Below is a video of an interview with retired GCI pastor Ray Meyer. He discusses the pastoral succession planning process in the Kansas City, Missouri church, where he served as senior pastor for 19 years. Also watch for the July issue of Equipper, which tells Ray’s story.
On YouTube at http://youtu.be/2z3q-dJt-YU.
Here is the sixth and concluding article in a series by Gary Deddo on interpreting Scripture. For part one, click here; for part two, click here; for part three, click here; for part four, click here; for part five, click here.
We now conclude this series with several principles that help us interpret Scripture in ways that honor its God-given nature and purpose.
God’s gift comes to us in the form of writings that were preserved down through the ages in the form of written texts in human languages. To honor Scripture is to honor the form in which is it given to us not just the content. Thus to pay careful attention to the Bible, we have to take into consideration its historical, linguistic and literary forms. Our methods have to be able to attune us to the communication offered in those forms. But the methods used to engage the forms of communication cannot be allowed to take over and determine what we are able or are allowed to hear. That’s how modern biblical studies and criticism have often gone wrong. However, we can selectively use methods attuned to the form of Scripture in ways that enable us to hear the words as references to the realities that disclose to us its meaning and significance. Methods that impose their own meanings and significance must be set aside; otherwise we are granting them final authority over Scripture, placing our ultimate trust in them and not in the living Word of God.
What are some implications of recognizing the importance of the form of biblical revelation? First, a knowledge of the biblical languages can be helpful for those translating it into other languages (missionary translators), for those translating it into other historical-cultural contexts (pastors and teachers) and for those who equip others to communicate the biblical message and meaning. A familiarity with the customs, the culture, the time period of history and the original audience addressed at the time the various texts were written is also useful. A grasp of the various literary forms used and how they function as means of communication (e.g. history, wisdom literature, letters, gospels, apocalyptic etc.) also helps us better listen to God’s Word. Much of scholarship is devoted to these elements of biblical studies. There are a number of good books that assist us in discerning the genre of the various biblical writings and how to approach them.
However, the methods have to always be in service of and subservient to the message and the meaning (realities to which they refer) of the biblical revelation. Whatever methods we use should not: 1) impede our hearing the message or 2) call into question the possibility of actually knowing those realities or 3) impose their own philosophical presuppositions on what we can expect to know or hear before we’ve listened, or 4) draw us into a false sense of objectivity (which promotes a seeming neutrality or abstract distance between us and the object of revelation’s disclosure). Those methods that do so would need to be ruled out, rejected and repented of. For in those cases the methods have become our religion, our primary object of trust, the authoritative source of our most fundamental assumptions about reality. They will, in fact, have become the controlling reality and therefore serve as conceptual idols that make us into users of and lords over the Word of God.
And they may do this all under the cover of our assumed powers that we have and need for “knowing good and evil.” (Just what the serpent tempted Adam and Eve to think they needed.) But such dangers need not rule out a proper use of methods that are ordered to the nature and ends of the good gift of Scripture. We honor the creaturely form of Scripture when our methods correspond to it rather than rule over it. And such methods will pay careful attention to the genre of the various biblical texts as well as the language and historical and cultural background. A resource such as the IVP Bible Background Commentary provides such information to assist anyone on any passage of Scripture.
Another simple implication is that the form of biblical revelation is for the most part conveyed to us as whole literary pieces. The books of the Bible were written, collected and arranged as whole pieces. Thus, harkening back to what we said about interpreting the parts in terms of the whole and the whole as made up of all the parts, we should always consider the whole of the literary unit in which Scripture was written and preserved for us to ascertain the meaning and significance of the various sub-units within.
Individual passages or even chapters should be interpreted in the light of the whole book and the location and order in which each verse, paragraph or section appears in the book. Failing to do so takes the parts out of context and does not honor the coherent form in which God has given and preserved his written word for us. On any topic, every book of the Bible must be taken into consideration along with its particular location in the history of God’s revelation and in relation to its revelatory center in Jesus Christ. But that process must start by studying the biblical books as whole units written or collected and arranged as wholes. In that way we have many pointers, some clearer than others, guiding us to know and properly relate to the realities that God intends them to disclose to us.
I have become alert to another bad habit that somehow has sneaked into our biblical interpretation that could use some corrective attention. We are often under conviction that the Bible is primarily there to tell us what to do for God or how to do certain things for God. This is especially true for those who have already become believing people, members of a church. This pull of being obligated to do things for God becomes so strong that often we are drawn into bad habits of biblical interpretation. We end up not really hearing the Word and inadvertently distort what we hear. We end up thinking God is essentially a taskmaster and we are his slaves or worker-bees!
The problem arises when we take something that is simply declared to us so that we might trust in its truth and reality and then turn it into something we are to do, or accomplish or somehow make actual or real. In shorthand and using the terms of grammar, we turn indicatives of grace into imperatives (commands) of works.
For example, in the Beatitudes in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5), we turn the indicatives that tell us that God has blessed certain folks (the poor in spirit, the meek, those who thirst for righteousness and those who are peacemakers) into commands telling us to try harder to become these things. But Jesus was not using imperatives to command his listeners to work harder to do those things or to become those things. Rather, he was indicating what God already has done in blessing his people. God blessed some listening to Jesus right then and there. Jesus was then inviting them (and us!) to recognize and marvel at what God had done by his Spirit in his people.
A little later in the Sermon, Jesus does give a command—he issues an unconditional imperative at the end of the Beatitudes: “Rejoice and be glad!” Yes that’s what we are obligated to do for God! And why? Jesus tells us: because God has blessed his people so that some are meek, some are longing for righteousness, some are peacemakers. God is a blessing God…rejoice and be glad! But when the indicatives of this passage are twisted into imperatives, by the time we get to the actual imperative in the sermon, we’re too burdened down with guilt to even hear Jesus’ command. Or if we do hear, we don’t obey. “Right,” we say, “rejoice and be glad. No way! He can’t be serious after haranguing us like that—disappointed that we’re not doing all that we’re supposed to do.” When we follow that faulty line of reasoning, taking what we think might be the “harder road,” we’ve dismissed the truth of Jesus’ message about the blessings of God and missed the actual response he intends to elicit from us!
I could multiply examples where people take a description in Scripture of what God has done or what he can be trusted for and convert that description (indicative) into an obligation or a command (imperative). This mistake comes from our anxiety to do things for God. The supposed commands are seen as conditions for getting God’s approval or his blessing. But as you study Scripture, look to see if it isn’t the case that underneath or behind every command there isn’t some indication of who God is or what God can be trusted for, which supplies the very foundation and motive for those commands that are given. God does not need to be conditioned to be faithful to himself and his promises to us.
Let me give one more example. Let’s go back to the Old Testament to the Ten Commandments given to Israel. Notice that it is not given until 430 years after God established his covenant with Abraham. It amounted to a promise: “I will be your God and you shall be my people.” “Through you all the nations of the earth shall be blessed.” But even Exodus chapter 20 does not begin with “Thou shalt nots.” Note verse two: “I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.” This verse indicates who God is and what he can be trusted for. It points out that the God who commands is the kind of God who rescues, redeems, sets free, delivers and saves! Why would Israel have an interest in other gods? Did the frog god do such for them? Did the fly god? The Nile River god? The cow god? The sun god? No, all the gods of Egypt became curses and led to death, not life.
As long as Israel trusted their God to be true to his character as revealed and indicated in the great Exodus, they would not even be tempted to turn to these idols, much less make images of them! Who God is in his nature and character is the foundation and the freedom for obeying his commands that follow. When this God is obeyed by faith in his character as revealed in his acts of deliverance, his commands are easy to obey. They are difficult and perhaps impossible to obey only if and when we don’t trust God to be true to his character, the same character we see revealed supremely and in person in Jesus Christ our Ultimate Deliverer.
So the simple interpretive rule here is: always interpret the commands of God in terms of indicatives of God’s grace and faithful character. Never grab a command apart from its foundation on the indicatives that reveal and remind us who God is. Whenever you find a command, stop and find the indicative of grace upon which it rests and then interpret them together. It should be somewhere nearby, either before or after the command. It might be the whole first half of the book, like Romans where chapters one through eleven lay out the grace of God and chapters 12-16 present the proper response to that grace. And certainly don’t turn the indicatives of grace into an obligation of works. Doing so violates the form (grammar, in this case) and meaning of the words of Scripture. Don’t let your guilt, fears and anxieties tempt you to turn a truth about God into an obligation to be laid on yourself or others.
Another bad habit I have run into and been guilty of myself in years past regards how we interpret the warnings in Scripture. For some reason, I don’t know why, when reading the warnings in the Bible many have the habit of thinking that it indicates that God has a mean streak (should I say “spirit”?) and wants the horrible outcome spoken of to come to pass. So we might be tempted to think that Jesus wants and delights in sending away those not prepared for the wedding feast, or that he wants the rich man who mistreated Lazarus to suffer eternally, etc. After reading a warning we often conclude, “See, we knew there was a dark and unforgiving side of God—look at that warning right there in Scripture! He delights just as much in punishing, rejecting and being wrathful as in saving, reconciling and restoring.”
But what is the meaning, the reality of these warnings? How should we interpret them in the context of all of Scripture and in light of the character of God revealed in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? First off, warnings are not the first word God gives. Warnings come as the last word offered to those who reject all the other words of promise and blessing that call for complete trust in and worship of God alone. And they are mostly directed at self-righteous and haughty religious people, not those who are unbelieving and not a part of the community of worshippers.
And then, what is the purpose or aim of a warning and why would someone give a warning? The purpose is to prevent the outcome pictured from happening! It is not given to assure that it does happen. It is given because the outcome is not wanted, is not desired but to be averted. It is given to help the very one being warned of the danger. Warnings are a sign of love, not rejection. Perhaps it is the last sign given, but nevertheless still one of love. If God didn’t care or wanted the anticipated negative outcome to occur, there would no reason for him to issue a warning at all. Why even bother! But, no, warnings are the last words of love to prevent the potential outcome.
Other biblical teaching tells us that God does not delight in the punishment of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11) and he wants no one to perish but to turn and repent (2 Peter 3:9). Jesus’ own explanation that he came not to condemn the world but to save it (John 3:14-18) backs up this understanding of biblical warnings. We have Scripture that tells us in no uncertain terms how God regards the unbeliever, the unrepentant ones. God does not take delight in seeing his good creation come to ruin. Warnings are expressions of love when nothing else has worked. They are not threats God can’t wait to carry out. So we ought to interpret biblical warnings in terms of the character of God shown in Christ and according to the purpose of warnings meant to prevent the potential disastrous outcome to those God loves.
And finally one last bad habit of interpretation to consider. In listening to and studying Scripture we can fall into the trap of interpreting an action of God or of God’s people apart from the accompanying words that indicate its meaning. The revelation of God involves a Word-Deed event. Certainly, God does things and has his people do certain things. But the deeds cannot be understood apart from the word given that interprets it. Deeds do not interpret themselves.
The significance and meaning of a particular deed is revealed through words that explain what was behind that action. But often we read of God doing something, especially in the Old Testament but sometimes in the New, and immediately react and draw conclusions about what that deed must say about God or his purposes or mind. For example, we read that the Egyptians drowned in the Red Sea or that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. Or we read of Jesus driving out the money-changers from the temple, or cursing the fig tree, or warning those who have not repented, or instructing the disciples to shake the dust off their feet from those villages that refuse to welcome them. Instead of looking for the prophetic and apostolic interpretation of these deeds—seeking to understand what they point to and how they are fulfilled and perfected (brought to their right and true end or purpose)—we interpret them in the context of what we might mean if we were to do these things today (or perhaps what the worst and meanest person we can think of might mean by it!).
In making this mistake, we are substituting our imagined context for the biblical context and explanation. Although sometimes it’s not obvious in every text, when the whole picture is assembled we find that the ultimate purpose of the text is redemption, reconciliation, deliverance—the salvation that is fulfilled in Jesus. Deciding on what a deed of God or his people means apart from God’s character and words that interpret such deeds is another way of taking Scripture out of context—it is the grasping of an individual part that is disconnected from the whole. Deeds must never be understood apart from their revealed explanations.
While there are other words surrounding and interpreting for us those deeds mentioned above, I want to conclude by reminding us that Jesus Christ himself is the final Deed and Word of God. Jesus had to interpret his deeds even to his own disciples for them to know what they meant. This is especially true of the saving significance of his death and the hope of the resurrection. Without hearing his spoken words we would not know the meaning of his actions. Both must be taken together.
In fact, all the deeds of God in the Bible and other prophetic words should be interpreted in terms of who Jesus is, the Final Word-Deed. The Exodus and Pharaoh must be interpreted in terms of Jesus and his revelation of the heart and mind of God toward all his human creatures. He embodies and explains his very purpose to save. As the Son of God and the Son of Man he worked out that purpose by assuming our human nature as the second Adam and becoming the new head of the race.
So even Jesus’ own deeds must be interpreted in terms of his own words, not in terms of our own words/thoughts/imaginations. In other words, all his deeds or work must be interpreted in the light of his person—in the light of who Jesus is. Said another way, we must interpret his works in terms of his person. And who is Jesus in his being and nature? He is the Son of the Father, our Savior, Redeemer and Reconciler. That’s what the name Jesus means—the name given to him by his heavenly Father. All of Jesus’ deeds indicate who he is as the eternal Son of the Father, become our Brother, Lord and Servant King in order to make us his beloved children. As God’s final word and deed, Jesus is the key to interpreting every word and deed in Scripture—the written word belongs to Jesus and comes from him, God’s Living Word to us.
This is exactly what was occurring when Jesus stayed with those he met on the road to Emmaus following his resurrection: “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27 ESV). You’ll also recall Jesus’ admonition to the Pharisees: “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life” (John 5:39-40 ESV).
There is one last word to consider before we end this series. The task of interpreting Scripture is not the responsibility of isolated individuals but the task of the whole church, involving its various members with their gifts and callings, including those gifted as teachers and preachers. Proper interpretation of Scripture takes account of how particular passages of Scripture have been understood by many down through the history of the church and into our own times. We’ll want to pay more attention to those teachers and interpreters who follow the kind of guidelines we have laid out in this series.
In presenting this series, I am indebted to many who have gone before me. I have not footnoted these references, but I could have. It is good to consult others before we make final determinations of what a given passage of Scripture means or what a collection of Scriptures add up to mean. We should look for precedents—paying attention to those who have been called by God to assist the church in listening to and understanding Scripture. We ought to be skeptical about esoteric interpretations that have little or no continuity with what the orthodox church as a whole has historically understood. This does not mean that deeper understanding could not be obtained as we stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before. But that understanding should be deeper and fuller than what has gone before, not a departure or wholesale discount of it.
God has many laborers working by faith to understand Scripture. We must not be so arrogant as to think that we alone, individually, can have an independent and final say. While the approach advocated in this series will not guarantee uniformity of interpretation throughout the church, it will help us avoid falling into traps, especially those already identified centuries ago! God gives his Word and his Spirit to the Church as a whole. We must not despise others who approach it with the same honor with which we regard it, for in doing so we would be rejecting some of the good gifts that God has given to the church in the past for our benefit today.
With those words then, I end this series with the hope that more questions have been answered than raised; more light shed than heat generated.
May the Lord himself sanctify all these words to you. Amen.
Here are some interesting church development-related trends compiled by Mission America.
46% of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this view is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago when Gallup first asked the question. 32% believe humans evolved, but with God’s guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process. (ToddRhoades.com 5/15/13)
Nomads is a term assigned by the Barna Group to 18- to 29-year-olds with a Christian background who walk away from church engagement but still consider themselves Christians. A person in this group typically has trouble identifying with a church or a particular “brand” of Christianity, but would consider themselves, broadly, a Christian. 43% of young American adults with a Christian background believe going to church and having Christian friends is optional. 25% say faith and religion just aren’t that important to them. 23% say they used to be very involved in their church, but they just don’t fit in anymore. This is the group most likely to say they love Jesus but not the church — or that they are “spiritual but not religious.” (Barna Group 5/9/13)
Prodigals is a term assigned by the Barna Group to 18- to 29-year-olds who have lost their faith. They used to claim a personal faith, but no longer claim any Christian belief. Many say they are as fairly certain they won’t ever return to the Christian faith. 21% of Millennials with a Christian background say Christian beliefs don’t make sense to them. 20% admit to having had a negative experience in church or with Christians. 19% say their spiritual needs cannot be met by Christianity. This group often gets lumped in with the “Nones,” even though they might not be totally opposed to faith and spirituality. (Barna Group 5/9/13)
Exiles is a term assigned by the Barna Group to 18- to 29-year-olds who struggle with the Christian faith. They have a tough time finding a place in a church setting but choose to remain within an institutional church context. They feel “lost” somewhere between their commitments to church and their desire to stay connected with the world. They struggle to connect their faith or church with their everyday lives, and yet they continue in their Christian faith despite these hurdles. 21% remain Christian and continue to attend a church but find church to be a difficult place for them to live out their faith. 38% say they desire to follow Jesus in a way that connects with the world they live in. One-third say God is more at work outside the church than inside the church, and they want to be a part of that. 32% of American 20-somethings with a Christian background says they want to be a Christian without separating themselves from the world around them. (Barna Group 5/9/13)
Two movements among Christian congregations in the U.S. today continue to gain momentum; churches with multiple locations (multisite) and leadership development (discipleship). In addition, a growing number of churches are intentionally developing a culture of generosity, an effort to help carry the gospel message outside the church, says the director of new media and technology for the Leadership Network. Todd Rhoades, of Leadership Network said, “We’re seeing new waves of innovation in the movement itself: including international campuses, online campuses, the move from big cities to rural environments, and more churches partnering to redeem facilities and struggling churches through church mergers.” (Christian Post 5/15/13)
According to a new Barna Group survey, 82% of Christian adults believe the U.S. is facing a crisis of leadership because there aren’t enough leaders. 58% of Christians in this country identify themselves as leaders (58%). The survey asked leaders what they would most like to improve about their leadership. The area where they said they want the most help is courage (27%), followed by a desire to grow in terms of discipline (17%), vision (15%) and passion for God (13%). Evangelical leaders want to grow in courage (27%), discipline (25%), passion for God (14%) and vision (9%). (Barna Research 4/18/13)
Several GCI Life Clubs are now operating in various locations around the world. These clubs are similar to the Spokesman Clubs held by most GCI churches in times past. While most Spokesman Clubs were for men only, Life Clubs are designed to accommodate men, women and teens.
If you would like to start a Life Club in your congregation, you can email Geoff Sole at geoff@geoffsole.co.uk. Geoff can provide you with club manuals and other materials to help you start. Following is a report from Geoff on some of the current clubs.
GCI’s churches in Bangalore, Chennai and Trichy, India have recently started Life Clubs. Pictured at left is the first meeting of the Chennai club. Francis Ambrose who directed the meeting said, “It was a hit among the young members.”
A recent meeting of the Watford, England Life Club included a speech by George Campbell who said he was born in 1928, the same year as Mickey Mouse! George remembers the Second World War well and talked about the faith and trust of King George VI and the National Days of Prayer.
The GCI church that meets in the south part of Cape Town, South Africa held its first Life Club in February. The club was requested by the congregation’s youth. Pictured below are some of the club members.
One of the most effective ways for churches to multiply disciples of Jesus and disciplemaking leaders is to start new small groups—particularly ones that reach out to people not currently attending a church.
For assistance in this important area, here are two helpful resources:
– The Importance of Launching New Groups—an article by Thom Rainer at http://thomrainer.com/2013/05/15/the-importance-of-launching-new-groups
– FaithTalk Equipper—GCI’s evangelistic small group resource website at http://faithtalkgroups.blogspot.com/
A seminary student was leading the music for a small church. His first Sunday “jitters” became apparent after the choir completed a beautiful special number and, relieved, he turned to the congregation and said, “Let’s all stand and sing, When We All Get to Heaven while the choir goes down below.”
—Vicki Figley, West Liberty, Ohio. “Lite Fare,” Christian Reader.
This article is part five of a six-part series by Gary Deddo on interpreting Scripture. For part one, click here; for part two, click here; for part three, click here; for part four, click here.
This next-to-last article in this series covers several more aspects of listening to, studying and interpreting Scripture that honors its God-given nature and purpose. As we examine these, perhaps we’ll find some bad habits that need to be unlearned.
Often when we hear Scripture read or preached or study it for ourselves, we approach it thinking we’re going to “try to make sense of it.” But I don’t think that’s really the best way to put it. Rather, we come to realize that as God speaks to us in Scripture it reads us, it makes sense of us! God’s Word sheds light on our lives. God’s Word is living and active and not a passive collection of data that we probe, organize, arrange and apply and then announce what we’ve made of it. Rather, as we listen to Scripture, we are acted upon by the Word and the Spirit. It comes with its own meaning and sense. So, we don’t give it meaning and make sense of it. We discover its meaning and sense.
Listening to and studying Scripture is a matter of discovery, not creativity, innovation or theorizing. So hearing Scripture in a way that fosters faith calls for a receptiveness on our part, allowing it to tell us. We do not sit in critical judgment upon it, deciding ahead of time what we will or won’t hear or whether we will or won’t live by it. St. Augustine long ago realized there was a huge difference in approaching Scripture as users compared to being receivers who are prepared to enjoy and live under the Word we hear. He advised, just like the book of James does, that we take the posture of hearers of the Word of God, receiving and even delighting in it.
We don’t have to guess or sort through a lot of hypothetical options to discover what particular attitude of receptivity we should have towards God’s Word. First, Jesus, in his own responsiveness to his Father and the Spirit, demonstrates the proper personal and internal (subjective) orientation we are to have to the Word. Second, the apostles whom Jesus chose, including Paul, embodied the spirit of responsiveness that reflected Jesus’ own receptivity. These apostles were not chosen merely because they could be relied upon to convey accurate information (facts). They were appointed because they had the right kind of receptivity (subjective orientation) to the truth that they were given. If we are to hear the Word of God, we must stand in their place, taking up their attitude of receptivity. We have to have ears to hear in order to grasp what they are saying—to hear what they heard.
Often we think that the biblical revelation given to us by its authors is simply a collection of data, information that sits objectively there on the page, neutrally and in that sense objectively (we say). We then take over that “data,” mining it for ourselves with whatever subjective orientation we please, including the attempt to rid ourselves of any subjective element at all. But the biblical preservers of revelation do not simply offer objective information that we then decide how or whether to appropriate or receive. No, the biblical revelation includes the revelation of the nature of its own proper receptivity, its own orientation and attitude. And that subjective aspect is embodied in Jesus and his apostles and is also conveyed in their preserved writings. Revelation as revelation cannot be gained apart from this particular kind of receptivity because it is included in it.
And this subjective orientation is not neutral or abstractly objective. The receptive orientation of the biblical writers is one of trust, readiness to repent, a desire for reconciliation and confidence in the power and faithfulness of God to redeem, renew and put right all things. Revelation itself includes both objective and subjective elements perfectly coordinated with each other. How the revelation is received is perfectly harmonized with what is revealed. In fact, the revelation cannot be grasped at all except in and through that particular subjective orientation. God does not approach us neutrally, but passionately and redemptively. So we cannot approach God neutrally and dispassionately if we are to really receive the content and benefits of his revealed redemption. And that receptivity which is resident in Jesus and resonant in the apostles is given to us as a gift of the Spirit so that we might receive the revelation of God that the apostles of Jesus Christ passed on to the whole church for all time.
So much of the information we get, some of which is called scientific, is abstract. It is disconnected from the source of the information, from the object being investigated. Such input can seem to be simply words, concepts, ideas, principles or numbers and mathematical formulas. Sometimes the information comes to us as a line of argument made up of a chain of logical connections. To use an analogy, it would be like studying the wake made by a boat that has long since passed by, but not learning much about the boat itself—which is really what we want to know. Such information rarely helps us relate to or interact with the object, the reality itself, since it’s only indirectly connected to it. We’re looking at the effects of something, not the source or cause of the effects.
Often in Christian teaching we’re led to consider evidences of something (the wake, the effects) but aren’t directed to think about the reality itself (the boat, cause or source of the effects). For example we might be presented evidences for the empty tomb, or for the possibility of Jesus’ miracles, but not give much consideration to Jesus himself. Following that path we may learn something about him, but we don’t get to know Jesus himself.
This rather abstract approach is often what we get from “experts.” Sometimes we are impressed by the knowledge and insight they impart. But at other times, their abstract information and principles annoy us and leave us cold. It can seem that such information has nothing practical to do with life. We suspect that what they are sharing is the product of overactive minds fueled by over-sized egos!
Though not always, this abstract approach is often characteristic of theological or philosophical thinking, which provides ideas or concepts about God. Doctrine then becomes a mere collection of ideas or concepts to believe in (or not!). This reduces Christianity to merely understanding Christian ideas—ideas undoubtedly derived from the Bible. But this abstracting and conceptualizing approach sets us up for the disaster that is common in modernity and postmodernity (two periods now existing side-by-side). The modern mindset tends to regard faith as bias that distorts any true knowledge of the reality. The postmodern mindset tends to see faith, like all forms of knowing, as governed by personal/subjective factors (such as race, gender, class, etc.). With this postmodern perspective, all knowing collapses into self-knowing, agnosticism or, more often, a knowledge controlled by the will-to-power.
A biblically-formed mindset acknowledges these barriers to knowing truth, including knowing God. From the biblical perspective, we fallen humans are seen as idolaters who create gods in our own image in order to justify ourselves and our own kind. The prophets of Israel spoke out against this idolatry, which is our attempt to recreate God in our own image or images that we can control and use. The golden calf in Moses’ time is an example. All of Scripture teaches that God cannot be found by sheer human effort and that we will only end up deluded by the results of such misguided efforts. Jesus declared, “No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son” (Matthew 11:27). As the early church used to put it: “Only God knows God.” But that does not mean God cannot be known, for it does not rule out God’s being smart and motivated enough to figure out how to make himself known. So the early church saying went on: “And only God reveals God.” And that is what Jesus goes on to say, “…and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”
The God of the Bible can and wants to make himself known. He’s the Good Shepherd who knows how to get through to the dumb sheep. God’s act of self-revelation is required if we are to know God himself, personally and deeply (epignosis is the Greek word used in the New Testament, parallel to Adam “knowing” his wife Eve).
Revelation, especially the self-revelation of God in Christ, that was borne witness to by Jesus’ personally selected apostles and the working of the Spirit, can’t be approached in either the modern or postmodern way, by either eliminating the subjective element or declaring that it always in every case hides or distorts the truth. Knowing God in his act of self-revelation calls for a particular subjective orientation that correlates with the nature and purpose of the revelation, namely being reconciled to God. It calls for humility and a mustard seed’s worth of faith/trust to get the ball rolling. We have to be willing to orient our ways of knowing, both its objective and subjective elements, to the nature of the revelation. Knowing God calls for a readiness to repent and a desire to be reconciled to God. God’s self-revelation rules out the twin errors of either attempting to remove all subjectivity (a false objectivity) or assuming that any subjective stance we might prefer would suffice (a false subjectivity).
Listening in this way to the Living Word through the Written Word by the Spirit puts us into contact with the reality itself, with the living God. In and through Scripture, with Christ at the center, we’re not being given information about God, but hearing a Word from God who makes himself known as Lord and Savior through the medium of those witnesses preserved for us. If we approach Scripture as simply a set of concepts, ideas or principles about God and his ways, we will be missing the boat! Scripture, by the Word and Spirit, does not primarily enable us to know about God or his will for us, but to know God, himself, in person. That is the case because God is a Living God and a speaking God and has not become mute since the days of Jesus. Listening to and studying Scripture with humility and trust/faith in the God of the Bible is a vital aspect of our living in actual relationship, communication, and communion with God. If we miss this we miss receiving the gift of God.
Now some in the church and its various seminaries have attempted to correct such an abstract approach to the Bible by emphasizing that we take the Bible “literally.” Their aim is to achieve a more “objective” approach. Others have recommended that we fix the problem on the subjective side of things by taking Scripture more seriously, more imaginatively, in a more narrative way. Or those seeing the problem on the subjective side might gravitate toward interpreting it more ethically (either personally or socio-politically), more pragmatically or with greater conviction, courage and commitment. While well-intentioned, these commendations seem to me to fall short of what is hoped for and don’t align as closely with the actual nature and character of God’s Word as we might think.
There are other theologians, most notably Thomas F. Torrance, who said what is needed is that we take the Bible realistically. When we listen to or study Scripture we are hearing from those who, by the inspiration of the Spirit of Jesus, are telling us about the reality of who God is and what God has done, is doing and will do. Scripture tells us about the nature of reality, reality we can have contact with and can access, for example creation, and also reality that we ourselves cannot directly access but that can contact us, e.g. the Living Word by the Spirit. The words of Scripture, then, point to, inform us and put us into contact with the reality of who God is and who we are in relationship to him and to creation. By them the Living God tells us what is the real situation. In listening to Scripture we are getting to know God himself because God is able to use, by the Spirit, the created medium of divinely appointed human communication to speak again to us through it. When interacting with Scripture, we’re dealing with the “boat” itself, not the wake it leaves behind.
So the question we ought to ask in reading any text of Scripture is this: “What reality is this passage telling me about?” This ought to be the central and controlling question whether it’s a historical event or a didactic teaching, a narrative or parable, a simile, a metaphor or symbol, a historical person or a hypothetical and representative character. Of every passage we need to ask these questions: What am I being told about the nature of reality, of God, of human nature, of our relationship with God, of right relationship with each other? Of course by “reality” we do not mean simply that which human creatures can see, taste, touch, measure, weigh and calculate. Those features only have to do with empirical realities, part of what we call nature considered as causal and mechanical and impersonal things. But Scripture puts us in touch with realities that cannot be investigated by empirical means. The most important reality is the nature, character and reality of God the Father and God the Holy Spirit and what he has done for us in Jesus. These are not natural or earthly realities at all. The Living and Speaking God continues to reveal the true nature of these realities through his Written Word with the Living Word as its center.
How do we discover these, to us, invisible realities if we can’t see them, touch them, weigh them or experiment with them? The answer is that we hear about them from reliable, personal sources or authorities. We encounter their objective reality through being told about them by those who know. We can know about things we cannot empirically explore by being told about them. By having ears to hear we can see with spiritual eyes (the eyes of our heart; Ephesians 1:18, Acts 26:18). Jesus’ eternal relationship with the Father and the Spirit is an example of such a reality. Other examples are the prophetic words from Jesus and his apostles about God’s future intentions for his creation, namely, that God will give us a renewed heavens and earth and that every tear will be wiped away by God’s final restorative working. By means of hearing from those who know, we can know and also interact with creaturely and divine realities that cannot be seen and cannot be empirically discovered. Speaking and hearing can be an objective event that conveys to us and thus puts us into contact with a divine transcendent reality. By the Spirit, this encounter corrects our wrong notions and arrogant attitudes. We can know, love, trust, obey and pray to God himself, who speaks an objective word to us in and through his Word.
So we listen to Scripture as a way of getting to know and interact with divine and creaturely reality, not just to have correct truths, ideas, concepts, ideals or doctrines. By hearing we come into contact with the truth and reality of who God is and who we are and discover the true nature of created things. Taking all of Scripture realistically tells us who and how things really were, are and will be.
Another connection that probably needs to be made, although it perhaps sounds self-evident when articulated, is that what the Bible means is the reality to which it refers. The words of the Bible point beyond themselves by referring to and, by the Spirit, disclosing to us the reality itself, e.g. who God is. The words of the Bible have their significance (they signify or point to) actual realities. So when we take Holy Scripture realistically we are in fact asking after the meaning and significance of the words. The words don’t refer to or mean other words or ideas. The words refer beyond themselves and indicate realities that are far greater than the words themselves. The realities cannot be reduced to the words, but faithful and accurate words authorized by God through the Spirit can indeed put us in actual contact with the reality. We want to know what realities the words point to, for that reality is their meaning. We are not attempting to find or create or give meaning to Scripture or make the Bible meaningful to us or others. Rather, we’re discovering the meaning and significance it already has as we recognize the realities to which the words point and, by the Spirit, put us into contact with. That’s what God’s revelation intends to do and can do, that is its meaning.
An implication of Scripture’s meaning is that the fullness, meaning and significance of the reality exceed the words used to point to it. Even words that are indispensable for discovering and relating to the reality, like biblical revelation, can never substitute for the reality itself. The reality of God especially cannot be reduced to words, even biblical words. But those inspired words are not arbitrary or dispensable. They are the gift of God, the God-given means empowered by the Spirit to refer us to and reveal those realities. The Bible is like an absolutely unique and authoritative map that is essential to guiding us to our destination–which is not a point on the map itself, but an actual location in reality. So the meaning of the texts will always be found beyond the words themselves, although never discovered in any authoritative way except in and through the words spoken to us. That is why Scripture is indispensable to the Christian church, though we don’t worship the Bible. We don’t pray to the Bible and we don’t believe that the Bible will, on the last day, raise us from the dead. The object of our worship, love and faith is not the Bible, but the God who speaks to us uniquely through his written Word.
Our own words (in writing, preaching and teaching), including our doctrines, ought to be evaluated by how well they point to the same reality that Scripture itself points to. And we don’t want to be drawn into arguments about our words or those used by others. Rather, we listen for their meaning—the reality to which they point—realizing that words fall short of the transcendent and divine reality itself. We look for the most faithful words we can find, often with the help of others, in faith hoping to add our non-authoritative witness and testimony to the reality that the words of Scripture point to authoritatively.
These points about reality and the meaning of Scripture are large overarching concerns. But if Scripture is taken to offer simply concepts or ideas about God, or if we think our job is to make sense of it, or think the meaning of the words of Scripture are simply other words or ideas, we’ll go off in an unhelpful and confusing direction that will not easily contribute to our faith relationship with its Giver.
There are still a few more detailed, nitty-gritty suggestions we can touch on to wrap up this series of articles on listening to and studying Scripture. But we’ll wait to take them up in our last installment.
The following is excerpted from the NAE Newsletter.
Emerging from the Jesus Movement of the 1960s, contemporary worship music found its way into Pentecostal congregations and then moved into other evangelical traditions. This transition to contemporary worship music often prompted pushback from those who preferred more traditional styles resulting in what became known as “worship wars.” The worship wars are not debated as much anymore. In a March 2011 edition of Christianity Today that focused on worship music, Mark Galli suggested that the worship wars are over and have been replaced by a “tense truce.”
NAE members who answered the “NAE Asks You” question provided insight into where worship styles stand in evangelical churches today. Thirty-six percent said that their church has both contemporary and traditional styles. This includes churches that have separate worship services (e.g. one traditional service and another contemporary service) and churches that blend traditional and contemporary styles into the same service. Churches only offering contemporary services account for 33 percent, and churches offering only traditional services account for 19 percent. Thirteen percent said that their churches offer an alternate worship music style, either in addition to other styles or as the only style of music offered by the church.
For further reading:
“Ending the Worship War Without a Truce,” Ed Stetzer, The LifeWay Research Blog (October 15, 2009), http://www.edstetzer.com/2009/10/ending-the-worship-war-without.html
The Trajectory of Worship: What’s Really Happening When we Praise God in Song, Christianity Today (March 2011), http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/march/
Top 25 Songs, Christian Copyright Licensing International (February 2013), http://www.ccli.com/Support/LicenseCoverage/Top25Lists.aspx
“Worship Wars – Proposing a Few Ground Rules,” Jason Helopoulos, The Gospel Coalition Blog (March 8, 2012), http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/03/08/worship-wars-proposing-a-few-ground-rules/
This article is part four of a six-part series by Gary Deddo on interpreting Scripture. For part one, click here; for part two, click here; for part three, click here.
As I said at the end of part three in this series, “With the Center of our prayer, faith, devotion and worship set, as a kind of North Star, everything else regarding listening to and studying the Lord’s Scripture then gets properly oriented.” So now, let’s explore some of those more general implications that can be expressed as certain kinds of rules, which keep us navigating in alignment with our North Star.
As you know, Jesus is identified in Scripture as the First One and as the Last One. He is also identified as the living Word of God or the Logos of God. We could say that Jesus is and speaks both the first word to creation and is and has the last word about creation. Everything was set in motion by him and the ultimate destiny of everything is established in relationship to him, its rightful inheritor.
Perhaps we don’t often think of it, but recognizing this about Jesus, our risen and ascended Lord, has implications for our hearing and studying of Scripture. In the past it has been put this way: always interpret the various parts of Scripture (verses, paragraphs, chapters, books, etc.) in terms of the whole of Scripture. No part of Scripture ought to be understood simply on its own, but only in the context of the whole. Some have said that every part of Scripture ought to be interpreted in terms of the fullness of its meaning (its sensus plenior).
You may have heard the good advice to not take verses “out of context.” That’s right. The context includes not only the verses immediately surrounding a certain text, but the chapter, the whole book in which it appears and, in the end, the whole of Scripture. Many false teachings down through the ages and even in our contemporary situation come from taking a passage out of context and then concluding what it means on its own. In reality we can then easily substitute our own context for the actual context provided for us by the whole of Scripture. Our context then becomes the interpretive North Star. So there is no substitute for taking a lifetime to study the whole of Scripture, that is, considering “the whole counsel of God.”
But the whole turns out to be not just all the books and verses of the Bible. It turns out that the whole includes Who is before, behind, surrounding and standing at the end of Scripture. This whole is what the Bible says as a whole about who God is. As the Logos of all things, including Scripture, Jesus Christ contains it all. So the whole involves all of what we learn through the whole history of revelation preserved in Scripture. And every part must be grasped in a way that it contributes to the whole (of who God is in Christ) and how the whole includes the parts. That “rule” will help us properly hear and interpret the meaning of Scripture as we listen to its various parts, for it all comes from one and the same whole God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It ought to all sound like it belongs to one and the same God personally known in Jesus Christ.
Another “rule” often recommended in past ages of the church that will help us stay oriented to the North Star is to “interpret unclear passages in terms of the clear.” This is a good guideline. Much false teaching has derived from a fascination with the unclear, the obscure, or the opaque passages of Scripture. Teachers can take advantage of those cases because, given the ambiguity of their meaning, lots of meanings can be made to seem plausible. They’re not clear enough on their own to rule out a range of speculative understandings. So someone who can give a logical argument can often be persuasive, often actually reading in their own meaning. The rule to make use of clear passages to sort through the various options for interpreting the meaning of difficult parts guards against this danger. We especially should not let the unclear passages, and some particular understanding of them, be used to reinterpret the clearer passages!
But we can take this rule a step farther. Who or what is the clearest expression of the heart, mind, will and character of God? Jesus Christ. He is the Light of all light. All Scripture, in the end, should be understood in his clear Light. He alone shows us the face of God in person.
Let’s look at an example. The Pharisees of New Testament times had an understanding of God’s Law, the Torah. When Jesus came along they accused him of violating what they considered the highest priority of that Law, namely the keeping of the Sabbath. And they had worked out logically what must be implied in keeping the Sabbath. They interpreted Jesus and his actions in terms of their pre-understanding of the Law of God. How did Jesus respond to their accusations? Did he simply say, “I came to give you another interpretation of how the Law should be applied”? No, he said, “For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:8). The Pharisees gave priority to their understanding of the Law, and interpreted Jesus in terms of it. But Jesus countered by telling them who he was in relationship to the Law and so said, “I created the Law, I gave it its meaning, I know how it is to be honored and when it is being violated. Interpret the Law in terms of me, its Lord, not me in terms of the Law. It is my servant. I am not its servant, to be judged by it.”
So Jesus puts the Pharisees at a crisis point. Will they recognize Jesus as the Living Lord, the Lord of the Law or will they continue to use the Law as “lord” to interpret and judge Jesus? What or who is the whole and what or who is the part? What or who is the clear and what is relatively obscure? We may not regard the Law as the Pharisees did, but we may have other truths or attitudes or viewpoints that we assume and use to interpret or understand Jesus and who God is. Recognizing Jesus as the Center of the center will challenge us to view everything in terms of his interpretation of things, in his light.
We can sum up: we interpret the parts in terms of the whole and the unclear in terms of the clear, and all in terms of Jesus Christ!
Another implication that has been identified in the past is to interpret the Old Testament in terms of the New Testament. This too is a good “rule” we can follow and further expand. Jesus is the fulfillment of the revelation and provision of God. That is, he is the self-revelation and the self-giving of God for us and for our salvation. He fulfills all the promises of God set up and signaled in the Old Testament. The promises are to be understood in terms of the fulfillment, not the other way around.
But the Old Testament is about more than the promises themselves. It involves an ongoing relationship and interaction of God with Israel over roughly a thousand years, including interaction with numerous prophets at various points in the history of that relationship. God was taking Israel somewhere and Israel knew it. God had not given them the final word. They looked forward to having his Spirit poured out on all flesh (Joel 2:28) being given to reignite life in the dry bones (Ezekiel 37:5) and having new hearts (Ezekiel 11:19; 36:26). They looked forward to the time of God’s peace or shalom when they wouldn’t have to prepare for war anymore and not have blood on their hands (Isiah 2:4; Joel 3:10; Micah 4:3). They anticipated the completion of the sacrificial worship where they could be in the very presence of the living God and then truly live! The Old Testament revelation included the proclamation that there was much more to come, that God was not finished making himself known and providing everything for them. Even at the conclusion of the last words of the prophets, they knew they were not at the end of the story. The climax had not yet been reached.
The fact that God’s revelation involves a history of interacting with Israel and speaking through selected prophets means that we should interpret any passage in terms of where it comes in the story as it leads up to or down from God’s self-revelation and self-giving in Jesus Christ. This rule of interpretation is especially important for particular ethical or liturgical directives given to ancient Israel. What God commands of Israel in a particular instance is not God’s final or eternal word.
For instance while the “eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth” saying was far more compassionate than the code of revenge practiced by the surrounding ancient near eastern cultures of the time, it was not God’s final word to his people. Rather, the final word is embodied in Christ who loved his enemies to the end and directed us to do the same. So interpretation should take into account where in the story we find the actions, attitude or instructions given. God fills out and clarifies his revelation through a history of interaction with his people, so not every word in the Bible is God’s last word on the subject. Providentially, there are many places in the New Testament where significant change or discontinuity,is explicitly spelled out, such as keeping of the Sabbath.
This does not mean that everything said in the Old Testament will necessarily be radically reinterpreted later on. Some insight or instruction may remain largely unchanged, such as principles we identify as broad moral instructions that are linked to our human nature and take into consideration our fallen condition. About rather permanent and universal features of humanity such as marriage, sexual morality and the relations of parents and children that abide throughout history and across differing cultural contexts, we would expect significant continuity of teaching. The New Testament often does spell out particular continuities and redemptive development of expression.
Even if there are some practical or particular differences, at the level of fundamental principles that reflect God’s character we should expect to see some continuity between earlier and later application of that same principle in the New Testament. There seems to be a redemptive development in the way God’s more general purposes are to be applied in the life of the church after the fulfillment of God’s will is accomplished in Christ as compared to before this fulfillment. An example would be that although Israel is directed at times to go to war, she was instructed not to be vengeful and to look forward to a time when her swords would be beaten into plowshares. The Christian church is called to continue along that trajectory to finally be peacemakers and to not regard any human being as their ultimate enemy, but rather forgive and seek reconciliation and restoration.
The issue of slavery seems to fall along the same lines. What was allowed to Israel is no longer to characterize the Christian church. So Paul directed Philemon to emancipate his slave Onesimus (Philemon 16-17). Slavery is a practice that was “passing away.” So such instructions as were given Israel cannot be directly picked up by the church now with no regard for our occupying a different place in the story than was ancient Israel. The God of the Bible is a God of life, not death; a God of freedom, not slavery; a God of love, reconciliation and redemption and not enmity and revenge. While we certainly can find signs of these characteristics in the Old Testament, at times some significant ambiguity appears along the way in God’s history of interaction with Israel. We now, however, live to bear witness to the clear and complete fulfillment of God’s Word in Christ, not to its foreshadowing and preparation. In this way, we interpret the Old Testament in terms of the New.
There we have several guidelines for properly interpreting Scripture with Jesus Christ the Living Word at the center of the Written Word. In the next two articles in the series we’ll continue to offer some more guidelines to help us stay oriented to our North Star.
The May issue of Equipper features resources on preaching. That issue and all past issues of Equipper are available for download at http://mindev.gci.org/equipper.htm
We also learned that there is a free webinar (on-line conference) on preaching coming up on May 16 from 4:00 to 8:00pm (EDT). It is produced by The Rocket Company. You will find the details as http://therocketcompany.com/preachbettersermons/.
