Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Bible Study Method

  • Ben Witherington on Hermeneutics

    This seems to be my day for linking, both on my threads blog and here. Ben Witherington has written an excellent basic post on hermeneutics. I’m particularly interested because of his illustrations taken from Revelation. In my study guide to Revelation, I recommend Witherington’s commentary as “the best commentary on Revelation for the serious student that is available today.”

    Witherington lists three principles: 1) What it means is what it meant, i.e. the meaning is in the text; 2) Context is everything; and 3) Genre matters. I’d love to say one is more important than the other, but there may well be no “greatest of these.”

    In this post Witherington demonstrates the clear exposition that makes his commentary the powerful resource that it is.

  • Looking at a Passage

    I’ve blogged here a few times about different ways of reading (here, for example). Lingamish has a series of posts on the topic as well that are well worth reading. They are:

    I have found many partisans amongst Bible students, especially of serious, detailed reading, outlining, diagramming, phrasing, and so forth. Others are partisans for reading large sections at a time. But all of these approaches have their benefits, and it is only by looking at the text from more than one angle that we get the whole. Someone might diagram an entire passage and provide extended exegetical arguments, but if the connection to the whole is not made, then something may well be missing.

    Lingamish has a “rubber meets the road” practical approach that is refreshing.

    One last link to Lingamish, Grasshopper Greek: Apocalyptic Rock, in which he puts a portion of Revelation to music. The player at the top of the post doesn’t seem to work, but the alternate link he provides does.

    As an occasional Greek teacher, normally of one or two students at a time, I take the opportunity both to read to them, and to have them read to me in Greek, before I ask them to translate. It takes a great deal of practice to smooth out one’s pronunciation and gain any ease in that process, but I find that students who do so can discuss the text and think about it more effectively. I’m guessing most of us who have studied Biblical languages remember a time early in our training when we would look at a word, but couldn’t really pronounce it, and then look it up in the lexicon. On failing to find it, we’d look back and realize that we weren’t looking for precisely the same word as was found in the text. Or was I the only one who ever made that mistake?

    Learning to pronounce the text comprehensibly helps with that process. I’ve been reading Syriac recently, trying to revive my knowledge of that language, which was never all that good in the first place. I made precisely that mistake just yesterday, because my pronunciation has become weak, and I don’t clearly remember the form and the sound together.

    I don’t know how many will take to rockin’ in Greek, but it’s an interesting idea!

  • The Story in Scripture

    One of the ways I believe we frequently misunderstand scripture is by trying to take elements of it outside of the story in which they are set. My view of interpretation places the story above, or perhaps better around the propositional statements. I do not intend this approach to settle disputes about propositional statements in scripture and whether they are true and reliable, as I am not denying that there are numerous propositional statements. God must have wanted them there.

    The problem is that it’s terribly easy to miss the story, and to take particular propositions from scripture apart from the means by which God communicated those propositions and the way it which that was done. The most typical, and probably most extreme example of this problem comes in the interpretation of Job. Often the speeches of Job’s three friends are cited as support for theological propositions, even though God later declares these to be “words without knowledge” (Job 38:1). God’s declaration can certainly be applied to the speeches of the friends, who are later instructed to ask for Job’s intercession (Job 42:7-8). It can probably also be applied to Job’s, even though we are told that Job didn’t sin with his lips (Job 2:10). Nonetheless Job’s words in the depths of despair should receive careful consideration before they are used in support of a theological proposition.

    Job provides a good example of the different ways in which a proposition can be set in various stories. First we can ask when Job was written and what the general purpose was for writing it. That is, in itself, a story. There was a need to answer questions about the way God deals with people. Do just people always get rewarded? Is suffering always the result of sins? Second, each proposition falls into a place in the story of the book. This latter one is easy to discover, as the speeches are identified. By reading the whole story, you can guess that the speeches written by the guys who are told to offer sacrifices (Job 42:7-8) are less likely to be true than the ones uttered by God out of the whirlwind!

    Currently I’m continuing my study of Isaiah. Now I’ve been through this book a number of times, but during the past year I’ve been working through it multiple times. I’m continue to study through 2nd Isaiah (chapters 40-55) in connection with Brevard Childs’ commentary. One of Childs’ major contributions in Biblical studies was in canonical criticism, looking at Biblical passages in their canonical context. This goes well beyond what I’ve just described about Job in several ways.

    Let me quote Childs:

    In my commentary, in contrast to those who would fragment the chapter [referring to chapter 30-HN] I have argued that the different layers of the present text are to be seen as reflecting the accumulated experience of a faithful community with God through the lenses provided by Israel’s sacred scriptures. In the later levels of compositional growth the message of divine judgment and salvation are organically linked in a way that was at first, on the primary level of the tradition, unclear. However, increasingly the prophetic message gained in clarity as the anticipated eschatological salvation was painted with colors enriched by later apocalyptic imagery to form an organic whole. Hermeneutically speaking, it is crucial to understand how the major force in the shaping of the prophetic corpus derived from the experience by Israel of an ongoing encounter with God mediated through scripture rather than through the direct influence of allegedly independent events of world affairs. It is precisely this filtering process of scriptural reflection on the ways of God that gave a coherent meaning to the changing life of Israel in the world of human affairs. — Childs, Isaiah, pp. 228-229

    Now I quote that full paragraph to tie in the history of composition into the story of scripture. Just as I noted in my recent book that the Bible was written by people who “heard voices,” so also the Bible was written by people who perceived God as active in history, and who interpreted both their experiences and their existing texts in the light of that understanding. God did not simply speak by speaking; God spoke (and speaks) by acting.

    I believe I tend to be slightly more optimistic about the value of such methods as form and redaction criticism than Childs is. Nonetheless I am very grateful to him for his influence on Biblical studies in general, because he was able to bend the use of those methodologies toward a use in understanding the text that we have and setting it in a context of revelation, and away from fragmentation. He was also able to wean many away from looking for the earliest form of the tradition in order to discover the “true meaning.”

    The scriptures came into existence as God acted in and communicated with a community, and their understanding grew and clarified as they went along. They learned new things about God’s actions in history. They took literary forms and altered them to teach new lessons. This is yet another story in which we need to set scriptural propositions–the story of how those propositions got where they are now. I believe this is the continuing value of much critical methodology. It can suggest to us, and on a few occasions establish for us, the history of a piece of text so that we can see how that would grow in the community for which it was intended.

    Ultimately I believe that we would understand the use of the Old Testament in the New much better if we saw this interaction of action and revelation in continuous play. The early Christians have a number of motifs with which they are familiar from Hebrew scriptures. At the same time they have the experience of Jesus. Rather than sitting back and studying the Hebrew scriptures to determine whether they predict Jesus and the events of his life as they are read in historical context, they read them with the view that Jesus must be the ultimate divine revelation (Hebrews 1:1-3), and they also know that the scriptures they have are the result of divine action.

    Thus they start reading those scriptures through a new lens, and incorporating those motifs into their theologies, their lives, and and their communities in a new light. While some of the results may be startling, they are not so radical in method. They simply continue the process of God’s revelation and the way in which those on and through whom God acts work to understand that action.

    I add to the challenge of finding the immediate story in a Biblical book the challenge of asking how the elements of the book came together into a whole, if that was the process, and of asking what role it played in the broader story of salvation narrated and illustrated in scripture.

  • How to Change Your Mind – Again

    Joe Carter has reposted his entry from last November, titled How to Change Your Mind. I liked it then and I still like it now, so I’m going to link to it again.

    I use some similar methods from time to time. My mother taught me reading 12 times, which was often part of memorization. I’ve found it hard to get people to do put this into practice. But if you do, you will be blessed.

  • New Bible Format

    The IBS is producing a new Bible, available in August, 2007, which will reorganize the books of the Bible, removing verse and chapter numbers. This is intended to provide a new and more original feel in reading the Bible.

    I suspect that such a format will annoy some people, but I’ll say bluntly they should chill. We live with the constant tension between the Bible as a unity (a book) and the Bible as diversity (a collection). While verses facilitate conversations about the Bible and references to specific passages in other documents, they tend to first treat the Bible as a unity, and then chop it up into potentially unrelated pieces. They certainly distract from simply hearing the message.

    At the same time the book order, which is in many cases arbitrary, keeps modern readers from getting their bearings in the historical context. While there are bound to be disputes over where various elements fit, the structure of this new Bible is a good start to starting to balance Bible study in the other direction–more toward hearing the message in its literary, cultural, and historical context.

    I strongly commend the IBS on this effort, and look forward to having a physical copy in my hands as soon as it is released. In the meantime, check out their web site for this project, complete with sample books of the Bible, and a blog. Currently the staff there is blogging about why they would carry out such a project.

    For those who use my participatory study method, this Bible will be particularly valuable in the overview reading portion of your study. It removes distractions and some of the elements of Bible reading that tend to make one feel that one has read more than one has. The TNIV is also simple enough in language to make it easy to read large amounts of text.

    HT: radical renovation via TNIV Truth.

  • Ephesians 5:21-33: A Short Lesson in Focus

    It often amazes me to notice the difference in what I get from the scriptures when I approach a book or a passage simply asking what message God has for me in that passage as opposed to when I search out various passages of scripture in order to answer a particular theological question.

    That second procedure is not always a bad one; there are questions that can be answered by going to scripture and studying a particular topic. Getting a variety of scriptures that bear on a particular topic can help you keep your balance. Paul addresses the law in both Galatians and Romans (amongst others). You’ll get a more complete understanding if you read both.

    Very frequently, however, we view the topical study of scripture as the shortcut method. It’s easier to know topics than it is to know the Bible. But that is the danger. Quickly surveying a topic is a good way to fall into proof-texting, and that is dangerous ground.

    What brought this to my mind today in particular was my pastor’s Father’s Day sermon this morning. He used Ephesians 5:21-33, and he pointed to many of the balancing features of the entire passage.

    Let me suggest that you read the passage over, and then answer the following two questions:

    1. What is the primary focus of this passage?
    2. What from that passage have you heard quoted the most?

    My suspicion is that if you read the passage carefully, you’ll see it talking about the relationship been husbands and wives, and its focus is on the love that husbands are to have for their wives. This love is to be like the love Jesus Christ had for the church–self-sacrificing love.

    Now while I might debate issues of just what submission means and how this applies today. But that’s not my point. Whatever you believe about the structure of the home and authority there, Paul talks only a little bit about authority, secondary to his main point about the way a person in authority is to love, following the example of Jesus.

    Now what about the second question? Though I’ve heard quite a number of balanced sermons from this passage in conversations I’ve heard largely verses 21 and 22 quoted. Jesus is really, truly, and absolutely the head of the church (v. 23), and that’s the way the husband is the head of his wife (v. 22). While that fits the words of those two verses, if you add the remainder of the passage, starting with mutual submission (v. 21), and going on to note that the characteristic of Christ’s headship that husbands are asked is self-sacrificing love.

    The focus makes a great deal of difference. Now I’m not suggesting that the details of a passage don’t matter. What I am suggesting is that it’s important to see the overall focus–what it was that Paul was most interested in communicating in this case–before applying the details.

  • The Difficult Message of Hebrews

    Hebrews 5:11-14 describes the message of the book as difficult, chides the readers/listeners for not being ready for a meaty message, and then goes on to the more difficult message nonetheless. So what is basic, what is difficult, and what is it that makes the difficult message difficult? (OK, I take the 1,000 point deduction for using the word “difficult” too many times in one sentence.)

    Since I believe that the first 14 verses of Hebrews 6 are the heart of the message of the book. Once a person has been enlightened and set off on the Christian journey, can they turn back? Once they have turned back, can they repent yet again? This is a complex way of stating the more basic point: Endurance is required for the walk of faith. (For some previous thoughts on this topic, see Hebrews 6:4-6: Can Those who Fall Return?.)

    The author outlines these basic foundation items in 6:1–repentance, faith, baptism, laying on hands, resurrection, and eternal judgment. All of these elements are, of course, in the early stages of the proclamation of the good news. I’ve been reviewing material in the gospel of Mark, and one can find all of these elements, though the very specific “laying on of hands” is only fully developed in the early church. Nonetheless Jesus identifies people, empowers them and sends them out (Mark 6:6-13). These basic elements identify the key points of coming to repentance believing in Jesus and in turn going out to make disciples.

    To many of us in the church today, I’m sure this sounds like it’s not so basic. One of the biggest struggles I encounter in churches is getting members past the point of just being there and on to the point of making disciples. I wonder if the audience didn’t have a similar reaction to this letter when they first heard it.

    I can hear the chatter out in the congregation now. “What does he mean, ‘basic.’ That’s a serious message he’s preaching there. What more do you need if you’ve gone from repentance to being sent out again.”

    But again my study of Mark reminded me of the parable of the sower (Mark 4:3-9). It’s interesting that the author of Hebrews brings in plants as well (verses 7-8), though in a somewhat different context. I don’t want to suggest interpreting Hebrews 6 according to the parable of the sower, but there are some similar points. I do, however, think that the seed metaphor can be used to help understand the point in the Christian experience described by Hebrews 6. It’s not just the seeds that never sprout at all that fail in the parable. Out of the four categories of seed, three sprout. Only one fails completely (the birds eat the seed), while one succeeds completely (grows and produces fruit). The other two raise some of the same questions we have here. Can you fail after you receive the word? If you do fail, can you return? The parable of the sower makes no attempt to answer the second one.

    Two categories of seed start to grow but don’t finish, and both fail because of the hardships of the journey. It seems to me that this illustrates that the advanced material has to do with advancing on the Christian walk. The entire book of Hebrews bristles with the challenge not to give up, turn back, go off track, or fail to enter God’s rest. Most of us have experienced this sort of thing. We hear the gospel message and are excited, but we then encounter the actual church, warts and all and we become a little less enthusiastic. All too often, the cares of this world, or even the cares of Christian ministry choke us off, and there is no fruit.

    This is a hard saying. We can get into some terrible debates over the perseverance of the saints, or the perseverance of Christ on behalf of the saints. I discussed this once with a Calvinist student. We were discussing a person who had left the church after having been an enthusiastic Christian. I was interested in our vocabulary. We both agreed that this person had once publicly confessed Jesus Christ as savior. We both agreed he had set out on the path of discipleship. We both agreed that his love had grown cold and that he had forcefully rejected the life that he once knew. Where we differed was on vocabulary. I used the vocabulary of accepting Christ (being saved) and falling away. He stated that the man had apparently accepted Christ, but as it turned out it must not have been for real, as demonstrated by his falling away.

    It seems to me that those two positions are separated by vocabulary and not by practical reality. What apparently happens is the same. How we describe it is different. The author of Hebrews seems to me to describe this much more as a present danger to every believer. “Keep on going toward maturity (or perfection),” he says. “Don’t fall back!”

    Good advice, but advanced advice. It’s much easier to start a race than to finish it. The author of Hebrews knew that, and thus challenged Christians to run the race to completion (Hebrews 12:1-3).

    [This post deals with the answer to question #6, Lesson 7, Page 41 of my study guide to Hebrews]

  • Interesting Bible Study – Listening to Scripture

    A friend e-mailed me a link to Listening to Scripture, and though I live nowhere near the church involved, it looks like some fascinating material and a very useful Bible study class. The principles listed in the blog are all worth consideration and application.

    I plan to follow these folks “afar off” as they work through this study and as their leader blogs about it.

  • Martyn on Historical Methods (Galatians)

    I’m doing a run through J. Louis Martyn’s commentary on Galatians (Anchor Bible)Galatians (Anchor Bible), and enjoying it a great deal. He has a paragraph on historical methodology to which I want to call your attention:

    Convincing attempts to present a chronology of Paul’s travels and labors are based on a simple rule: Our first and decisive attempt to discern the chronology of Paul’s work is to be made on the basis of the letters alone. As a second and separable step, we may turn to Acts. Even in that second step, however, one accepts from Acts only points of confirmation and supportive elucidation. . . . — p. 17

    This is a key dividing point in Biblical studies generally between those who accept Biblical inerrancy, particularly in his stronger forms, and those who do not. If one believes the Bible is in all cases historically inerrant, one will tend to accept all Biblical sources equally, though with due consideration to perspective. One might even tend more readily to accept Acts as the better historical source, seeing as it was ostensibly written with the intent of presenting a historical account. (In fact, Acts was more written with an apologetic intent, but that is another issue.)

    If we look at Biblical texts from a historian’s point of view, we will take a different approach. In that case, a document written by one of the primary characters is a primary source of information, while a history written by someone else, based on such sources, even though he presumably had access to witnesses and to better documentation that we have today, is still a secondary source. Your first and best option is what you can learn from the primary sources.

    In taking such a historical view, however, one needn’t be quite as pessimistic about the historicity of Acts as Martyn appears to be, by accepting only “points of confirmation and supportive elucidation.” Acts must be itself evaluated as an historical source, and it appears to me that Martyn himself gives it a fairly substantial role in areas other than chronology in the rest of his commentary.

    Whichever side of this divide you are in terms of approach to studying the Bible as history, you need to be aware of the divide, because it will color debates, especially in online forums and the blogosphere where a large number of different viewpoints clash quickly. Understanding the methodology behind such choices is important. If two people are not in agreement on the weight to be given the various sources, they are unlikely to come to the same conclusions about any particular historical event.

    An interesting example of a later connection between the story in Acts and that in the Pauline letters comes in relation to Acts 15 and the Jerusalem conference. It is interesting to note that Paul’s accusation against the teachers, that they were “troubling” (Galatians 1:7) uses the same Greek word as does Acts 15:24 in describing what certain people had been doing in the gentile churches. Is it possible that Paul is specifically referring to the decree of that conference? A combination of texts from Galatians could be used to gather a more precise idea of the nature of that Jerusalem meeting. (Note that while the connection is mentioned, Martyn does not bring up the issue of historicity in connection with these two verses.)

  • Similarities and Differences

    I am continuing to study through Isaiah with Brevard Childs Isaiah from the Old Testament Library, and I found another quote I want to share with a very brief comment. In discussing the literary connections between chapter 34 and 2nd/3rd Isaiah, he says:

    . . . For example, are the vocabulary affinities between chapter 34 and 40-66 to be given precedence over the large number of words in chapter 34 that are not found in chapters 40-66? Or again, what role does one assign to apparent similarities of syntax and style? — p. 253

    Now this quote seems very simple, but it embodies an important principle in Bible study, in areas ranging from comparing one scripture to another all the way to serious application of various critical methodologies. The principle is this: Differences and similarities must both be considered in any comparison.

    One of the best illustrations of this idea comes from the history of comparing the Babylonian creation story to Genesis 1. At first, there was a mass acceptance of the idea that Genesis was essentially copied from the Babylonian story. There are, indeed, many points of contact between the two. Then there was a reaction indicating that Genesis was almost totally different. There are also, it is true, substantial differences. After a time, most scholars came to the conclusion that there was a relationship, but that it was not a direct literary relationship. They concluded that both likely went back to an earlier source which each had used in its own way. (This is a very generalized history, and much of the conflict still goes on, especially in Christian apologetics.)

    I’d recommend getting a copy of each and enumerating key points and then lining them up together. What is the same? What appears to be related but is not identical? What is completely different? (Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament with Supplement is a good source and is probably available at any good college or university library.) Then compare your own lists. I do this with the creation of man in each story when I’m teaching either on Genesis or the ancient near east in general, and I find the results are always interesting.

    The same principle, however, applies to comparing any two sets of material. For comparing scripture, make sure to understand both texts in their context, then look at what is similar between them but also at what is different. Just listing one or the other presents an unbalanced picture.