Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Bible Study Method

  • Biblical Languages: Balancing Fast Reading and Slow Study

    Continuing my suggestions for maintaining Biblical languages skills, I want to discuss briefly the balance between fast reading and the more serious, detailed, grammatical study.

    Most students who make an effort to maintain their Biblical languages skill–and unfortunately small percentage in my experience–set out on each passage of scripture to study the text as though preparing to face the professor’s interrogation. Some of you may have had relaxed Greek or Hebrew teachers. I had one in undergraduate Greek and one who covered both Hebrew and Aramaic when I was in graduate school who had high expectations of what you should know about the text. I remember quite clearly the day in Aramaic reading when I had correctly parsed a verb form, and then the professor asked me what it would be in a completely different stem, person, and number.

    If you’ve had that type of learning experience with any of the Biblical languages, you may have gotten into the habit of lingering over each and every word until you hope you know every detail. There is a place for that, and when I’m teaching, I will sometimes ask questions like that especially of students who tend to neglect details. But let me point out that you didn’t learn English that way, assuming it’s your native tongue. Instead, you were exposed to a great deal of the language and absorbed quite a bit of vocabulary and structure before you studied it more formally.

    Most people will face discouragement in their study of the Biblical languages if they proceed at the slow pace required to study out every form in detail. That is why I recommend dividing your time between some serious study, and a program of faster reading. Faster reading will require good tools, such as Bible software of various types, reader’s lexicons (Greek or Hebrew), analytical lexicons (Greek and Hebrew). These are not tools that most Biblical languages teachers will encourage you to use for class, but they will help you cover more ground and expose yourself to more of the language. Accompany these with good English versions, and your reading speed will improve.

    Each person will have a different balance between these two parts of study, depending on your own personality and your goals. If you eventually want to be able to debate serious grammatical issues, you need to lean more and more to serious, detailed study. If you’d like to read devotionally, spend more time building your own speed.

  • More on Principles of Biblical Interpretation

    Bruce Alderman disagrees with some of the principles of interpretation from Trivium Pursuit, which I referenced earlier, and has started a series on the same topic. His first principle is:

    All this is a long way of introducing my first principle of biblical interpretation: “God, what are you trying to tell me through these scriptures?”

    That sounds like an excellent question. I’ll be watching for the continued discussion.

  • Principles of Interpretation or Conclusions?

    I’m always happy to see discussion about principles of interpretation of scripture, because in general when we have large differences of opinion between Christians they can be traced back to our approach to interpreting scripture and more broadly to our understanding of how doctrine is formed. Thus I was delighted to see General Principles for the Interpretation of Scripture listed in this week’s Christian Carnival.

    I’m responding here to a couple of potential points of disagreement, but I don’t want this to overshadow my appreciation for having someone lay out their principles so they can be discussed. It is so incredibly important that we talk about how we come to an understanding of scripture and acknowledge those principles. In pursuit of that, my own principles can be found in extended form in the participatory study method, and one of my key principles in Hanging Biblical Interpretation. The latter essay is subject to the same criticisms I’m expressing here–in fact, I’m not sure we can avoid these criticisms.

    The issue can be illustrated very simply. Quoting:

    The Scripture is infallible.

    John 10:35 (Very Literal)
    . . . the Scripture is not able to be broken.

    What we have done here is interpreted the text in order to produce a principle of interpretation. Now if you think about it, you are likely to believe I’m being quite unfair. If you read my own essay, listed above, you will be even more convinced I’m being unfair. How else does one proceed? It’s a fundamental of inductive Bible study. But at the same time it’s one of our problems.

    I recall a visit from a very earnest young couple who wanted to save my soul. Their ardor for this task was not dimmed when I told them that I was a Christian and involved in a church. I didn’t mind talking with them, so we settled in to talk about salvation and eventually the topic worked its way around to faith and works. (You can see some of my own thoughts at A Fruitful Faith.) At one point in the argument he separated out a single phrase in a text and said that it applied to a different dispensation. He further claimed that his dispensational view was totally derived from scripture. In my experience, however, what is derived from scripture through a fully dispensational approach differs quite a bit from what others derive from scripture.

    In the case of the particular argument before us, can one justifiably move from the text to infallibility and make that a fundamental principle of Bible study? I think one would have to ask precisely what the scripture was intended to accomplish and how. The phrase “broken scripture” cries out for definition. In the case of John 10:35 it was a particular application to Jesus that could not be broken. But how does that become a basic principle of interpretation?

    I would suggest that it has to go through testing. In other words, I don’t have to begin my approach to scripture with the view that it is going to produce no errors or contradictions, or that it will provide me with true propositions. I would take John 10:35 with me to many different scriptures and ask just how it functioned in those contexts. I’m assuming that Mr. Harvey Bluedorn, who wrote the article I’m referencing, has done precisely that, and has found through testing that this principle continues to apply. Some may think that is a bit circular, but I would suggest it’s no more circular than life. If I touch a hot stove and get burned (hopefully only when I was younger!) I may conclude that the single object in question is dangerous. Through testing of that principle, perhaps a bit more carefully, I’ll find out just how universal my insight is, and how it applies.

    But for those who are just starting out perhaps that principle will require some testing. I think I come to some different conclusions along the line. The key here, however, is to know the principles you are applying, and to test them, especially by interacting with others to test your conclusions. Can you back them up?

  • Bible Study, Community, and Agendas

    I have written previously about community and Biblical inspiration and more recently about fear that pushes people away from studying the Bible for themselves. So how about a note on some of the dangers of Bible study?

    My attention was called to this topic by this post on Thinking Christian, in which the basis for anti-semitism in the gospels and Paul’s writings is discussed and to some extent despatched. There were two passages in that post that set me to thinking just a bit. The first is:

    None of these verses suggest that the whole Jewish nation is responsible for Jesus’ death and none of them promote the idea that Jews should be persecuted. Dowling is clutching at straws here and reading into the text what he clearly wants to see. The texts are so clear, in fact, one wonders whether he has actually studied them with a sceptical view! [emphasis in original]

    And this is the second:

    Although Dowling’s argument is completely flawed, it is true to say that the Bible has been used by those who wish to promote persecution of the Jews. But this is not the fault of the Bible. It is the result of distorted readings of the text. Unfortunately, ‘the history of the church is about as long as the history of anti-Semitism—if not in the overt acts of Christians, certainly in their guilty silence.’ (Wilson 1984) So the Christian Church has certainly been guilty of perpetuating anti-Semitism by commission or omission. But the actions of the Church must not be equated with the teachings of Scripture.

    Now don’t come to any conclusions about Steve Parker’s material without reading it completely. But what interests me here is that he says that it is very clear, even emphatically clear that these texts do not support putting the blame for the death of Jesus on the Jewish people as a whole, and do not support persecution on that basis, and yet, as he acknowledges in the second quote, these texts and others have been used in precisely that way.

    So what happened on the way from the first to the second? Generally, some very bad Biblical interpretation, and more specifically application has taken place. The reason for this is that the Bible has been given to us not in a neat, systematic fashion designed to give you direct answers for your moment by moment decisions. Instead, it is presented in people’s experience of God in a range of situations over an extended period of time.

    We are always in danger of misapplying scripture simply because we have our own agendas, and we tend to read what we think should be there. I’m always fascinated in my own reading to look at my previous marginal notes and underlining. Different aspects of a passage strike me at different times. There’s no problem with this. We’re human and we can’t keep our attention on everything at every moment. But our human nature also gets us to focus on how the Bible might apply to someone else, or on those aspects that support what we want to do. We can even believe that we are being quite scriptural because we have a Bible verse to quote for every occasion. We might even have reduced it to a simple reference.

    In the particular scriptures that caught my attention here, there was probably a very simple process of misapplication. Some Christian in the early, but not too early years of the church was angry at some Jews, perhaps at the Jews, possibly because he simply couldn’t understand why they wouldn’t accept what, to him, was obviously the truth. He wants to force them to believe, and it’s only a short step from forcing people to believe to using force and killing them if they continue to refuse. He looks for justification. “Aha!” he says, “we have it right here in Matthew 27:25. They admit to being guilty of killing Jesus–killing God!”

    The text doesn’t actually have to say that. It just has to provide one little wedge of scripture for the action that our hypothetical Christian already wants to take. Very unfortunately, though the specific thought processes are hypothetical, the result is not, and many Christians used the verse in question in precisely that way.

    We can easily wonder why there isn’t some kind of footnote or parenthetical remark that God would provide saying, “Don’t take this to mean that all Jews are guilty of the death of Jesus.” That simply wasn’t the issue at the time. I know that there are scholars who believe that this passage was penned precisely with the purpose of placing the blame for the death of Jesus on the Jews rather than the Romans. But even if that was the case, the historical context was a situation in which Christians were distinguishing themselves from Judaism more and more, yet it was still closer to a family fight with many Christians also considering themselves Jews, and thus requiring great care in application in any other situation. It’s quite possible that we should say that Jesus did provide a footnote, in Matthew 5:43-48–“Love your enemies!” Even if this verse did indicate a national guilt, and even if it did allow us to regard the Jewish people as our enemies, we’d still be commanded to love, and love would surely exclude persecution.

    I have written about each of these elements before, but I think this brings them into focus:

    • Read broadly, considering all aspects of context. The counterpoint may not be right there.
    • Read in community, with accountability. There’s a place for standing for your principles no matter what, but there’s also a place for being accountable to others.
    • Drop your agenda, and let God provide you with his agenda.
    • Always look for the things that correct you rather than for the things that correct others.
    • Listen to the Holy Spirit in the present.

    As a final note, I believe that God gives us the scriptures as part of the experience of the community because he wants us to experience him in the present as a community. We might want a book of facts and detailed instructions. God wants to provide us with a guide for coming into relationship to him and experiencing him in our daily lives. The greatest antidote to hatred in our lives, I believe, is the regular experience of God’s love. When you constantly experience God’s loving presence, you will find it harder to believe that God is justifying hatred.

  • Fear and Bible Study

    I was preparing a devotional for my wife’s devotional list on facing fear when it suddenly occurred to me that the verses I was using could also apply to Bible study. I regularly encounter Christians who are afraid to study the Bible. Their concern is that they will get it wrong, but more especially that they will teach someone else wrong.

    It’s not surprising that they get to feeling this way, because we do quite appropriately put a great deal of stress on correctly understanding what the Bible has to say. When you add to that the nice note in James 4:1, “Not many of you should become teachers . . .” and the fear becomes set in concrete.

    The questioner generally also asks me how the great scholars, you know, the ones who wrote the notes in their study Bible, manage to figure out what the text means. “I read the text, and then I read the notes,” they say, “and I just can’t see how they got the note out of the text!” I have to tell them that sometimes the note isn’t right either. I have quite a collection of Bibles with study notes, and I can tell you that there are substantial differences in what they say.

    (more…)

  • The Concept of Trajectories

    I like to talk about trajectories in scripture. This may sound odd to some. A trajectory, according to Merriam-Webster, is “a path, progression, or line of development resembling a physical trajectory.” When I talk about scriptural trajectories, I’m referring in particular to the last part of that definition–a line of development. (Compare also the use of this term in the Wikipedia article on Biblical Theology.)

    Many Biblical passages need to be read not simply to find out what the say, and who they are saying it to, but also to discover where God is going with a particular set of commands. In Christian theology we might identify a trajectory in a tabernacle and a sacrificial system that leads eventually to direct, personal access to God’s throne as described in the book of Hebrews. The command to offer a lamb might seem to merely indicate that God likes animal sacrifices. If we view it in the light of the trajectory, we may find that God does not like sin, and likes us to be reminded of it each time. In addition, it can remind us of the cost of sin on a regular basis, and also tell us that even if we are very far from God, he is nonetheless willing to make a way for us to approach him.

    (more…)

  • Prayers for Bible Study

    One of the key elements of participatory Bible study that I advocate is prayer with Bible study. Brian at RealMinistries.org has posted a number of prayers for Bible study from church fathers. I recommend reading this post.

  • The Camp and the Cloud

    Yesterday and today I wrote devotionals for my wife’s devotional list that drew lessons from the movement of the cloud and fire over the tabernacle in the wilderness. These devotionals are not truly exegetical exercises, but rather draw on the approach I call “listening to the conversation.” The command here is clearly directed to Israel at a specific time and place. There is no direct application. At the same time we can draw lessons by looking at how God deals with people. For this post I’m presenting the scripture once, and then combining the two devotionals.

    (more…)

  • Isaiah 26: Praise and Lament in Trouble

    Update: I forgot to tag the places the New Testament quotes (none in this case) or alludes to this passage.

    In my series on Biblical criticism I discussed the division of Isaiah 24-27 into various segments and discussing their form. In that article I suggested taking Isaiah 26 as a unity even though it would be the longest single segment in Isaiah 24-27.

    Other commentators suggest dividing the chapter after verse 6 into a song of praise while verses 7-21 are a community lament. I see the two parts of the chapter as inextricably tangled together. Isaiah 24-27 appears to be a confused portrayal of the end times, but it is intentionally confused–what appears confused to us is intentional.

    Our desire as Christians is to get a roadmap, to find out how to avoid trouble, and how to come out fine in the end without too much fuss and bother. But “fuss and bother” is a characteristic of final events. You have a time of conflict in which there will be moments of triumph and joy, and moments when one needs to hide.

    18Woe to those who are anxious for the day of YHWH,
    Why do you want the day of YHWH?
    It’s a day of darkness and not light!
    19It’s as though someone flees from a lion,
    but a bear meets him,
    so he goes into his house,
    leans his hand on the wall,
    and a snake bites him!
    20Is the day of YHWH not darkness rather than light?
    Is it not gloom without any gleam of light?

    –Amos 5:18-20

    This rather negative view contrasts with the joy that is expected on the day of the Lord, the day when God comes to redeem, but also to avenge. There are two reasons for this mixed description. First, the day of the Lord is joy for those who are ready and waiting, but not so joyful for those who are not. Second, the end does not come in any scriptural description without some conflict and trouble. This is not the place to go into any detail on pre-trib vs. post-trib arguments, but I think this passage hints at a situation in which the good spent some tense times along with the bad. It is certainly not a “proof passage” on this point; it simply hints on a less precisely laid out final time of conflict.

    Translation and Notes

    1In that day this song will be sung in the land of Judah.
    We have a strong city,
    Salvation set in walls and outworks!
    2Open the gates!
    So a righteous nation may enter,
    One that keeps justice.
    3The mind that depends,
    You will keep totally peaceful,
    Because he trusts in you.[Philippians 4:7]
    4Trust in YHWH forever,
    For in YH YHWH is an eternal rock.
    5For he has humbled the inhabitants of a lofty place,
    An inaccessible city.
    He will overthrow it,
    He will cast it down to the ground.
    He will make it reach the dust.
    6Feet will trample it,
    The feet of the humble,
    The steps of the poor.

    This is the song of praise, but in leads into the destruction of evil, which in turn leads into the lament of the following verses. The lament in turn ends on what, from God’s people’s point of view at least, is another high point.

    Some commentators have been concerned that the great city has already been destroyed in chapter 25, but that is part of the lack of clear chronological sense of Isaiah 24-27. The intent is to portray the time of conflict, and the feelings of God’s people, both positive and negative during that time.

    7The way of the righteous is level.
    You prepare for them a straight path.
    8Indeed in the path of your justice
    We wait for you YHWH,
    Your name and for your reputation,
    is our deepest desire.
    9My soul longs for you in the night,
    My spirit within me keeps watch for you,
    Because just as your judgments hold sway in the land,
    So do the inhabitants of the earth learn righteousness.

    Here again is the key to the day of the Lord. God asserts his rule and his justice. For some people that’s a good thing, for others, it is not so good. God’s true people wait anxiously for God’s justice, even though there may be great trouble along the way.

    10When the wicked receive grace,
    The don’t learn righteousness.
    In a land of upright people he acts unjustly,
    And has no fear of YHWH’s majesty.
    11YHWH, though your had is lifted up,
    They don’t see it.
    Let them see your zeal for your people,
    And be ashamed.
    Let the fire of your anger consume them. [Hebrews 10:27]

    There is a certain emotional conflict about the end times in that while many are being saved, God’s people know that others will be destroyed. God’s people have cried out for justice throughout history. There is the essential tension between God not wanting anyone to perish, and God’s unwillingness to allow sin to persist.

    The apparent absence of God’s judgment gives sinners permission to carry on whatever they’re doing.

    12YHWH will accomplish deliverance for us,
    Indeed all our accomplishments are things you have done!

    This is a tremendous statement of the gospel message. We really have done nothing. Even what we appear to have done is God’s activity in us.

    13YHWH our God,
    Other lords besides you have ruled us,
    Still we praise your name.

    I like this little note of repentance. “We’ve run away Lord, but we’re back. You’re the only one who matters.”

    14Being dead, they cannot live;
    Being shades, they cannot rise;
    Therefore you punished them,
         destroyed them,
         eliminated all memory of them.

    My translation is a bit different from what you will find in most versions based on Waltke-O’Connor’s grammar. It seemed strange to be talking about the dead in this verse and how they cannot rise when we have an affirmation of resurrection at the end of the chapter. What this verse actually refers to is those “other lords” who have ruled Israel. They are actually dead, unable to do anything. God has wiped them out.

    15You have added to the nation, YHWH.
    You have added to the nation.
    You have been glorified.
    You have expanded the borders of the land.

    Note the turn to a description of God’s blessing.

    16In trouble they called to you, YHWH.
    They poured out their prayer as you corrected them.
    17Like a pregnant woman who comes near to giving birth,
    She writhes, she cries out in her pains, [John 16:21]
    Thus were we from before you, YHWH.
    18We were pregnant, we writhed,
    But we gave birth to wind.
    We have not brought forth salvation on earth,
    Nor have the inhabitants of the world fallen.

    And here is another statement of God’s grace. Every human effort has failed, has accomplished nothing. They are like giving birth to wind. Yet when God steps in there is salvation.

    19Your dead will live,
    My corpses will rise.
    Wake up and sing!
    Those who dwell in the dust.
    Like drops of light is your dew,
    And the earth will bring forth the shades. [Ephesians 5:14]
    20Come my people! Enter your chambers!
    Close your doors after you.
    Hide for just a moment,
    until wrath passes over.
    21For look! YHWH is going out from his place,
    To repay the iniquity of the land’s inhabitants on it.
    The land will reveal its blood,
    And will no longer conceal its slain.

    We end with two affirmations: 1) God will bring new life, an early affirmation of the resurrection, and 2) The land is going to reveal the iniquity that has been done in it, allowing final justice.

    On the first point there has been some debate about whether this resurrection refers merely to the restoration of the nation or whether there is a resurrection of the dead involved. I believe the latter, largely because of the contrast to the dead gods/lords who will never rise again.

    On the second, note that the sacrificial system had many cases in which a sacrifice was to be offered when someone realized their guilt. The things that are concealed must be revealed so that justice can be done, whether for atonement or for punishment.

  • Lingamish on “Seed-Pickers”

    Lingamish has a post on a preaching peeve of his–seed pickers. You’ll have to go to his post to see all the details, but he defines a seed-picker as:

    A seed-picker is a preacher who grabs verses from all over the Bible and slaps them together in a puking pastiche of public preaching. A seed-picking sermon is marked by wide jumps in topic and involves so much thumbing through the Bible that even the most ardent Berean finally loses heart and has to just take the preacher’s word for it when he says Ezekiel 44 says such and such and Revelation 12 says so and so.

    We’ve all heard such sermons, I’m sure, though in many Methodist sermons these days the scriptures are more likely to be few and far between. Nonetheless, Lingamish makes a good point, to which I’d like to add a couple of comments.

    The key isn’t how many scriptures you use, it’s how appropriate they are and how well chosen. As Lingamish notes, many people like to remind us that “. . . they all [Bible books] ultimately have the same Author (notice the big A).” At the same time, it is worthwhile for us to remember that the Bible is presented to us the way it is, in many portions and at various times (Hebrews 1:1), precisely because that uppercase ‘A’ Author chose to provide it to us in that fashion. When we randomly connect pieces from one scripture with another, we deny the very providence of God which provided the Bible to us as it is.

    (more…)