When it comes to the understanding or interpretation of the Bible
a number of different "methods" to approach the Scriptures
exist. But the good news is that these methods aren't so numerous
that we could never properly examine each one, to see which approach
is the accurate one. As one writer pointed out, 'When push comes
to shove, there are only a limited number of ways to interpret
anything!' (The Cultural Church. F. Lagard Smith p. 44) The purpose
of this lesson is to examine a number of erroneous methods that
people have used in their attempt to understand the Bible.
I. The Bible Has No Order To It:
'Men have looked upon the Bible as not having been given according to any plan. They have regarded it as a mass of truth irregularly thrown together, and that we are as apt to find its meaning without system in our investigation as with it. They suppose its truth to be gold pockets, and not to be mined after any plan; and if we accidentally happen to hit upon a deposit we are fortunate. Getting the meaning of the Scriptures is more a question of genius or accident, than of study or research.' (Hermeneutics. Dugan pp. 49-50)
In response: (a) The Biblical writers often argued from the "order"
of the events recorded in the Bible. They perceived very clear
and common themes (2 Peter 2:4-9; 1 Corinthians 10:1-12; Hebrews
11:1-12:1; Acts 7:1-53) (b) Jesus saw a very plain theme in the
Scriptures, i.e. Himself (Luke 24:25-27 'And beginning with Moses
and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning
Himself in all the Scriptures.'; 24:44). (c) The inspired preachers
of the First Century found "order" in the Scriptures
(Acts 8:35 'beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to
him'.) (d) The very fact that the contents of the New Testament
letters can be "outlined" in a logical order, proves
the above contention wrong. (b) Since we are commanded to handle
the Word of God with "accuracy" (2 Timothy 2:15), and
warned against perverting it's meaning (2 Peter 3:16; Galatians
1:6-9). This clearly infers that a true meaning exists and that
a haphazard method of study is definitely the wrong method!
'Others..have looked upon the Bible as a blind parable, and if it means anything, then it is as l
likely to mean one thing as another..Milton says: "We count
it no gentleness or fair dealing in a man of power to require
strict and punctual obedience, and yet give out his commands ambiguously.
We should think he had a plot upon us. Certainly such commands
were no commands, but snares.' (Dugan p. 50) In response: (a)
Again, since we are commanded to handle the written Word of God
with accuracy (2 Timothy 2:15), and false interpretation is severely
condemned (2 John 9), this demands that a true meaning of Scripture
exists. (b) This is the same type of reasoning behind all arguments
that point to the religious confusion and or division in the world
and says, 'ask 100 ministers a bible question and you will get
100 different responses.' Actually such isn't really true. I have
access to many denominational commentaries and in most instances
there are only a couple of different views on any given verse.
And often, even these men from different backgrounds, with different
preconceived ideas and some who lived in different centuries,
agree on the meaning of a passage. The above argument also assumes
that every "minister" you asked is credible. The Bible
points out that 'many' false teachers will exist (1 John 4:1;
2 Timothy 4:3). (c) And most importantly, this view of Scripture
accuses God of being the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33) and
the cause for the divided state of the religious world, i.e. He
gave us a message and no two people could understand alike. Mark
this down, you cannot attack the written Word, without attacking
God at the same time (John 17:17; 12:48; 2 Timothy 3:16-17).
This view is probably more common than we think. It is the idea
that the "common" member will go immediately into false
doctrine without the guidance of some "elite" class
of clergy. This elite class many be a charismatic leader, the
priests, an organization like the WatchTower, or the Pope, etc..In
reponse: (a) The Bible was written to the "common members"
(Phil. 1:1 'to all the saints in Christ Jesus'; Colossians 1:2)
(b) Every member was expected to "understand" God's
will (Ephesians 5:17). (c) Paul felt that every member, simply
by reading could have the same "insight" into God's
truth as He did (Ephesians 3:3-4). (d) Another variation of the
above argument is the feeling that "highly educated, biblical
scholars cannot be wrong". Unfortunately, the bible teaches
us to the contrary. (a) The priests in the O.T. were often rebuked
by God for leading His people down the wrong path. And the real
shocker for many people is the realization that a good number
of "biblical scholars" are not very spiritual! The O.T.
contains a number of ungodly "religious" leaders (1
Samuel 2:12-17,22; Jeremiah 1:18; 2:8, 26-27; 5:31; Malachi 1:6-10).
Even in the First Century, we find the religious leaders of the
day holding on to false doctrines (Matthew 15:8-9). And some religious
leaders having more in common with unbelievers then believers
(Acts 23:8). We also find "religious scholars" being
very ignorant about what constitutes real service to God (Matthew
23:23-28). Unfortunately, God has warned us that the Church will
also contain corrupt leaders and preachers (Acts 20:30; 2 Corinthians
11:13-15; 2 Peter 2:1-3).
A. Emotions, Intuition, Gut
Feelings, What Sounds Good:
Often the above view is expressed in the following words, 'You
know it is the truth if it rings true to you or if it creates
a warm feeling in your heart.' At times people will say, 'I just
know in my heart that what I believe is true, and no amount of
Bible verses to the contrary is going to cause me to change my
mind.' In response: (a) The Bible clearly states that 'feelings,
emotions, gut feelings, and intuition' are very unreliable (Proverbs
16:25; 28:26 'He who trusts in his own heart is a fool'). (b)
It also points out that the human heart can be very deceptive
(Jeremiah 17:9). That without some objective measurement of truth,
we can convince ourselves that some of the most ridiculous ideas
are right (Romans 1:21 'became futile in their speculations';
1 Corinthians 1:21; Acts 17:21-23). (c) The assumptions which
lie behind the above very popular method of Bible study are: (1)
God won't allow me to believe what is false. Which is a false
concept! (2 Thess. 2:10-12) (2) I just know that me and God are
on the same wave-length. Which is also false (Isaiah 55:8-9) The
truth is, without God's revelation, no human being can intuitively
know the mind of God (1 Corinthians 2:9-13). (3) Truth will always
"feel right" when I hear it. Which isn't true either.
Jesus and the Apostles preached a number of things which didn't
"sound" good (Matthew 19:9-10; John 6:60; Acts 3:36;
17:32). And error often initially sounds better than the truth!
(2 Timothy 4:3-4) (d) This method is very popular because it appeals
to our pride and arrogance. It allows us to hold views of the
Bible that are particularly and exclusively "our own".
Often you will hear people say, 'Well this is what it means to
me'. Unfortunately, people forget that the Bible wasn't written
solely to them. It was written for all (Mark 16:15). And God doesn't
have something in His word "just for me". God doesn't
play favorites (Acts 10:34-35).
At times people will say, 'Just rely on your common sense when
reading the Bible'. Now common sense is good, but it isn't infallible.
Points to Note: (a) Since everybody has sinned (Romans 3:23),
that implies that our "common sense" isn't the perfect
approach to the study of the Scriptures. (b) Certain truths in
the Bible have ran headlong into what some people view as "common
sense" (Matthew 6:33;10:37; 19:9). (c) The very phrase itself
("common sense") makes it suspect. For it is the "sense"
of the "common" or majority. But Jesus pointed out that
the majority is on the wrong road (Matthew 7:13-14). Hence, in
many instances, "common sense" happens to be the "sense"
demonstrated by lost people. (d) Common sense has been used to
justify many sins that the Bible most emphatically condemns (1
Corinthians 6:9-11).
This is the idea that each new generation of Christians will find
some "new truth" in the Bible. Or, that certain verses
will become "clearer" as time passes. The Discipling
Movement and the Jehovah Witnesses both hold to this contention.
Points to Note: (a) But Jesus promised "all truth" to
the very first generation of Christians (John 14:26; 16:13). And
the Apostles claimed that Jesus kept His promise (2 Peter 1:3;
Jude 3; Ephesians 3:3-4). (b) This method also appeals to human
pride, because it implies that we who are living know more about
God's truth, than all previous generations. It also "liberates"
us from the views of past generations, i.e. we don't have to listen
to them. (c) It overlooks the fact that the Apostles expected
First Century Christians and all Christians to come to a full
knowledge of the truth. The Greek work for "knowledge"
in the following passages means a full and complete knowledge
(1 Timothy 2:4 'who desires all men to be saved and to come to
the knowledge (exact and full) of the truth'; Philippians 1:9).
'An increasing number among our fellowship are convinced that
our best hermeneutic is not any articulated method of interpretation
but the working of the Holy Spirit..Everywhere I go among the
larger "Christian community", I hear people attributing
their spiritual assurance to the leading of the Holy Spirit. As
often as not, where the Holy Spirit is leading them is directly
contrary to what the Holy Spirit guided holy men of old to write
by way of Scripture. Even in the church today, I hear appeals
to the leading of the Holy Spirit as justification for doing that
which the Bible plainly forbids. If one wants to see just how
far off the path of biblical practice one can get..one need only
look at the Friends Church. The Quakers had their roots in what
was known at the Radical Reformation, whose leaders affirmed that
"the Living Spirit is the final authority, not the Bible".
Proceeding from that fundamental assumption, the Quakers spiritualized
away both baptism and the Lord's Supper, and still today practice
neither..' (The Cultural Church pp. 186-187) Points to Note: (a)
All truth was revealed by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13; Jude 3).
(b) The Holy Spirit never spoke to each individual Christian,
even in the day and age of inspired men (Eph. 3:3-4). (c) Everything
the Holy Spirit has to say to mankind, has been said! And it is
recorded in the Scriptures. (d) The written Word was the final
authority for First Century Christians (2 Thess. 3:14; 1 Corinthians
14:37).
VII. What Would Jesus Do?
'It is not enough to ask, "Is this activity consistent with the person of Jesus?" Or, "Will Jesus be seen in us by others watching what we do?"..There are any number of concerns, especially about the work and worship of the church, which Jesus himself (while upon the earth) never addressed...' (The Cultural Church p. 184-185) Unfortunately, some want to place all the emphasis on the gospels. But have we forgotten the very basic truth, that the writings of the apostles are in reality the words of Jesus also? (John 16:14; 1 Cor. 14:37; 2 Peter 3:2) That through the apostles Jesus has told us what He wants done?
Mark Dunagan/4-23-95/ Beaverton Church of Christ/644-9017