Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Bible Study Method

  • Rapture Foolishness

    There is nothing that brings out quite so much strangeness as discussion of the end-times. Nonetheless, I consider it fun.

    It has been commercialized in books, movies, and a video game, and now there is a special web site, You’ve Been Left Behind, which offers to allow you to send e-mails and files to unsaved friends who miss the rapture. (News story here, HT: Adventures in Revland.) Apparently God doesn’t have things quite under control, and thus it is necessary to try to communicate after you’re in heaven. One wonders if God does not, perhaps, have a purpose in not making this a standard thing.

    One of the things I suggest when teaching from Daniel or Revelation is that one should never stop with one commentary. The same thing applies to someone who is teaching a lengthy and details timeline for the end-times. Any one person can sound convincing, but timelines are generally built up from a wide variety of texts, often used out of context, or more precisely in a contrived context. Reading another writer, equally convinced and possibly equally convincing will show you how many different scenarios can be supported if one is just

    As an exercise, I suggest taking passages that one is applying to the rapture, tribulation, and millenium, and study them as part of the whole book. This can be done fairly easily with a book like Joel, or with several visions from Daniel, such as Daniel 7-9 studied together. You may find it quite interesting to note the difference in how people will understand certain end-times texts based on the original context versus how they are presented as part of an end-times scheme.

  • Small Group Error Correction

    Last Saturday I attended church with my mother, who is a Seventh-day Adventist.  I was visiting for her 90th birthday.  During Sabbath School (the SDA version of Sunday School), there were a number of questionable “facts” brought out by various members of the class.  Amongst these was “Spare the rod and spoil the child” as a Proverb (it’s not, though there are a couple quite close to it), and whether Jesus used the term “vipers” of his opponents, or was it only John the Baptist (Jesus used it too).

    Now this post isn’t about the greater numbers of errors committed by SDAs than folks of other denominations.  SDAs do quite well studying their Bible.  I disagree with many of their theological suppositions, but regarding basic facts they are quite good.  <em>All</em> small groups are subject to this problem.  What do you do about it?  I suggest three things.

    1. Check your Biblical texts in your Bible, not from memory, and check them with a variety of Bible translations.  A small group can agree to bring different versions.  Read the footnotes as well.  Sometimes you may declare that a certain verse doesn’t exist, only to find out later that it was quoted from a different Bible version.
    2. When there is a question of fact, look it up in a good reference source, such as a current Bible dictionary (HarperCollins, New International Bible Dictionary, Anchor Bible Dictionary [used carefully]).  Bible handbooks or Bibles with study notes often include such information, but they also tend to have more opinion as well.
    3. Distinguish fact from theological perspectives and other opinions, even in reference sources.  You’ll find differences of opinion between various sources, but you’ll also find a core that is quite generally agreed upon.  Using multiple sources written from different perspectives will help you on this.

    Finally, don’t be afraid to study because you’re not an expert.  Dig in and work at it.  The world won’t come to an end because you made a mistake.  It has much bigger problems than your misunderstanding of a text.  So relax and enjoy, but take the time to check as well.

  • An Example of Archaic Words – 1 Samuel 9:9

    In a comment to a previous post, someone brought up the case of Saul and the seer. In this passage we have the parenthetical note following the reference by one of the characters to a seer, indicating that a prophet was formerly called a seer. This was provided as an example of how to handle archaic words in the KJV–just explain them, or as this commenter suggested, look them up in an 1828 Noah Webster’s!

    In my response I indicated that I didn’t see anything new and referred readers to my Bible Translations FAQ, but it turns out that in this case while I have responded to someone on this issue before, probably on the Compuserve Religion Forum, I failed to include the answer in my FAQ file. In addition, I wanted to comment on an exegetical point. You can get the full context of the story by reading 1 Samuel 9:1-14.

    My exegetical point is a simple one. Any principle of interpretation you use should be one that can be applied consistently. The application of a principle–I’ll hold off trying to express it–that we see here is the observation that a Bible writer took a particular action, so that action is normative for similar circumstances. I would guess that the best way to express this principle would be that in comparable circumstances, one should consider the actions of a Biblical writer to be normative.

    Now here’s where I tend to annoy KJV-Only advocates and other extreme Biblical literalists. I would ask how they would apply that principle in other cases. For example, should we take the literary forms of the Bible as normative for the way in which we should write other material? It’s hard to respond precisely, because I have never seen anyone try to express this as a principle. Whenever I ask someone to express it that way or to apply it to other circumstances, they say I’m not staying on the subject. But I think that when interpreting the Bible, principles of interpretation are always relevant.

    A related approach is often used for other Bible stories. If a Bible character, normally limited to one of the good guys, did it, then it’s a good idea. Of course, until it isn’t. Because this “story” approach to Biblical norms is very rarely applied with any consistency.

    Can we get information from Bible stories? Indeed we can. For example, I believe that God calls women to leadership. One Biblical support for that position is the call of Deborah. But in that case I’m working with a clear statement that Deborah was a prophetess, and the blessing of God on her action. Further, I use the story not to create a common practice directly, as in “God called Deborah, a woman, to be a prophetess, so all women are called to be prophetesses.” Rather, I use the story to establish that any claim that God excludes women from his call runs up against this clear counter-example.

    Interpreting stories requires a good deal of thought and effort, and it is useful to be consistent. I have an essay on interpreting stories for those who are interested in some basic ideas.

    But let’s look at this specific case. There are several important points that I would note.

    1. The parenthetical comment provides historical information to the reader that is relevant to the story. Archaic words in the KJV provide knowledge of 17th century English, but provide no knowledge relevant to the story. The actual word used by the ancient Hebrews does not appear in the KJV here or elsewhere. I would suggest that if one consistently used this principle, one should enter in the translation every term with any technical element, and then explain it in a parenthetical comment. (The Complete Jewish Bible heads in this direction.)
    2. This type of comment is extremely rare in scripture. It doesn’t involve the relearning of an entire dialect so that people can have the privilege of using archaic language.
    3. While I’m sure using an 1828 dictionary is exciting to someone, I don’t plan on recommending purchase of such a dictionary to go with any Bible purchase. That is simply another barrier to hearing the word.
    4. In the New Testament we see Hebrew ideas primarily presented in Greek words. The very occasional transliterations (with translation) are for specific purposes.
    5. Finally, any argument in favor of forcing people to learn the language of the KJV applies with greater force to urging them to learn Greek and Hebrew.

    The problem here is an ad hoc interpretation desperately grabbed and applied to the KJV. The foundation of such an argument is the assumption that the KJV must be right, therefore we must find the way to preserve it. But other than as a great artifact of English language and literature, I fail to see any reason to try to do that.

    The Bible wasn’t written in English. It was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. KJV-Only advocates seem to have trouble understanding that, but it remains a fact.

  • Independence and Bible Study

    In working on YouTube recently, and particularly on this response to a KJV Only presentation, I’ve noticed that many people think that there is great virtue in independence when it comes to Bible study. Statements like “I didn’t depend on any scholars in coming to this view” or “I didn’t read any commentaries, just the Bible” or “I get everything direct from God” are quite common.

    Even the seemingly pious “show me from God’s Word!” can be a declaration of independence. It calls for someone to convince you to your satisfaction, that you’re wrong. Now I’m not saying that this is completely incorrect. You do, after all, have to make the decision in the final analysis. My question is whether, in doing that, you or I have followed the proper procedure and exercised the proper humility.

    You see, we are all dependent on someone when we turn to the Bible. Those who don’t know the source languages are dependent on translators. But even those who do know the languages are still dependent on lexicographers and grammarians for some of their knowledge. In addition, we are all dependent on various historians, archaeologists, commentators, paleographers, and so forth in getting necessary information about the text.

    This deals with the proper procedure. When I complete the study of the passage I should be able to answer “yes” comfortably to this question: Have you consulted good authorities on those things you do not know well yourself? It’s important to be honest about this, because we tend to like to “lean on our own understanding” after a certain amount of study. That’s dangerous! I don’t know how many times I have discovered errors in detail on something I should know when I check it against a good, authoritative source. Another pair of eyes will find even more errors.

    Then there is humility. By humility I do not mean that one gives up one’s own judgment and discernment. Rather, I mean that one is willing to learn from anyone, that one takes an open attitude, and that one seeks correction. You may have to reject some of it. Proper humility in this case is not cutting yourself off from correction, listening honestly, and giving full consideration to the possibility that you may be wrong. After you have done that, you make your decision.

    In practice none of us are independent. We should acknowledge that. But we should realize that such independence would not be a good thing, even if we could attain it.

  • Literary Types in Genesis 1-11

    Pardon me for using “types” where “genre” would be more precise, but I frequently do so in teaching in order to avoid having to explain details. Further, “genre” doesn’t maintain the same meaning across all critical disciplines.

    In my previous post on the historicity of Genesis 1-11, I wrote as though one could establish a single literary category that would cover all 11 chapters. But those who have studied this passage will realize this is not so. At a minimum, Genesis 5 and 11:10-32 (genealogies) differ from the remainder. Chapter 10 is also in a category of its own, and its relationship with the rest of the book could provide some interesting discussion.

    I personally accept the general outlines of source theory, and thus see a combination of multiple sources in both the stories of creation and the flood. But those fault lines, as interesting as they are, are not what I’m talking about now. Whatever one believes about the background, somebody, somewhere felt that the material fitted together.

    If we assume that the person who did so was not an idiot, then they probably had some idea how things connected. Assuming that blatant chronological issues are the result of oversight is questionable at best. The author or final redactor, whichever you prefer, probably understood the text in such a way that it didn’t blatantly contradict itself.

    Because of this, it would be worthwhile to see the difference between Genesis 1:1-4a, which I would see as liturgy, and Genesis 2:4b-25, which is much closer to myth in its literary character. Which of these is more likely to be concerned with chronology? Well, Genesis 1 seems to say more about it, but Genesis 2 is more likely to have that as a concern based on its form. Even myths are concerned with sequence.

    So we can identify at least four types of literature, liturgy, myth, genealogy, and a more generalized tribal genealogy along with some geography in Genesis 10. In deciding historicity we need to address each of these types. I do acknowledge that others might disagree on the categorization, which is precisely how it should be. Those are the questions of which good historical study of the Bible is made.

  • Notes on Scot McKnight – Teaching the Bible to Emerging Generations

    Gavin has his rather useful sounding notes here. There are many aspects of postmodernism, especially as it looks when it gets to where I live, but there’s also a great deal of good in it. This is some of the good.

  • Piper: Suffering is Judicial

    This is via a summary by Adrian Warnock, but I doubt Adrian would get a whole section wrong. There are a large number of things in this message that are right on target, and a few also with which I disagree.

    But the reason I’m posting a brief response is this: As has become standard with those who accept penal substitutionary atonement (PSA), metaphor has been promoted to reality. Everything gets placed in the courtroom. If we cannot distinguish spiritual things from the worldly metaphors used to describe them, then we will always be off track.

    Let me quote Piper as summarized by Adrian Warnock:

    Suffering is Judicial
    John PiperThis is most important, most controversial, and most helpful. In verse 20 it is clear that somebody took the universe and disordered it. Someone brought painful disorder to our relationships, workplaces, etc. GOD did it. We know it must have been God because it was done in hope! There can only be two other candidates—Adam and the devil. Did Adam and Eve sin in the hope of a future new heaven and earth? They didn’t have a clue about that when they fell! Was it the devil’s design to do it in hope? No! Only God did this in hope. God judged the universe because of sin. . . .

    Now while there are even some valid points within that selection, there is also a basic error. The courtroom has been imported and made into the reality. If God allows this to happen as a consequence of sin, that is apparently not sufficient for Piper. But God is still doing it, because God is in and behind everything that is. The courtroom metaphor distorts the issue.

    Quoting further (after skipping half of a long paragraph), still from Adrian’s summary:

    The meaning of all misery in the universe is that sin is horrific. All natural evil such as floods, disease, etc. is a statement about the horror of moral evil. God looked upon sin, and he said, “Here is my response to that.” He subjected the entire creation to this. Until you see the moral outrage of sin in proper proportions, and the magnificence of God in proper proportions, that will seem to you like an over-reaction. The world will say, “That’s ridiculous! He saw one sin and he did all that?” The reason for suffering is to teach you about your heart. You don’t even get close to understanding the horror of the way you treat your wife. There is a moral scandal about falling short of God’s glory.

    Here I have to disagree again. The imaginary universe in which no natural disasters occur is just that–imaginary. Again, promotion of a metaphor (the courtroom) to reality distorts our ability to discuss the issue.

    I’m wondering if Piper and those who hold a similar view don’t also have to hold a young earth creationism position. Certainly there were natural disasters before the fall of humanity if one holds that the earth is old. The old earth creationism position would suggest physical death as a natural part of the world, not as a consequence of sin, and much of that death historically was caused by natural disasters.

  • Peter Enns, Incarnational Inspiration, and Seminary Authority

    In 2005 Peter Enns, a professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary, published a book titled Inspiration and Incarnation, and it is likely going to cost him his tenured position. I’m writing about this on this blog because of the implications of his incarnational view of inspiration for Biblical interpretation. I have not yet read this little book. I found out about it through this controversy. Let me comment to you the Christianity Today news article, and this review in JETS by G. K. Beale. The review is not particularly favorable, but it follows the kind of standards for writing and citation that would suggest it’s fair. (HT: Everyday Liturgy)

    What am I writing about, if I haven’t even read the book? Primarily I’m writing because of the impact on good education of seminary policies such as this one. Secondly, I know of other cases in which discussion of inspiration leads to this kind of reaction, to the detriment of serious consideration of the issues. Often the people in the pews are left without any sort of answers, or better any sort of structure in which to discuss answers because the theologians are avoiding them. Thirdly, I publish a book that uses the incarnational metaphor, Who’s Afraid of the Old Testament God?, by Dr. Alden Thompson, who has also elicited some controversy due to his view of inspiration. Finally, I hold an incarnational view of inspiration myself, as espoused in my book When People Speak for God.

    If you were to take the quotes and summaries by G. K. Beale in his review, not do any contortions to try to put a good face on them, i.e. take the more liberal interpretation, then you would have something like my own position. I will have to see when I get a copy of the book myself whether I think these things are fair with reference to Dr. Enns. I would simply note at this point that none of the material quoted appeared at all shocking to me, but then I’m not an evangelical.

    The problem I have here is with the seminary. First, let me say that I fully accept that a seminary belonging to or sponsored by a confessional body, has every right to control what is taught there. At the same time, the rest of us have every right to criticize their choices. The value of that criticism has nothing to do with changing the seminary. They’re not going to listen to me, and I wouldn’t even argue that they should. I’m not evangelical, I’m not Calvinist, and I don’t like the Westminster Confession.

    I criticize nonetheless because I believe we need to be aware of the problem of education that is constrained by a specific confession and that won’t allow anyone to question or work around the boundaries. The area of inspiration is one that has many lay members confused, and it is one where our young people who go to secular universities find themselves generally unequipped. When we constrain the playing field so thoroughly that we can’t discuss the type of issues that Dr. Enns raises, then I question the quality of the education that results.

    There is here a great gulf fixed between a secular, academic education, and an education at a confessional institution. I’m not sure how one should draw the boundaries if one belongs to a confessional church, but if one’s convictions are to be sound I think one has to have honestly explored alternate possibilities without the fear that stepping across the line will ruin one’s life.

    The combination of those elements is very difficult, and perhaps even impossible for a very confessional church, which is why I avoid such a thing. I am jealous of the ability to explore, to be wrong, and perhaps later to correct my course.

    In the final analysis, however, those who want to explore real answers to questions of inspiration will probably have to break the bonds in a more serious way, finding a less constrictive environment. The problem for many is that they have a firm faith and a strong commitment to their faith community, so it is hard to just move on. Such is the tragedy of the right of the seminary to manage itself, versus the need for thinking people to explore.

    While I found it necessary to step out of the community in which I grew up, I understand those who find that difficult, and who then spend years or decades in conflict with a community that they love.

    One final note–these are the folks who want to “teach the controversy” in public universities and in our high schools. The real goal is to put science within confessional boundaries, a straightjacket that will certainly not fit it.

  • Reason is all over Bible Study

    In a post on Complegalitarian, Molly Alley discusses how reasonable it is to hold a doctrine that assumes that women will never mature, as in men where once boys who needed the guidance of a parent, but eventually they become mature and are considered ready for leadership. But what about women?

    Of course, as an egalitarian, I think the idea that women can’t be in leadership is nonsense, and I want to focus on that word, nonsense, and the phrase good common sense in Molly’s concluding question that I quote below, along with the related term reasonable.

    Molly says:

    In other words, why does female subjection not seem to make good common sense (to me, anyways) when so many of the other commands do?

    Now there’s a lively discussion of Molly’s actual point on that blog, and it’s one I’m not going to get into. What I’m going to discuss here takes off at a sharp angle from the topic, but it may explain why I find it next to impossible to get into these debates.

    For many people that I encounter the idea that one uses reason or what is reasonable as part of one’s interpretation of scripture is somewhere between irritating and blasphemous, and it’s weighted toward blasphemous. Obviously God is wiser than we are, and he could ask us to do things that don’t seem reasonable to us, but that are reasonable from his perspective. Of course the question remains (and I discuss it in my book When People Speak for God), of just one decides whether one is doing something that is really stupid, or whether one is using divine wisdom.

    The fact is that we all use reason when we read, interpret, and apply the scriptures. There’s no way out. Our reason is what we use to process information. We can hope it’s reason guided by the Holy Spirit, but that doesn’t make it any less a matter of reason. So the question is not whether reason will be involved. The question is just how well one’s reason will function when it is involved.

    Let’s consider Molly’s question. There are several perspectives from which I can ask the question whether a command, such as the command not to let women speak in church, is reasonable.

    1. I can look from my own perspective. Does this look reasonable in my context? If I am as objective about this as possible, I will look at the potential harm and benefit to see whether a specific command works where I live. A good question is this: Does the command have the effect in my environment that it would have had when it was first given? The only reason I use the original context here is that it is helpful to have some anchor point when discussing the impact of a particular policy. This is largely a question of application and applicability.
    2. You can ask about the perspective of the original author. Does this command look reasonable as you interpret it in the world of that author? Does it appear reasonable that the command would have the effect that is clearly intended? What is that effect? (You can then check that effect with point #1.)
    3. What about God’s perspective? Since none of us have even a prayer of a God’s eye view, what I mean here is to ask just how universally the command could reasonably be expected to be in application. Does it look like the sort of thing that should be universal? As an example, “you shall not commit murder” is uttered and presented in a way that looks like it is intended universally. “Hide yourself by the Wadi Cherith” looks like it’s intended very specifically. But there will likely be a whole range of commands and statements between that will not be nearly so obvious.
    4. Does the command make sense theologically? Most of us have theological baggage. Some consider it an ideal to jettison all of that and come at the text anew. For exegesis, I think that can be helpful, but when it comes down to application, it has to fit into a system. Many of the Biblical commands that we no longer follow are regarded as inapplicable because of our existing theology. For example, the command to bring an animal to the tabernacle and sacrifice it instantly registers as “no applicable to me” because my theology says that one has passed away.
    5. Is there another reasonable way to understand the text? Many people struggle with texts believing they have to accept a certain interpretation when the solution might lie in rechecking the exegesis and application.

    Reason is not merely useful, it’s essential in applying the Bible to our lives. Molly has asked a good question. Even when we do something that appears weird because we believe God has commanded it, some combination of revelation, reason, and experience has brought us to the conclusion that, despite popular opinion, our course of action is reasonable. Thus I think Molly’s question is a good one, and could be applied to many aspects of this situation.

    As a sort of postscript, let me note that I do not find a modern application of the various texts that indicate that women shouldn’t preach or enjoy leadership roles to be reasonable at all. There are a number of reasons for this, certainly including the evidence that women carried out those roles in the earliest stages of the church. One of the best indications that a command is not universal is that you find exceptions in the very literature in which the command is contained.

    Thus I tire of detailed exegetical arguments about these texts on both sides, even though I understand my more conservative brothers and sisters feel the need to go that way. Paul speaks pastorally to his situation. It should be no shock that he doesn’t overturn every aspect of the culture–he’s overturning enough already. But my situation in the modern world is so much different, that I find it extremely unreasonable to try to apply Paul’s pastoral advice in unadjusted form to the modern church. Thus when Paul says “husband of one wife” in my application I think “monogamous.” When Paul argues based on Adam being created first, I think, “I bet that made sense to Paul and that audience and got them on board, but it doesn’t make any sense to me.

    But then I guess I’m a dangerous liberal (per my accusers) or passionate moderate (by my own confession) and I’m just intent on ignoring the Bible. Well, no, not actually. I think the Bible is a gold mine of principles, and more importantly it guides me in hearing God speak to my situation today. I’m glad that God continues to speak, and today he does so both through women and men.

  • Replacing Reading Scripture with Presentation

    Lingamish made an excellent comment on my previous post, which I want to promote into a post of its own along with a few comments of my own.

    There are a lot of variables to fiddle with on this subject. We tend to assume that reading out loud while a room full of people listen is a valid activity for 21st century believers. But most of these people are used to sitting and watching a screen whether TV or computer and they process information much differently than people did even fifty years ago. So as much as I am an advocate of public reading I can see the strength of an approach that is more multimedia and interactive.

    Another variable is of course the lack of recognized authority. If the pastor told you something in the good ol’ days he had a lot of authority behind him. These days he is just one voice of millions and post-modernists are going to be using the pastor’s message as one element of their own solipsistic truth construct.

    Finally, there’s quite a retro impulse in a lot of modern spirituality so I can imagine that KJV/ESV can exert a strong attraction because of their foreignness. The human heart hungers for holiness and KJV oozes it.

    Now I would plead innocent to the tendency to assume that public reading is the way to present scripture, though most of us will find ourselves reading at least a few lines publicly at one time or another. Personally I have tried combining this with PowerPoint and also using some of the multimedia scriptures prepared by the American Bible Society. But I’m not really that good at creative presentation.

    I like to hear the Bible read aloud, and I like to read it aloud. I frequently read it aloud during my own devotional time. Sometimes my wife and I will read passages to one another. It helps me in study.

    Now notice the use of I and me in that previous paragraph. My wife, while she indulges my desire to hear scripture read, is less enthusiastic about it than I am. She is much more visual. She is much more likely to be impressed by a multimedia presentation or a drama that presents the scripture. That doesn’t mean she never wants to hear it read; it just means that there are other means that work for her.

    I have tried asking these questions in classes on Bible translations or Bible study, and it’s interesting to watch the responses. In one class I had perhaps thirty people divided pretty evenly along generational lines. The older group wanted to hear more scripture read, and they wanted to hear it from the KJV. The younger group was OK with hearing it read, but after hearing me read from several versions during the class, they preferred something like the CEV.

    But there was a minority in both groups that heard a different question, one I was ready to present explicitly, but which I hoped somebody would notice. And in that class, somebody did. What about seekers who come in off the street? What is going to reach them? And that is another matter.

    This is where Philippians 2:4 comes in. We each need to think about what other people need. How does someone like me, who is not oriented toward video and multimedia, and who is just a bit old fashioned, learn to reach other people? Well, I can think of a few ways. Drama, multimedia, more interactive presentations, and so forth. But the real way to work is to ask the folks you’re going to work with just what it is that they want to hear.

    What is a good time for the service? Ask the people you hope will attend.

    How should the scriptures be presented? Ask the people you hope will attend.

    What type of music should be played? Ask the people you hope will attend.

    How much preaching should there be? Ask the people you hope will attend.

    Now there is a place for education, for expanding people’s horizons. But very often if you listen to the answers to these questions you can create a worship service, a class, or an event that will both attract people, and also present the content you believe needs to be heard and understood.

    It does no good to present good material to an empty room, or to a room filled with people who are not the ones who need it. Just as I argue that inspiration must include a consideration of both the human and the divine side, good teaching has to consider both the teacher and those taught, and may often confuse or even practically erase the categories.