Four Excellent Books on Biblical Interpretation

Some Christians struggle to interpret the bible correctly but wish they could do so. Others don't interpret it correctly and don't seem to care. Additionally, some passages are tough for just about anybody to comprehend. Because of all this, it's critical that we, Christ's church, do our best to understand what God is saying in scripture. One reason for the general impotence of the church in this country is that many Christians fail when interpreting what the bible means.

I'd like to recommend four excellent books that focus specifically on biblical interpretation. None are boring textbook types. Rather, they are enjoyable reads that you can work through without undue effort. I benefited from all four. I've previously written about them individually on this blog, but I'm grouping them together here in case you want to study a few at the same time.

In no particular order:

Exegetical Fallacies by D.A. Carson

This book is a classic. Part of that is because Carson is a both prolific and wonderful writer. In this short text (only 140 pages) he covers word-study fallacies, grammatical fallacies, logical fallacies, and presuppositional and historical fallacies. A basic knowledge of New Testament Greek helps quite a bit when reading this book; I wouldn't say it is required, but it is a large benefit. If I could recommend only one book on biblical interpretation this would be the one.

40 Questions About Interpreting the Bible by Robert Plummer

I love the layout of this book. The author asks and answers forty specific questions as the forty chapters. This is superb because it allows the reader to easily pick and choose which chapters to read. I'm also pleased that Plummer deals quite a bit with genre, which is an often ignored but critical issue.

Click here to read my full review of this book.

The Most Misused Verses in the Bible by Eric Bargerhuff

This book is a lot of fun to read. Bargerhuff's text is composed of eighteen chapters that focus on eighteen common, incorrect biblical interpretations. For example, he tackles "Do not judge," "Plans to prosper you and not to harm you," "Where two or three are gathered," "If my people who are called by my name," "Money is the root of all evil," "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me," and several others. This would be a great book for any Christian to read, especially those who are first wading into the issue of biblical interpretation.

Click here to read my full review of this book.

Urban Legends of the New Testament by David Croteau

Croteau's book is similar to Bargerhuff's but a little more advanced. Urban Legends deals with forty poor interpretations specifically of New Testament passages. If you are more than a beginner in interpreting the bible, then I recommend this text over The Most Misused Verses in the Bible. Think of Bargerhuff's book as being more fun, but Croteau's as being more beneficial.

Click here to read my full review of this book.


For other reading on biblical interpretation, take a look at two blog series I've written on this subject:

Church, Bible, And Interpretation - It's Not So Simple
Old Testament Interpretive Problems Always Lead to Church Problems


Finally, enjoy:

A Bad Reason for Returning to the Institution: "Well, the New Testament is Simply Descriptive."

You may have departed from the institutional church framework because the bible shows something far different. However, would it bring doubts to your mind if another Christian said to you, "Well, the New Testament is simply descriptive."?

Again and again and again I've heard, read, and been told by believers that the New Testament narrative passages are only descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, narratives simply tell us what happened, but do not call us to behave in that same manner.

When I departed from the salaried pastorate I ran into this argument repeatedly.

But is it a valid argument?

We learn much from the entire bible. In particular, the New Testament tells us many wonderful things about who God is, about what He has done, about what He is still doing, and about what our response should be. Because it is a book, the bible is literature (true literature). It is composed of all sorts of writing, from poetry and prophecy to narrative and epistle. It is all for our instruction.

If the narrative passages are only descriptive, as the above argument goes, then we lose a great deal of important information about how we are to live. Since much of the information in scripture about church life is, in fact, in narrative form we'd have little to go on if we toss the narrative sections aside. If that was the case, then churches could basically do whatever they want when they meet (which is what is happening in most churches today).

Interestingly, I've yet to meet even one Christian who consistently treats all narrative accounts as simply descriptive. Rather, the tendency is to say that the passages they agree with are prescriptive, but those they do not really like are only descriptive. We all have a tendency to fall into this trap and ought to be wary of it.

Much of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are narrative. Do the passages that tell us about how Jesus lived not apply to us because they are narrative in form? What about the majority of the book of Acts?

I believe that one of the main reasons the church in this country is generally in disarray is that the New Testament narrative passages have been largely ignored. This has led to churches doing whatever they think is a good idea whenever they think it. This has led to abject disaster.

The entire bible is breathed out by God and useful for our instruction. Because of this, the narrative passages do in fact carry prescriptive weight. They are models that we should follow. Of course, we must let scripture interpret scripture. Also, we would never follow the narratives that show us people behaving in a sinful manner. We should, however, do all we can to learn from the narratives that show us positives.

If someone tells you that narratives are simply descriptive, ask him why he thinks that. If he actually answers you, follow up by asking how this applies to the narratives about the life of Christ. That should bring an end to his argument very quickly.

A Bad Reason for Returning to the Institution: You've Been Told You Are Being Disobedient

How many times have you had Hebrews 10:24-25 used against you?

For review, these two verses say, "And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near."

When you leave institutional Christianity behind for greener pastures it can at times be very difficult to find like-minded others. Frankly, sometimes it takes a lonnnnnnnnnng time to meet up with believers who have the same convictions you do. Because of this, many of us have faced extended periods of wandering in the church wilderness. You may be there right now.

If you are there, please know that you are not being disobedient. Simply because you are not part of a local church or not going to weekly "worship services," this does not mean that you are somehow sinning. Please rid that thought from your mind.

The author of Hebrews (whoever he was) wrote his letter to a largely Jewish, Christian audience. His purpose was to encourage them in the midst of persecution. In particular, he warned them repeatedly about turning away from the faith back to Judaism. It is within that context that Hebrews 10:24-25 comes along. Some had fallen into the bad habit of not meeting with other believers at all; they had the opportunity, but they simply weren't doing it. This passage has absolutely nothing to do with Christians who want to gather simply with others but cannot locate them.

The last thing you want to do is return to institutional trappings because you've been told you are being disobedient. First, you would be miserable. And second, you are in no manner disobeying our Lord. In fact, I would argue that you are being extremely obedient by venturing away from the comfy, easy institution into the unknown. If you are pursuing the church as modeled for us in the New Testament, then God will be pleased. If you are done with going through the motions and are seeking to live out a vibrant, active church life, then I commend you. Keep it up.

The Danger of Separating Romans 13 from Romans 12

Each Sunday morning our family gathers with some fellow believers in our home. As part of these meetings we've recently been studying through the book of Romans. It has been a joy.

As we looked at Romans chapter 12 and then chapter 13 I was struck by the importance of not separating the two in our minds. Of course, it is all too easy to do this since most bibles make a fairly big deal out of the man-made chapter divisions. Even we, as a small group of Christians, tend to study chapter-by-chapter each week. For example, one week we read through and discussed Romans 12 and the following week Romans 13. It would have been simple to miss the relationship between the two if we didn't pay active attention.

The beginning of Romans 12 is a well-known transition point in the book. The previous eleven chapters focused mostly on what God has done in His grand plan of redemption. Romans 12-16 looks primarily at what man's response should be in light of what God has accomplished. Paul sums this up well in Romans 12:1-2, "I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect."

Paul expects us to be "living sacrifices" to God. But what does this look like? The apostle teases this out through the remainder of the epistle. In chapter 12 Paul lists various expectations of the Christian life. Toward the end of the chapter he tells the Roman Christians to "repay no one evil for evil" and "never avenge yourselves." His language is clear. The chapter ends at this point.

This is where the danger comes into play.

In chapter 13 Paul discusses the importance of being subject to governing authorities. Verses 13:3-4 say, "For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer."

The danger to the church, if we separate chapters 12 and 13, is that we might fall into the trap of over applying 13:3-4. I've seen this again and again as Christians point to these verses to support our government's nasty habit of invading other countries whenever we feel it is in America's best interests. I've also heard these verses used to defend self-defense to the point of vigilantism.

We cannot ignore what Paul said at the end of chapter 12. As Christ's followers, we are not to avenge ourselves. We are not to repay evil for evil. This hearkens back to what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount: "Love your enemies." When we keep these things in mind, we are forced to see that Romans 13 has a much smaller application than what has been popular in modern evangelicalism. In Romans 13 Paul is simply saying that government uses its power to discipline those who would break the law. The apostle is discussing how a nation state functions within its own borders. It has nothing to do with invading other countries. It's got even less to do with any sort of self-defense.

For whatever reason the church in the USA has a tendency to support the military almost no matter what it does (at least as long as there's a Republican in the White House at the time). Romans 13 is frequently used as biblical justification for doing so. This is extremely poor interpretation of scripture.

We do much better to keep chapters 12 and 13 linked (which is what Paul intended). While the beginning of chapter 12 serves as a significant transition point in the letter, the beginning of chapter 13 does not. Paul's thought flows directly from 12 into 13. Therefore, everything in 13 must be read in the context of us being living sacrifices, repaying no one evil for evil, and us not avenging ourselves.

Avoid the danger of misinterpretation. Keep 12 and 13 linked.

When a Cartoon Has Good Theology...

Series Summary: Church, Bible, And Interpretation - It's Not So Simple

Understanding the bible correctly is neither particularly easy nor difficult. Rather, the task falls somewhere in between.

The body of Christ as a whole is not particularly good at biblical interpretation. This stems in large part from the church's shameful lack of scriptural knowledge in general. Coupled with this is Christians' tendency to use all sorts of odd and random methods for understanding the bible. If the church would be consistent in using proper methods of interpretation it would be able to avoid many of the problems it faces today.

My purpose in writing the series Church, Bible, and Interpretation - It's Not So Simple is to help fellow believers understand scripture better. I hope it has been of benefit.

Click below to read any of the posts in the series:

The Bible is a Book That is Meant to be Understood
The Biblical Writers Meant What They Said
The Biblical Text Has Meaning; We Do Not Bring Our Own Meaning To It
Biblical Meaning Stems from the Book, Not the Verse
The Bible is Full of Eyewitness Accounts
The Bible Does Not Read Like a Myth or Fairy Tale
Genre Must Not Be Ignored
Descriptive Differs From Prescriptive
The Bible Was Written in Hebrew and Greek, But We Can Generally Trust Our Good English Translations
The Gospel is the Key and Jesus Christ is the Center

The Gospel is the Key and Jesus Christ is the Center

This is the final post in the series Church, Bible, and Interpretation - It's Not So Simple.

The bible is not an end in and of itself. We obviously do not worship the bible. However, the bible is the way we know who Jesus Christ is, what he has accomplished, and what he expects of us. Without the bible we'd have no way of knowing God personally.

Psalm 19, among other things, beautifully points out the difference between general revelation and special revelation. Apart from the scriptures we might be able to discern that God is Creator and that he is good. However, we would have no clue about the gospel.

As we seek to interpret scripture correctly we must remember that the gospel is key. It is a golden thread running from the beginning to the end of the bible. It is what binds it all together. At the center of the gospel is Jesus Christ himself. All interpretation must flow through him and keep him in mind. To fail to do so puts us in danger of coming to conclusions divorced from the primary message of the bible.

As we read the bible let's constantly ask ourselves the following question, "What does this have to do with Christ and his gospel?" This question acts as a plumb line against which to compare our conclusions. The question also functions like a magnet, drawing us back to him who really matters.

Because we are human, and thus fallen even if redeemed, we will occasionally come to incorrect conclusions about what the bible means. However, when we keep the gospel in general and Jesus Christ in particular at the forefront of our minds we have an excellent chance of arriving at the meaning God intends.

The Bible Was Written in Hebrew and Greek, But We Can Generally Trust Our Good English Translations

As we seek to understand the bible correctly we must remember that it was originally penned in Hebrew and Greek (and a little bit of Aramaic). While we don't need to be able to read Hebrew and Greek to comprehend scripture, it remains important that we respect how it was first put down on parchment.

This is part nine of my ten part series Church, Bible, and Interpretation - It's Not So Simple.

The original languages are important. This is because all languages have certain quirks and idiosyncrasies about them. All are unique. Additionally, languages change over time. For example, the Greek spoken in Greece today differs significantly from the Koine Greek of the New Testament. Because of these things the church needs a significant number of believers who can read and teach biblical Hebrew and Greek to the next generation. If for no other reason this is important for apologetic purposes. It would do great damage to the body of Christ if no one could say with certainty what the Greek and Hebrew mean.

I'm generally not a fan of seminaries (even though I attended a fairly good one). However, I am glad that most evangelical seminaries in this country strongly support the teaching of Greek and Hebrew. Many require classes in both. Until the church gets to the point of teaching Hebrew and Greek one to another we need seminaries to keep doing what they are doing.

The Reformer Martin Luther said the following:

We will not long preserve the gospel without the languages. The languages are the sheath in which this sword of the Spirit is contained; they are the casket in which this jewel is enshrined; they are the vessel in which this wine is held; they are the larder in which this food is stored; and, as the gospel itself points out, they are the baskets in which are kept these loaves and fishes and fragments….

I am exceedingly glad that I speak English. The reason I say this is that the bible has been translated into English in many good forms. We have an abundance of excellent translations, for example the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, NET, HCSB, ISV, and YLT. With modern technology it's even easy to compare translations by using a site like Bible Gateway. Because of all this we English speakers can feel confident that we know what the bible truly means even if we cannot read the original languages.

This brings us to another issue: the importance of bible translation into all languages. While we English speakers have lots of choices, some Christians around the globe have only one relatively poor translation or no translation at all. I encourage you to consider giving to those who spend their lives doing translation work; Wycliffe Bible Translators is a wonderful example.

One final thought: some of the English translations do not handle leadership issues well. Because many of those doing the translating are enmeshed in the institutional church framework they tend to translate in a way that gives pastors more authority than they actually should have. In my opinion this is the biggest weakness of many English translations. Therefore, if you are dealing with church leadership/authority issues, I highly encourage you to read multiple translations and consult numerous commentaries prior to coming to any significant conclusions/decisions.

To sum up: let's always remember that the bible was written thousands of years ago in Hebrew and Greek. Despite this, we can know what the bible means.

An Excellent Post on the Book of Acts and the Descriptive/Prescriptive Issue

Keeping with the theme of description and prescription, I'm linking to an excellent post that Guy Muse wrote a few years ago entitled simply Acts--description or prescription?

I highly encourage you to read it. Guy deals with the issue charitably, asking some good questions.

Below I've included the comment I left on Guy's piece:

Guy,

I've read your blog for a while but this is my first comment.

My belief is that the book of Acts is prescriptive for church life of all time. My reason for believing this is that the disciples were present at that time. They either gave approval to church practices or told the people to change what they were doing. They also wrote directly to churches.

If we follow the apostolic approved practices of church life, then we can know with certainty that how we are functioning is acceptable to God.

If we depart from the church model we see in Acts, then we have no certainty that what we are doing is God-honoring. If we leave Acts behind, we wander into the danger of postmodernistic, "almost anything-goes" territory.

If we follow what we read in Acts, church life becomes much simpler. Also, instead of spending money on buildings, programs, and pastoral salaries, we can give it to both the poor and needy and international missions work.

Descriptive Differs From Prescriptive

Another challenging aspect of Biblical interpretation is determining what to do with narrative accounts. Do they simply describe what occurred at a certain place in space and time? Or, are the events and outcomes we read about normative for us today? (This post is part eight of my ten-part blog series Church, Bible, and Interpretation - It's Not So Simple).

I've studied this issue quite a bit over the past five years or so. It is not simple, nor are there any satisfyingly quick answers. I believe it is safe to say that some narrative passages are only descriptive while others are prescriptive. How are we to adequately handle this?

We must keep several things in mind:

First, narrative passages from the Old Testament are far less likely to be normative for us today than passages from the New Testament. This is because much of the O.T. describes old covenant Israel. In the pages of the N.T. we read of the new covenant community - the church. This is why the book of Acts is often central to any discussions of the descriptive/prescriptive issue.

Second, let's aways, always, always keep narrative passages in their broader context when interpreting. Single passages fit into an overall structure of a book. We have to keep the entire book in mind when determining meaning from any particular passage.

Third, as always we ought to use clearer verses to interpret those that appear less clear to us. For example, King David had multiple wives. Is this a model we should follow? Certainly not. Plenty of other passages make it clear that one man should be made one flesh with one woman (Genesis 2:24 is key to our understanding).

Finally, we must not make the mistake of picking and choosing from narrative when considering what passages are telling us how to live today. It is extremely tempting to call certain narrative passages prescriptive simply because they support activities that we already enjoy in church life. The flip side of this is saying that other narratives are only descriptive because they give us a model that flies in the face of what we like. I wrote an entire blog post on this specific temptation that you can read here.

As we ponder whether or not we should apply certain narrative passages to our lives, let's recall a couple of other things. First, the apostles were part of the early church. It is safe to say that they would not have given approval to church practices that were aberrant. Instead, they would have led the early believers to live church life correctly. Therefore, when we consider narrative sections of the book of Acts we should, I believe, fault on the side of treating them in a prescriptive manner. Click here to read more on this subject.

Second, it is a sad reality that most traditional church pastors reject N.T. passages as being prescriptive, including much of the book of Acts. This is because these pastors cannot treat Acts as prescriptive and at the same time go about their business as usual. Click here to read a post I wrote entitled Professional Pastors Tell the Church That the Biblical Model for Church Life is Unimportant. We must be skeptical whenever salaried pastors begin calling into question the book of Acts as normative for church life.

To sum up, the descriptive/prescriptive issue as it relates to Biblical narrative is not an easy one. We all tend to like simple, straightforward answers. However, we don't get that luxury here. When it comes to narrative, we need to examine each passage thoroughly prior to making any significant decisions. Finally, I highly encourage you to come to your conclusions about the descriptive/prescriptive issue within the context of the church community. The group is usually wiser than the individual.

Genre Must Not Be Ignored

The Bible is a book. This means it is literature. It is also true, but it is literature nonetheless. Because of this we must take genre into account when interpreting. We ignore it at our peril.

(This is part seven of the ten-part series Church, Bible, and Interpretation - It's Not So Simple.)

The Bible contains various forms of genre: narrative, epistle, song, poetry, prayer, prophecy, law, biography, legal document, parable, apocalyptic, etc. This is one aspect of the Bible that makes it unique. It also makes it a bit challenging to interpret. This does not mean that the scriptures are difficult to understand, but rather that we must remember a few things when reading. One of those is the specific genre. If we do not do this, either accidentally or purposefully, we run the risk of arriving at some faulty conclusions about what the Biblical writers intended.

I do not intend in this post to explain how to interpret different forms of Biblical literature. Entire books have been written on this subject. Rather, this is simply a call to in fact keep genre in mind. When we do this it makes scripture much easier to comprehend. For example, when we read the 10 Commandments we may wonder how we can possibly keep the O.T. Sabbath. If, however, we recall that Exodus 20 is part of the O.T. law, and as such doesn't apply to us, then we can understand it perfectly.

Or what about proverbs that don't seem to come true? For example Proverbs 22:6, "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." Plenty of parents have raised their children correctly only to see them stray into a life of worldliness. Should this shipwreck their faith in the truth of scripture? By no means. This is because proverbs by definition are sayings that generally describe our existence. Every single proverb does not hold true in every instance. That's what proverbs are. The type of literature is key.

If we are looking for the type of literature that has the most one-to-one application to our lives we ought to focus on the N.T. epistles. Those letters were written to the church. Because of this they are the simplest to understand and apply directly to our lives.

Additionally, remember that crystal clear texts should be used to interpret less clear texts. To do the opposite is to fail. Finally, always keep context in mind. One aspect of this is the type of literature you are reading. Genre is everything.



(To read more about specifically interpreting the Old Testament correctly, click here.)

The Bible Does Not Read Like a Myth or Fairy Tale

This is post number six in my ten-part series entitled Church, Bible, and Interpretation - It's Not So Simple.

The scriptures are a great gift from God to us, His church. We have the wonderful and sometimes daunting task of interpreting the Bible the way God wants it interpreted. The writers of scripture meant certain things. We need to understand what they intended. It's my goal in this series to help however I can.

One consistent claim that haters of the scriptures make is that it reads like a myth or fairy tale. I sometimes wonder if those who make this claim have ever bothered to actually read the Bible. Their claim fails on many fronts. I bring up this issue because we, as readers, must understand that the Bible not only is not a fairy tale, but it doesn't read like one either. Rather, the scriptures read much more like actual happenings in space and time. That's because what we are reading did occur in space and time (eyewitness accounts).

To claim that the Bible is a myth or fairy tale requires that the one making the claim rule out the supernatural completely. In light of the relative insignificance of human beings in the scope of the universe, this is a staggeringly arrogant claim. Who is man to say that God does not exist? Man cannot possibly know enough to even make this claim.

When we read the Bible we run into the most important person who ever lived - Jesus Christ. He does not seem like a crazy person or fraud. He also doesn't act like a wizard or magician. Rather, he appears to be a normal person who happens to be very nice, care for people, and make some astounding claims. Jesus has an aura of reality and believability. A fair reading of scripture forces us to deal with this real person. That's not only because Jesus is real, but also because the Bible is written as a historical record, not a myth.

Myths and fairy tales do not have written records from thousands of years ago. The Bible does.

Myths and fairy tales change over time. The Bible does not.

People do not die for fairy tales. Many Christians have been slaughtered for standing up for the Bible.

We can be confident that the Bible is true. It is a written record of God's revelation to us. It describes real things happening in specific places at specific times in history. At its most basic level it is a book that is believable. When we read the Bible let's not interpret it as if it is some sort of fairy tale or myth. It was not intended as such. Rather, we must read and interpret it for what it is: God's record of His amazing acts in history, centering upon our glorious Lord.

The Bible is Full of Eyewitness Accounts

This post is the fifth in my blog series entitled Church, Bible, and Interpretation - It's Not So Simple.

All sorts of people today doubt the truth claims of scripture. This doesn't surprise or concern me when coming from secularists. I would expect nothing else. However, I'm deeply troubled when followers of Christ struggle with whether not to trust as true what they read in the Bible. Many act as if the Bible is a nice book but lacking in solid, historical reasons to believe it.

I want to encourage fellow Christians with the reminder that we can trust scripture. One reason is the fact that the Bible is full of eyewitness accounts. From Genesis to Revelation we read account after account written by people who were there in time and space. They saw and lived what happened.

The person of Jesus Christ is the most critical aspect of the Bible. It all revolves around him. But what do we know of him? Frankly, we know a ton. Matthew's and John's gospel accounts are extremely important for us because both men were part of Christ's twelve apostles. They were right there in the midst of everything that occurred. John in particular was part of Jesus' inner circle (along with Peter and James). His twenty-one chapters are a goldmine of eyewitness data. He saw, lived, and experienced life directly with our Lord. And then John told us about it.

The most important events in the life of Jesus Christ are his crucifixion and resurrection. If they are true, then he is a very special and unique person indeed. If not, then he is a fraud to be rejected. Why ought we believe, in particular, in the resurrection? Because many, many people saw the resurrected Christ. Paul writes the following in I Corinthians 15:1-8:

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you — unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Jesus appeared to over five hundred people! Paul is telling the Corinthian believers that they should hold strong faith in the resurrected Christ because so many folks saw him in the flesh. They were eyewitnesses. Not only that, but many remained alive. Paul is almost challenging those doubting in Corinth to travel to Israel to ask the eyewitnesses themselves.

To sum up, the Bible makes massive truth claims. These claims are supported again and again by people who saw what happened. We have the written records of people who spent years with our Lord. They even saw and spoke with him after he was resurrected from the dead. These accounts give us great reason to believe.

Biblical Meaning Stems from the Book, Not the Verse

As a runner I see Philippians 4:13 at almost every race. This is because somebody invariably has "I can do all things through him who strengthens me" printed on the back of their T-shirt. A Christian outreach organization to runners even exists based upon this verse. While the organization seems fine, their use of Philippians 4:13 yanks the verse completely out of context.

This brings me to the topic for today's post. Far too many Christians fail to interpret scripture correctly because they look at individual verses for meaning. When
this happens, even with well-intentioned believers who respect the Bible, they often arrive at erroneous conclusions. For example, Philippians 4:13 has nothing to do with running. Rather, the context of the passage is Paul's God-granted ability to handle both having plenty of physical goods/money and not having enough. God strengthened the apostle to be content regardless of his particular situation.

If Christians who cherish Philippians 4:13 would keep it in the context of book, chapter, and paragraph, they would not even consider using it to refer to running. That application would seem silly to them in the context of Paul's purpose for the letter. One of Paul's primary reasons for writing to his friends in Philippi was to thank them for their financial support. He wasn't planning on running in any 5Ks or marathons (at least I don't think so).

When the Bible was originally penned, no chapter, paragraph, or verse divisions existed. In fact, they were not added until hundreds of years later. They were inserted not to assist with interpretation, but to help readers find specific sections more easily. That is key: the chapter, paragraph, and verse divisions are not inspired.

Where does the primary meaning lie? It lies in the book itself. When determining the meaning of any part of scripture, the reader must take into account everything the author has said prior to that particular sentence he is reading. This can be difficult, especially with long books. This is one reason it is so important to read all the way through Biblical books instead of sifting for favorite passages.

The author(s) of each book had a train of thought and built an argument. The individual books build upon themselves as they progress from beginning to end. For example, it is folly to try to understand Romans 12:1-2 in a vacuum. These familiar verses say:

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

Romans chapters 12-16 focus a great deal on how Christians should live in light of what God has done. But how do the Roman believers know what God has done? They already know by reading chapters 1-11. Romans 12-16 only make sense in the context of 1-11.

Another truth to keep in mind during interpretation is that each book is part of the Bible as a whole. When reading, for example, from the prophets or writings in the Old Testament, the reader must keep them in context of the Pentateuch (Genesis - Deuteronomy). When reading the New Testament, we absolutely have to remember all of the O.T. To ignore what has come before a particular passage is to risk poor interpretation.

Many sincere followers of Jesus Christ have great respect for the Bible. Many also come to faulty conclusions about what the Bible means. We have all done this, myself included. One way we can avoid this error is by keeping verses in context. It is the book that provides the meaning God intends.

The Biblical Text Has Meaning; We Do Not Bring Our Own Meaning To It

This is the third post in my blog series entitled Church, Bible, and Interpretation - It's Not So Simple.

Postmodernism has swept through our society over the past half-century leaving a trail of destruction in its path. Postmodern thought is essentially a rejection of modern thought. Objectivity has given way to subjectivity. Absolute truth has been rejected as old-fashioned. Postmodernists scoff at the idea of meta-narratives. Instead of the focus being outside of self, postmodernity emphasizes personal feelings and opinions.

One critical aspect of postmodernism is the idea that the reader of a book brings meaning to the text. In essence, this allows the reader to determine what any book means based upon the reader's own background, presuppositions, political leanings, beliefs, etc. This doesn't really matter if someone is reading something of little significance like this. However, it's fairly obvious how troublesome postmodernism is when it comes to Biblical interpretation.

Many churches and denominations have happily embraced the idea of the reader bringing their own meaning to the scriptures. This allows them to say that the Bible means whatever they want it to mean. In this way folks who claim to be followers of Christ can reject straightforward scriptural teachings on issues such as the atonement, homosexuality, women's roles, etc.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it reduces the Bible, or any other book for that matter, to meaninglessness.

The Bible is not a postmodern book. The Bible is also not a modern book. The Bible is an ancient book. It is an ancient one that remains meaningful and relevant for today. Its meaning and relevance stem from the fact that the text has objective meaning. A basic reading of the scriptures shows that The Biblical Writers Meant What They Said and The Bible is a Book That is Meant to be Understood. The writers meant certain things that had meaning then and have meaning now.

When we read the Bible at no point is there any suggestion that we ought to bring our own meaning to the text. Frankly, that idea is just ridiculous. God has spoken through the pages of scripture. He means what He means. It is our duty to responsibly interpret the Bible to comprehend what God means.

God gave meaning to the Bible. We do not bring our own to it.

Meme Sunday

The Biblical Writers Meant What They Said

The Bible contains various types of genre (teaching, poetry, apocalypse, history, prophecy, etc.). Despite these differences, the writers make clear one very basic thing: they mean what they say.

In fact, throughout all sixty-six books of the Bible the writers mean what they say. Go ahead and open to any passage in any book and begin reading. Does it ever seem as if the writers either do not mean what they say or that they are just fooling around? The answer is no. The tone used by all the writers is serious. They write with purpose. They desire that their meaning be understood. What they have to say matters.

At no point do the writers say, "Ignore this if you want. It's up to you." Likewise, they do not write, "I'm joking. Just pretend I didn't say this at all." All the writings, Old Testament and New, convey serious meaning. In fact, every word matters. In Revelation chapter 22, right near the end of the Bible, we read the following in verses 18-19:

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

God takes the Bible seriously. If we doubt this just look at what Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-18, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." Thankfully for us Jesus fulfilled the Law; because of that we do not have to. The point for the purposes of this post, however, is that none of God's word can be ignored.

God's message to this world is important. Because of that, the Bible is important. The Biblical writers understood this. Their goal was to convey this message clearly to their readers/listeners. Due to the gravity of what they wrote about, they meant what they said. We cannot ignore any of it. It all matters.

The Bible is a Book That is Meant to be Understood

This post is the first of a ten-part series on Biblical interpretation.

The Bible is a book. This is painfully obvious. It is a book that is meant to be understood. This should also be painfully obvious.

Throughout the scriptures we read exhortations by writers for the readers and listeners to hear, listen, and pay attention. They are also told to obey. In order for those receiving the instruction to do these things, they must not only understand but be able to understand. This means that the Bible must have been written in such a way that it was/is meant to be comprehended.

In the Old Testament the Israelites are told repeatedly to follow God's law. They are blessed by God for doing so and punished when they disobey. When we look to the New Testament we see Jesus point to the importance of God's law. Christ expects those listening to him to comprehend. He answers their questions when they do not. As we move into the remainder of the New Testament we read writers (Paul, Peter, James, etc.) who have specific instructions and commands. At no point do we sense the writers being purposefully confusing. Their clear goal is to communicate.

The Old Testament originally existed in scroll form (as opposed to codex). The same is true for the New Testament. A few hundred years after Christ scrolls evolved into codices. Regardless of form, the words of the scriptures did not change. They were translated into other languages, especially during the Reformation. Despite this, the meaning did not change.

We ought not treat the Bible as if it is some form of foreign communication that has mysterious meaning. It is a book. We should treat it as such.

Authors write books to be understood. When this does not happen, readers ignore the authors. The writers of the Bible very clearly want to be understood. Their writing conveys this. It was penned in a manner that makes the meaning clear. They intend for those reading and listening to comprehend fully their message.

When we read the Bible we can understand it. We should understand it. The authors meant for this to be the case.

Church, Bible, and Interpretation - It's Not So Simple

If interpreting the Bible correctly was a simple process, then the church would likely have far fewer arguments.

Let me be clear: the problem is not with the scriptures. Rather, the problem lies with Christians not using basic principles of interpretation that make understanding clear. Far too many believers treat the Bible as if it is some sort of exotic book that must be read and understood differently from other books. When they do this they come to all sorts of ridiculous conclusions about what the Bible means.

I have no time or interest in people who reject portions of scripture because they simply do not like them/do not want to obey them. I equally have no time for folks who obviously interpret the Bible in ways that make no sense (these people have usually already decided what the text should mean before they actually analyze it). The people I do have time for are Christians who want to understand the Bible but for some reason struggle to do so. Many times their failures stem from either poor teaching or lack of teaching in the past.

The sad fact is that many, many followers of Jesus Christ have come to many, many faulty conclusions about what the scriptures mean on many, many topics. Largely because of this I'm going to be posting a ten part series on Biblical interpretation. I do not intend for the upcoming pieces to be either highly academic or unnecessarily lengthy. Rather, I'll simply be discussing basic techniques for understanding what we need to understand from the Bible.

I am chagrined at the state of the church in this country. However, I also believe it has great potential. One way for the church to be much holier and have greater impact on society is if we have a better comprehension of what God means through the scriptures. My hope is that this upcoming blog series will help a little with that.

The series topics are as follows:

1. The Bible is a book that is meant to be understood.

2. The Biblical writers meant what they said.

3. The Biblical text has meaning; we do not bring our own meaning to it.

4. Biblical meaning stems from the book, chapter, and paragraph (not verse).

5. The Bible is full of eyewitness accounts.

6. The Bible does not read like a myth or fairy tale.

7. Genre must not be ignored.

8. Descriptive differs from prescriptive.

9. The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, but we can trust our good English translations.

10. The Gospel is the key, and Jesus Christ is at the center.

In Case You Missed It...

A few days ago Russell Moore penned an excellent piece entitled 2 Chronicles 7:14 Isn’t About American Politics. It is one of the best articles I've read in quite a while on both American politics and biblical interpretation. This is a must read - especially for all culture warriors.