions.

In both cases (gender and sexual identity), Jay notes that the church will have to pay a price to hold to traditional views. I’m less optimistic than he. I think few Christians and few churches are willing to pay that price. We’ve seen it in gender discussions. We’ll see it with conversations about sexual identity.

Give experience a voice equal to or greater than that given to Scripture, if you choose. Just be honest about it. I think you’re damaging the church by changing your source of authority. And I think generations in the future will return to Scripture and marvel at the choices we made.