Take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God (Eph 6:17).The word of God which includes the Bible is called a sword. Made from hardened metal, a good sword is sharp and it is strong. So, what do you do with it now?
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart (Heb 4:12).
Many people approach the Bible as if it's a piece of wood ... or something more flexible. Here's the common approach (and I need to point out that it's very common, even among those with a strong sense of concern for the Word): How does what I'm reading align with how I think and feel? "How I think and feel" in this approach becomes the arbiter of what I read. "It says," for instance, "that God ordered the deaths of men, women, and children (see 1 Sam 15 as an example). Well, I don't think that would be right for God to do, so ..." and now I fill in the blank. "It cannot mean what it says because I don't think that would be right." So I take the sword and begin to bend it. My deciding issue is what I think, not what it says. Even among those deeply concerned about valuing the Word, this is a common perspective and one that we have to overcome if we are to properly read the Bible.
Now, there are lots of helpful places out there to assist you to properly interpret Scripture. There are great little lists of rules like "interpret the implicit by the explicit" and "let Scripture interpret Scripture" and that kind of thing. My aim here is not to provide such a list. My purpose is to ask the question, "What do you do with what you read?" Do you bend Scripture to meet your thinking and feeling, or do you allow Scripture to shape your thinking (and, consequently, your feelings)? When you read something that collides with your present beliefs, do you consider changing your beliefs or do you prefer to change what you read?
Let's look at some examples. Take, for instance, the unavoidable biblical concept of the wrath of God. There is very little doubt that no one likes the concept of the wrath of God. It just sounds bad. Some will tell you, "That Old Testament God was really wrathful; I like the New Testament Jesus who was so loving." Many will try to explain away the wrath of God as perhaps an Old Testament superstition or, at least, an outmoded perception. But the Bible is full of the wrath of God from beginning to end and if you are to be true to the Word, you can't dismiss it. It doesn't feel very good, to be sure, but it is an unavoidable biblical concept. (Hey, I think I said that already.) So ... do you try to mitigate it or do you incorporate it as fact and readjust your thinking and feelings about it?
Look at what the Bible has to say about marriage. Starting at the beginning (Gen 2), marriage is a running theme. There are rules about how spouses relate to one another. There are rules about divorce (and if you're going to take them seriously, they are far more stringent than today's "no fault" approach). There are biblical parallels between marriage and God's relationship with Israel and between marriage and Christ's relationship to the Church that cannot -- must not be ignored. Today's world tends to be egalitarian in marriage. There are no "gender roles". Such a suggestion is sexist and evil. The Bible, on the other hand, provides instruction on roles of wives and roles of husbands ... and they are different. So, what do you do with that? Do you try to mold all that in the image of today's perceptions on marriage and gender roles or do you determine to mold your perceptions to the image God places in the Bible?
There is a whole lot there in the Bible that collides with modern views. The notion of a God who orders the deaths of men, women, and children (and goats and ...) is horrific in the modern mind. Many skeptics hold that up as a clear problem. Is it? It absolutely is ... if you assume that the modern mind is correct. If your starting place is Scripture, then you'll find that you have to change your mind about lots of things. The suggestion that homosexual behavior is sinful is offensive to today's world. Do you avoid offense and ignore (by shifting and bending) what the Bible says or recognize the offense and still hold to what the Bible says? Do you interpret the Bible from your worldview or do you allow the Bible to determine your worldview? When the Bible quotes God as saying, "I the LORD speak the truth; I declare what is right" (Isa 45:19), do you accept the demand that "what is right" is above and beyond God and He must conform to it or do you accept that God defines what is right? When you read, "I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil", do you say, "Well, that's not right" or do you ask, "Am I failing to properly understand the relationship of God and evil?" When you read, "No one does good, not even one", do you suggest, "Well, my experience says otherwise" or do you think, "It seems abundantly clear that no one does good, not even one, so is it possible that my understanding of 'good' is not right?" Do you give God the right to shape your thinking, or do you make the effort to bend the steel of the sword to match your own perceptions? I'd like to point out that trying to bend a sword is a very good way to get badly cut up.
12 comments:
The problem might arise when it comes down to HOW are we striving to understand this passage? Am I looking at what I already believe (based on cultural traditions, family traditions, prior understandings, "gut feelings," what I've always been taught, etc) and making the Bible fit THAT, or am I striving to undestand the Bible (and, more importantly, God's will in our lives) as best I can with the information I have at hand?
Am I treating the Bible as a "magic" book, in which I will automatically "know" what it means because I read a passage and X is my understanding, since X makes most "obvious" sense to me, so X must be God's will? Or, am I realizing that I am a fallible human being striving to comprehend an infinite God and I believe the Bible to be God's revelation to humanity, but we can't simply take each line as a literal command, we must need to strive to understand context - textual and cultural - and not simply assume that if a passage sounds like X to my modern ears, that X must be what it means?
Am I approaching striving to understand an infinite God with fear and trembling and an acknowledgment that I am a fallible human being amidst a humanity full of fallible human beings? Or do I assume my traditions and what I think is "obviously" intended MUST BE the one and only possible interpretation and therefore, I "know" God's will for me and for everyone else on every given point?
In any case, considering "what do I think about a passage" is not a bad thing, seems to me. Perhaps HOW we think about it might be, but the thinking part is not.
If that's what you're getting at, I reckon we agree.
I agree, Stan. Many people DO bend the Bible to say what they feel most comfortable with it saying. They may have grown up learning something one way and so they want the Bible to say that, even if it doesn't say that. They may even have convinced themselves that this is what the Bible says or, worse, that it's what God demands that everyone think, even if it doesn't say or suggest that.
And this is a problem. Whether it's a so-called liberal doing it because he's not "comfortable" with a "vengeful God," or it's a so-called conservative doing it because he was raised to believe that homosexuality itself is wrong.
On that point, we agree.
However, just because someone has a different interpretation of a passage than WE think is not to say that they are operating purely whimsically. So, perhaps you've really hit the nail by noting the question: "HOW do we think about a given passage?"
We ALL have to consider "WHAT do I think and feel" about any passage, if we're humans who are trying to figure out God's will and to understand the Bible.
We ought to think, "WHAT do I think and feel about this passage?" And we probably ought to continue, "Does this passage mean X or does it mean Y? What makes sense given the information I have?"
WHAT we think about a passage is not necessarily the problem, seems to me, but HOW we think about it MIGHT be.
The problem might arise when it comes down to HOW are we striving to understand this passage? Am I looking at what I already believe (based on cultural traditions, family traditions, prior understandings, "gut feelings," what I've always been taught, etc) and making the Bible fit THAT, or am I striving to undestand the Bible (and, more importantly, God's will in our lives) as best I can with the information I have at hand?
Am I treating the Bible as a "magic" book, in which I will automatically "know" what it means because I read a passage and X is my understanding, since X makes most "obvious" sense to me, so X must be God's will? Or, am I realizing that I am a fallible human being striving to comprehend an infinite God and I believe the Bible to be God's revelation to humanity, but we can't simply take each line as a literal command, we must need to strive to understand context - textual and cultural - and not simply assume that if a passage sounds like X to my modern ears, that X must be what it means?
Am I approaching striving to understand an infinite God with fear and trembling and an acknowledgment that I am a fallible human being amidst a humanity full of fallible human beings? Or do I assume my traditions and what I think is "obviously" intended MUST BE the one and only possible interpretation and therefore, I "know" God's will for me and for everyone else on every given point?
In any case, considering "what do I think about a passage" is not a bad thing, seems to me. Perhaps HOW we think about it might be, but the thinking part is not.
If that's what you're saying, I reckon we agree.
Jesus - nor anyone else - condemned slavery at the time of the NT. Today, we do, rightly and strongly.
Times change. Cultures change. God understands this, according to the Bible, and expectations are different.
Women were treated as chattel then. Homosexuality was not understood.
But times change. Cultures change. Expectations change.
The mistake, then (it seems to me) is to apply OT expectations to NT peoples/cultures, or OT expectations to modern peoples/cultures. Should we condemn King David for being polygamous? Perhaps, but we shouldn't judge too harshly, it was a different time and different culture. Should we condemn Jefferson for owning slaves? Perhaps, but we shouldn't judge too harshly, it was a different time and a different culture.
Should we condemn last generation's fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim, etc) for placing stumbling blocks in the way of our gay brothers and sisters? Perhaps, but we shouldn't judge too harshly, different time/culture.
Should we condemn slave traders TODAY or those who place stumbling blocks TODAY in the way of our gay brothers and sisters? Maybe. The times are changing. At some point, we need to let go of wrongheaded expectations that were the norm of previous cultures and generations. At the same time, we need to hold on to more universal truths and expectations.
May God grant us the wisdom to know the difference, right?
Stan...
There is a whole lot there in the Bible that collides with modern views. The notion of a God who orders the deaths of men, women, and children (and goats and ...) is horrific in the modern mind. Many skeptics hold that up as a clear problem. Is it? It absolutely is ... if you assume that the modern mind is correct.
True.
The notion of a God who "gives" a man multiple wives is awful to the modern mind. Many skeptics hold that up as a clear problem. Is it? It absolutely is ... if you assume that the modern mind is correct.
In this case, I think we can agree that the modern mind is correct. Polygamy is NOT an ideal solution. Just because it was acceptable in an ancient culture does not mean it is acceptable today. Things change. Cultures change.
Indeed, as the Bible notes in Acts 17...
Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now God commands all people everywhere to repent.
In the past - in cultures prior to Jesus' time - God overlooked the cultural ignorance of worshiping wooden/stone idols (or, as the King James puts it - "And the times of this ignorance, God winked at..." God seems, in the Bible, to understand that some expectations are apropriate for some cultures but not for others. Polygamy was "winked at." "An eye for an eye" - which sounds atrocious to many of us today - was a great improvement over the cultural traditions that demanded the death of a family for an eye, for instance.
Times change. Cultures change. God understands this, according to the Bible, and expectations are different.
Jesus - nor anyone else - condemned slavery at the time of the NT. Today, we do, rightly and strongly.
Times change. Cultures change. God understands this, according to the Bible, and expectations are different.
Women were treated as chattel then. Homosexuality was not understood.
But times change. Cultures change. Expectations change.
The mistake, then (it seems to me) is to apply OT expectations to NT peoples/cultures, or OT expectations to modern peoples/cultures. Should we condemn King David for being polygamous? Perhaps, but we shouldn't judge too harshly, it was a different time and different culture. Should we condemn Jefferson for owning slaves? Perhaps, but we shouldn't judge too harshly, it was a different time and a different culture.
Should we condemn last generation's fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim, etc) for placing stumbling blocks in the way of our gay brothers and sisters? Perhaps, but we shouldn't judge too harshly, different time/culture.
Should we condemn slave traders TODAY or those who place stumbling blocks TODAY in the way of our gay brothers and sisters? Maybe. The times are changing. At some point, we need to let go of wrongheaded expectations that were the norm of previous cultures and generations. At the same time, we need to hold on to more universal truths and expectations.
May God grant us the wisdom to know the difference, right?
OK, but what you're saying is "my view is the correct view and anyone who dissents is wrong — I'm right, you're wrong" — a Manichaean pronouncement that even the 16th century church reformers rebelled against.
Most ironic how such voices now foist that authority upon themselves.
All the while of being guilty of casting your own cultural lens with its mores, tradition, etc.… into the scriptural text…
You realize, of course, that you have just set yourself up for another course on Biblical interpretatio and "epic" writing styles.
As for me, I purposely read the Bible with the intention that I will make no decisions on what is right or wrong, permissable or forbidden, until I read the whole thing. I decided that all such decisions will be based on what the text reveals to me.
The problem is that others, one in particular I have in mind, claim they've done the same thing and come to a completely different, and from my perspective, heretical understandings. I read again and wonder, "how can this be? How can someone read the exact same words as I do and come away with a meaning those words cannot provide?" Yet, they maintain they are sincere. I maintain they are not. Or, they are not very bright, or they are swayed by outside influences, or they are the stereotypical liberal who, like interpeting the Constitution, see the Bible as a "living document" (gag) and proceed according to how they believe it is living at the time. The steel looks like a pretzel now.
The basic point of my post: "Do you give God the right to shape your thinking, or do you make the effort to bend the steel of the sword to match your own perceptions?" I'm asking if you choose to shape Scripture or if you allow Scripture to shape you. So ...
Dan assures us that "Times change. Cultures change. God understands this, according to the Bible, and expectations are different." In other words, culture shapes Scripture.
Naum says, "you're saying is 'my view is the correct view and anyone who dissents is wrong — I'm right, you're wrong'." How, exactly, a question is a claim to being correct I don't know. Am I claiming that the Scripture ought to shape how we think and you disagree? Then your answer is "I choose to shape Scripture to (whatever standard I am choosing)." I don't see how a question is a claim to being correct. Are you offended that I ask the question? Is that foisting authority? It seems to me that it is likely that either you didn't actually understand what I was saying or you just intend to argue with me without cause. Look, Naum, if you think that Scripture should not shape our thinking, just say so. Don't spout off about foisting authority and claiming to be right (which, by the way, you are doing).
And, for the record, Dan, I totally disagree that culture shapes Scripture and because times change, expectations change. It appears to me that you are deciding for yourself what changes and what doesn't and then holding that those of us who disagree are just confused (at best).
But Marshall is right. This is going to quickly degenerate into a disagreement over biblical interpretations. I think this will end quickly, then, since I am the one who can do it.
This is going to quickly degenerate into a disagreement over biblical interpretations. I think this will end quickly, then, since I am the one who can do it.
Why Stan? What's the problem with having a discussion on how we collectively interpret scripture?
I would think this would be a good thing.
And Stan, if you're ending this already, before we even begin, at least post this comment to clear up another misrepresentation/misunderstanding of my position.
You said...
Dan assures us that "Times change. Cultures change. God understands this, according to the Bible, and expectations are different." In other words, culture shapes Scripture.
No. Dan does NOT assure us that culture shapes Scripture. You know how you can know that? Because I never said, suggested or implied that.
Please, brother, do not make statements like this, "Dan says/thinks X..." unless X is something I have said. Nearly every time you attempt to summarize my position, you state a false representation of my position.
Now, I'm not accusing you of lying, I think you're just misunderstanding and then stating a misstatement out of that misunderstanding. But since you so consistently get my position wrong, would you please do me the favor and say, "Dan, are you really saying that (for instance) culture shapes Scripture??"
Rather than just saying that's what I believe/think/said. I know you know that the Bible condemns bearing false witness and I'm sure you don't want to do so, even in error.
Thanks.
Sorry, Dan. This was an experiment gone bad. "Maybe it would be possible to include comments from Dan again. Maybe he won't be so argumentative. Maybe he won't paint himself as a righteous victim of cruelly narrow-minded people while he treats them the same way. Maybe he won't cause so many ripples." I was wrong.
Dan Trabue: "What's the problem with having a discussion on how we collectively interpret scripture?"
That you ask the question is proof of that of which I speak. We just had several rounds of "How do you interpret Scripture?" without any agreement, resolution, or even understanding. "I suggested that you place a large emphasis on historical and culture context and "what does it mean to me?" and you protested. "I do it the same way you do." You said that understanding Jesus's words in Matthew 19 required an understanding of the times and culture (because it didn't actually mean what it said on the face of it) and when I suggested you felt we need an understanding of times and culture to properly understand Scripture, you protested. You like taking the "high ground" in your view although you're very happy to contradict yourself or accuse others of the same thing you are doing. You argue that you take the Bible just as seriously as anyone else, but argue as well that it's wrong to read the Old Testament as something literal or applicable to today. You even applied a genre of literature to the Bible that I've never heard before -- "Epic". (I know what "Epic" means, but applying the category of literature to the Bible is new.)
You think that the reason some of us think you're wrong is simply because you disagree, as if we're phobic to disagreement. This is simply another case of different definitions that lead to massive differences. It's not over a disagreement. We see the depths of your error as systemic. It isn't disagreement. But you continue to complain that you are being misunderstood and misrepresented while you continue to misunderstand and misrepresent others.
This experiment has failed. The differences aren't small. The disagreements aren't minor. It's like looking across the Grand Canyon. "Hey," you say, "we're at the same level, aren't we?" Um, well, no; there is a vast chasm between us, one that you apparently can't see at all.
"I never said that." No matter how many people draw the same conclusions, which it seems are the only conclusions Dan's words provoke, he "never said that".
I say again that it's not that you don't say the things that lead to our conclusions, you just don't like how they sound repeated back to you. It's like hearing your own voice played back on a recording and not believing or likig what you hear. But it remains your voice, your words, your sentiments and beliefs as they are projected from you. If you continue to be disappointed with how we repeat them, after all these years one might expect you'd reconsider your positions. But no, that would mean you were wrong. Can't have that after having been wrong already, only to wrong still. Far better to continue suspecting ill of those to whom you speak until they say your words back to you in a manner more pleasing. But the only way that can be done, is to repeat back to you what you didn't say. That means we have to guess at what possibly we can say to mean what we hear from you as well as what you want us to hear from you. Can't be done. We can only relate back to you what we hear.
There's too many of us who have heard the same thing and your response is the same, such as:
"Please, brother, do not make statements like this, "Dan says/thinks X..." unless X is something I have said. Nearly every time you attempt to summarize my position, you state a false representation of my position."
Too many of us see, individually and on our own, the same problems with your words. And the more you say, the more confirmed we are that we understand you. Likely we do better than you do yourself.
I've asked Dan Trabue to stop commenting. I don't think we need the conflict. (My call, not his.) He has asked, however, that I tell you that we are all misrepresenting his views and he disagrees with our characterization of what he thinks. Just thought you should know.
Post a Comment