Understanding What Is Happening
There are many reasons why different people believe and hold to various doctrinal understandings. This study takes us directly into the heart of some of these reasons.
Because this diagram represents what many people perceive to be occurring, it is not uncommon to hear people say things like, "The Bible must be a confusing book. Just look at all of the different churches with their conflicting doctrines." Or perhaps someone might confess a private despair, "If the experts can not agree what the Bible says, how am I going to understand it?"
Although someone might believe that the previous graphic correctly identifies the Bible as being the source of the confusion, in actuality that diagram distorted the true dynamic. The following illustration accurately points to the actual source divergent understandings.
When a person uses a cookie cutter on the Bible, there should be no surprise what the final product will look like. Accordingly, when a multitude of different cookie cutters are used on God's Word, likewise the result is going to be many different interpretations (many different churches). Some people appear to assume that their own cookie cutter is the right one without even examining it, or perhaps that their cookie cutter is at least as valid as anyone else's, or still yet, that it doesn't matter.
Whether a person has received no formal education or has spent his life in the university, everyone uses tools and a method of interpretation (a hermeneutic) to understand any literary document. These tools and methods are what enable a person to make sense of the message and to determine how the message may relate to one's own life. One of a hermeneutic's important functions is to determine what part of the textual message is applicable to me and what is not. Then there are those forces which give shape and power to why we interpret things as we do. Our pre-understanding of what is true and what we believe the text to communicate is a very determining factor in what will be understood. Such an pre-understanding is made up of answers to questions such as: What do I believe is the message of this text? What do I believe is true and valuable? Those who believe that the Bible is our divine authority may be tempted to make the Bible agree with their own opinions about what is right. If soemone forces their own message upon the text this is called eisegesis (reading something into the text).
Unfortunately, what a person (or a church) understands the Bible to teach may tell you more about who that person (or church) is than it does about what scripture actually teaches. Consider Korah's insolence or the situation where someone deeply believes "the only thing that matters is whether or not you are a loving person," then regardless of what the Bible might teach concerning the importance of doctrine, this person will be tempted to gloss over those verses in order to cling to those texts which in his understanding confirm what he already believes to be true.
Since it is possible to approach scripture with many different goals, beliefs, tools and principles of interpretation, a person's hermeneutic could on the one hand enable him to accurately or at least adequately perceive the author's originally intended message, or it might on the other hand so distort that original message that what is understood bears little resemblance to what the author intended to communicate. If the reader's goal is to understand God's message to us, it would make sense to allow scripture to suggest as many hermeneutical principles as possible.
To illustrate how a person's beliefs can affect their understanding of the Bible, consider the following diagram.
Once again, what a church teaches on this subject (and many others) may tell you more about the goals and agendas of that church than it does about what the scriptures actually teach. Unfortunately, it is easy for people to make themselves deaf to God's Word while genuinely believing that they are open to hearing God's message. How can this be possible?
Let's take the topic of a woman's role within the worship assembly as an example. Let's assume for a moment that God intends us to literally follow the apostle Paul's teaching that women are to remain silent within the churches (1 Corinthians 14:34). If a person believes that his definitions of love and grace overrule this teaching, or if someone believes "I don't think this matters," or if someone believes "Paul was merely handling a cultural situation," then although that person might read 1 Corinthians 14:34 this verse is mentally dismissed as being irrelevant to our situation. Through his own beliefs, the person has anesthetized himself against hearing God's Word. Regardless of what you might believe about the topic of a woman's role within the assembly, this example illustrates how beliefs can alter what is understood in scripture. This principle affects the topics of salvation, doctrine, church organization, Christian living, teachings about God, Christ, Holy Spirit, etc.
This letting go of the commands of God in order to hold onto the traditions of men is nothing new. Jesus encountered it in the Pharisees. We should not be so naive as to think that the religious leaders of Jesus' day did not have "good reasons" and "honorable intentions" behind their teachings which resulted in nullifying God's word. Mark 7:6-13 Why do you suppose that so many leaders of Jesus day were able to dismiss his message? Sure there were probably many reasons - but one of them most certainly was that because of their "knowledge" they were calloused against hearing God's voice. John 7:47-49 Those religious leaders felt justified in dismissing Jesus and his message. If Jesus had been born in the 1960's instead of two-thousand years ago, would it be any different today?
Toward Knowing That We Are Hearing God's Voice And Not Merely Our Own
How can people today responsibly seek to understand the message which God intended to communicate to us through scripture? While the following model does not contain the specifics, it does outline a backbone which can serve as an adequate and responsible method for interpreting scripture.
All hermeneutical frameworks are built upon the desire to achieve a goal, whether that goal be rational or absurd. The goal suggested here is to allow God to mold us in whatever way through scripture that God may desire. This suggested three step process can prevent many misunderstanding and misapplications of scripture, while enabling the reader to gain an adequate if not accurate understanding of God's message.
Step One: What Did It Mean Then?
If a person wishes to be confident that he is hearing God's message through scripture, then the message the text is understood to be communicating can never be more than what the text was originally intended to communicate. In other words, the original intent of the text limits valid interpretations. If anyone abandons this basic principle, then all interpretations no matter how absurd would become equally valid. In such a scenario, there would be no means for distinguishing between exegesis and eisegesis (reading something into the text). Hence, if scripture is going to transmit its message to us, the meaning of the text must be limited to what it was originally intended to communicate.
But what about examples where the New Testament uses the Old Testament in ways unanticipated in the context of the Old Testament? Does this not create a biblical precedent for using scripture in ways in which it was not originally intended? The Spirit was behind behind both the writing of the Old Testament as well as how the New Testament authors used the Old Testament. The Spirit is capable of revealing meanings semingly foreign to the original context. There is an enormous gap between how the Spirit led the New Testament writers to use scripture and the unfettered and distorted ways in which people might creatively reinterpret scripture. We are not inspired. They were.
Be Aware That Scripture Can Be Used In Various Ways: Illustrating Truths Verses The Authority of God's Message To Us
In order to handle God's Word in a responsible manner, it is import to keep in mind the distinction between illustrations and scriptural authority. Whether they be secular or Biblical illustrations, illustrations do not prove nor contain divine authority. Illustrations simply illustrate a principle that someone is claiming to be true. To use an illustration in an attempt to prove a point falls under the category of fallacious reasoning.
There is a huge difference between claiming "in Genesis chapter three the Bible teaches us that the anatomy of temptation is ___" verses the claim that the third chapter of Genesis can be used to illustrate some principles of temptation. Similarly there is a big difference between teaching that "the Bible teaches us principles of evangelism in the story of the great catch of fish" or "the Bible is teaching that Jesus will calm the storms in your life because he calmed the storm on the sea of Galilee" verses "the story of the great catch of fish illustrates some principles of evangelism I believe are true" or "I believe that the story of Jesus' calming the storm on the sea of Galilee illustrates the power and authority which Jesus could use in our lives." Consider one final example. Do you see a difference between someone teaching, "the story of Jesus' forty days in the wilderness prior to his ministry shows that God leads his people into wilderness experiences to train them for service" verses "Jesus can be used to illustrate that sometimes faithful service has followed wilderness experiences."
While this might seem like splitting theological hairs, it is not. Why is it important to remember this distinction? The first statements are claiming that the message being taught is God's message to us. The second accurately does not make this claim. The first statements are claiming scriptural authority for what is being taught; the second does not. The latter is honest in recognizing that what is being taught is simply based upon human observation of something contained in God's Word.
Why is it important to remember the distinction between what constitutes scriptural authority and illustrations? For a teaching to have scriptural authority it must represent the intended message of the text. To fail to understand this principle can cause a person to misrepresent the message of scripture. Furthermore, to fail to make this distinction trains the student in sloppy thinking and a poor methodology which will be used elsewhere in scripture.
Consider the story of Gideon and his fleece. Using principles of exegesis, what was the intended message of the text? This story reveals God's mercy and power to deliver His people even through a weak and faithless person who needed evidence from the Lord before he would act. However, some people might use this story to "illustrate" the principle that we should also lay out a fleece in order to receive confirmation from the Lord of His will. Since this story nowhere indicates that this was the intended message for the reader, it would be wrong to claim that the story of Gideon teaches us to "lay out a fleece" to confirm God's will for my life. Unless the Bible elsewhere deliberately teaches God's people to decipher the will of God by creating scenarios where He must respond to us, such a teaching merely originates in the mind of man. IF the Bible elsewhere does teach such a practice, then the story of Gideon could legitimately be used to illustrate this principle. If what is considered to be divine authority is not limited to the intended message of scripture, then scriptural texts can be used to falsely "prove" many ideas which are foreign to God's voice in the text.
Tools of Biblical Exegesis Are Needed to Determine the Originally Intended Message
There are many legitimate tools which can be used to understand the text's intended message. One of these is to recognize the significant role which context plays.
What did Jesus mean in John 15 when he said, "I am the vine and you are the branches?" The context indicates that Jesus was calling his disciples the branches. If the disciples were to bear fruit they had to remain in him. Neither the textual context nor the historical situation of the first century permits the interpretation that Jesus was claiming he was the vine and the great diversity of churches in today's world are the branches. By establishing parameters of what that message could have meant then, faulty interpretations can be avoided today.
The context of the historical background can often be helpful in determining what it meant then,. Consider 1 Timothy 2:8 where Paul wrote, "I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension." Since the ancient world's manner of praying was to lift up one's hands in prayer, Paul's message here is calling the men to be holy and without dissension so that when they pray they might lift holy hands to the Lord. Given the historical context, this text should probably not be understood as prescribing the necessary form of prayer, namely lifting hands. Similar principles would also be true of the "holy kiss" in 1 Corinthians 16:20.
Step Two: What Does It Mean Today?
Having striven for an accurate understanding (and hopefully gained at least an adequate understanding) of what the text meant, the second step is to determine if the scripture indicates that this message was intended to be applicable in the same manner to all Christians in all cultures, etc.
What does Acts 1:5 mean for us today? By limiting this text to what it meant then, everybody can easily see that I will avoid the faulty application of believing that the Lord has told me to go to Jerusalem because the Holy Spirit has been promised to me there. It quickly becomes obvious that not everything contained in scripture is a promise, a doctrine or a command intended for me.
Some of the Bible contains historical narrative. Predominantly, historical narrative accurately communicates what happened. Often such narrative sections were not intended to teach the reader what God wants the reader to do (e.g. go to Jerusalem and wait for the Spirit - Acts 1:5) nor what God is promising him (e.g. Genesis 12:2-3). This principle can be summarized as: unless the text indicates otherwise, the message of a historical narrative section was not written for the purpose of informing the reader about what he should do. This should be obvious.
Are The Examples Found In Acts Normative?
Unfortunately, some have apparently misunderstood the preceding principle because they have drawn an incorrect conclusion regarding the examples found in the book of Acts. They have precariously suggested the half-truth that the examples of doctrine and practice found in Acts are not normative for today's church since historical narrative is not prescriptive. To prove their point, they often point to examples such as the disciples walking from city to city to demonstrate that we are free from any constraints within Acts. Then this principle is also applied to other matters such as the day on which the saints met to worship, baptism, etc.
While the principle is true that history is not prescriptive, this does not mean that the church's historical practices and doctrines are not normative also for today's church. To put this another way, if God intended certain teachings and practices to be normative, the portrait of the faithful church in Acts will reflect these characteristics and today's church must also reflect them. Although Acts may not have been written with the primary purpose of telling us how to do church, this does not automatically imply that the church today is free from the doctrinal practices and beliefs practiced by the church then!
Part of the framework behind Luke's message in Acts is, this is what we are believing and what we are doing. Since church doctrine is to be grounded in that original message (2 Timothy 1:13; 2:2; 3:16-4:4) and since both the early church as well as today's church need to respond to that same message, the historical precedents of the faithful church in Acts will describe what the faithful church today should also be teaching and practicing.
A proper understanding of the historical nature of Acts would seem to be:
1) On the one hand, just because a doctrine or practice happens to be embedded in an historical narrative does not give us the right to categorically reject it as not being normative for us today. It might very well be that God expects us to believe or engage in the same practice in the very same way.2) On the other hand, just because they used certain methods in the first century does not necessarily mean that we are limited to those parameters. If there is a doctrinal reason either within Acts or elsewhere establishing a reason for a boundary, then there are boundaries on the matter. However, if scripture does not provide a command or a doctrinal reason for the particular practice, then it may be that the method used then was not intrinsic to the message and hence other methods would be equally valid before God.
To avoid both problems, Acts can serve to illustrate the truths of doctrine and practice taught elsewhere in scripture.
Is The Message Just Cultural?
Since it is common today for a number of teachings within scripture to be dismissed by some as merely being cultural, a word of caution is in order regarding culture. First, everything that people do and believe is cultural. The belief that "God is one" by Moslems, Israelites and Christians is a cultural belief. However, this is not merely a cultural belief since it is also the truth revealed by God through scripture. Second, just because scripture teaches a doctrine or a practice which happens to coincide with pagan religious cultural beliefs or practices does not necessarily mean that the scriptural message is merely cultural accommodation and hence it can always be re-baptized in new cultural garb. For example, the pagan nations surrounding ancient Israel used the cultural form of sacrifice to worship their gods. When God gave the blood on the altar as an atonement for Israel, there is no indication that God was merely accommodating Himself to human culture nor that Israel was later free to change this form of atonement to some other cultural form which might be more readily accepted later due to a shift in the surrounding culture. Just because the nations may have believed something or practiced something in a particular manner which overlapped with what God gave Israel or the church, does not automatically indicate that this was just cultural accommodation and therefore we are free to change the forms or even disregard it altogether.
It should be obvious that if scripture provides reasons for a particular doctrine or practice which supersede culture, then we should understand that God has revealed a supra cultural message whose forms can not be changed, even though those forms may happen to have agreed with the forms of the cultural context in which it was given. Since any belief or practice can be altered by claiming the original message was merely cultural accommodation, without this principle it becomes impossible for us to recognize those practices and beliefs which God intends His people to follow.
Sometimes the Bible suggests various principles which can be used for determining what the message should mean for us today. For example, although the Old Testament demands strict observance, yet within the New Testament we learn the principle that Christ has set Christians free from the demands of observing the Law as our means for becoming righteous. Galatians 5:1-6; 2:15-16 Thus, it is appropriate that when I read the commandments of the old covenant which were intended to cause the reader to comply, I should understand that these commands are not being bound upon me as the source of my righteousness.
Step Three: Does Early Christian History Confirm Our Understanding?
Since we can so easily fool ourselves, it becomes necessary to try to find an objective means which can serve in alerting us to our own stubborn blindness and folly. Thus the objective witness from the history and teachings of the post-apostolic church can be very helpful in either confirming our understanding or throwing up a warning flag. This is not to say that the documents of the early church should be considered authoritative guides for doctrine and practice. Rather, it is to admit the unique role that the primitive church enjoyed because of its proximity to the era of apostolic guidance.
Consider the following scenario. Suppose someone concludes that 1 Corinthians 15:29 teaches Christians can be baptized for deceased unbelievers. If Paul was actually alluding to such a practice, then we should expect to find some testimony to such a gracious (and desirable) teaching within the history of the early church. However, when one discovers that the early church did not practice baptizing Christians on behalf of deceased pagans, then the history of the early church can cause us to pause suggesting that we may need to go back and restudy the text.
Perhaps this is the time to remind ourselves that even in the first century Paul, John and Jude had to warn their readers against various forms of apostasy. Early church history is not normative or authoritative, but it can be helpful in either confirming our understanding of the Bible or alerting us to the possibility that perhaps we might need to reexamine our understanding.
Barry Newton, Copyright © 2000
Other articles which may be of interest:
The Canon Within The Canon (An almost unperceived manner how the message of scripture can be altered)Sims, Animals & Biblical Teaching: Wielding the Power to Shape (How some might change the message of the text)
Charting A Reliable Path Through Religious Diversity (Judging, silence, grace, obedience)
Seeing Clearly in the Brambles (Interpretation)
The Wineskin Spin Doctor Challenge
Invisible Messages (On Methodology)
For a case study where the above principles are applied, consider the article: "The Role of Women Within the Assembly."