For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with goodness, goodness with knowledge,knowledge with self-control, self-control with endurance, endurance with godliness,godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love.For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being useless or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
~2 Peter 1.5-8
Topic: Introduction and Overview Series: Spiritual Disciplines of the Christian Life Church: South Caraway Baptist Church, Jonesboro, AR Date: January 11, 2023
It is commonly accepted wisdom among most Christians that the Book of Revelation is the hardest book of the Bible to interpret and understand, and it certainly does stand out as one of the most unique books of the New Testament. Those who do attempt to read it are immediately confronted by literary forms, images and symbols, and pastoral concerns that are so unlike their own lived experiences that they tend to put it down faster than they picked it up. Couple this with the myriad of disagreements that exist over the meaning of all these details, and it seems easier to simply leave this book of the Bible to the domain of trained Biblical scholars. However, the book itself affirms, “Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear the words of this prophecy and keep what is written in it, because the time is near.” (Revelation 1.3) So, when we neglect and ignore this final book of the Bible, we miss out on the blessing that it very clearly promises. But how do we overcome the intimidating and off-putting obstacles that keep us from drinking deeply from its pages?
When we are met with an interpretive challenge like the Book of Revelation, we must return to our basic hermeneutical convictions, those fundamental interpretive principles that help us navigate the Scriptural waters. And one of those rules that is particularly helpful for understanding the Book of Revelation is this: A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text. In other words, when we understand who the biblical author is writing to and why he is writing to them, we are in a better position to understand what he is saying. Or to put it another way, the meaning of the text must be grounded in the inspired intention of the biblical author. He is writing to real people with real needs, and he intends for his message to truly address those needs. If we come up with an interpretation that would make zero sense for the original audience, then we must reevaluate our understanding of the text. Of course, any reconstruction of the historical audience must begin with the details in the text, but historical sources from the time period can add additional detail to our understanding of the audience and their situation.
Fortunately for us, John identifies his intended audience directly; in chapter 1, verse 11, we read, “Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.” We must affirm that these were seven real churches that were located in the Roman province of Asia Minor, or what we would call modern day Turkey. Each one of these seven churches is addressed directly in the letters of chapters 2 and 3, but the author’s concern for these churches cannot be limited to these first few chapters, even if they are primary for understanding the particular needs of these churches. The entire book was written to and for the members of these seven churches of Asia Minor. As to the date of writing, there are two views that are held by biblical scholars. The majority view holds that the book was written during the reign of the Emperor Domitian (81-96 CE); the minority view suggests that the book was written during the reign of the Emperor Nero (54-68 CE). Either of these dates is possible for the book’s composition, but a review of the historical evidence slightly favors the later date, meaning that the Book of Revelation was probably written sometime around 95 CE.
Regardless of which date is preferred, it is clear that these seven churches were facing challenges both internally and externally. These Christians were living in a world that was openly hostile to their faith in Christ, and while there was no official imperial policy of persecution at this time, they were facing intense social pressure in their local communities to compromise their convictions and conform to the Roman way of life. Culturally, they simply had no where to belong. The Jews had rejected them, and the Gentiles would not accept them. They were ostracized marginalized outsiders who did not belong to the world they lived in. And Jesus is writing to them through John to encourage them to persevere in faithfulness, to hold on to the blessed hope that is His appearing. The Revelation is a reminder that they are part of something bigger than themselves, that the victory and vindication that they long for is ahead of them, and that there will be a day when all oppression shall cease. This is the message of Revelation. It is not about beasts and bowls; rather, it is about Christ, our King, who is coming again in glory and power to do away with sin once and for all and establish His perfect Kingdom on earth.
Of course, there are those who would disagree with this assessment of the message of Revelation. Some, particularly those who hold to an early date for the book, would suggest that part or perhaps all of the book was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Problems with the early date notwithstanding, it is not clear how this understanding addresses the needs of Christians living in the Roman province of Asia Minor. As noted above, they were facing persecution from the Jews living in those cities, but Jerusalem was not the primary enemy that they were facing. In fact, the Book of Revelation makes it clear that while earthly enemies may affect us, they are not our ultimate foe anyway. Therefore, the destruction Jerusalem would hold little promise for bringing their persecution to an end and accomplishing the victory that the book promises. Further, it isn’t clear how the book’s descriptions of “all the nations”, “all those who live on the face of the earth”, and “the whole earth” can refer only to the people of Israel or the citizens of Jerusalem. So, while this view attempts to maintain the book’s relevance for the original audience by positing all fulfillment in the first century, in actuality, it does the exact opposite. In fact, it completely undercuts the hope and blessing that the book promises its readers, both in the first century and today.
The Book of Revelation paints a glorious and beautiful picture of the hope that is ours in Christ Jesus. It is the promise of a world that is free from the contamination of sin, free from the heavy burden of the curse, free from all opposition to Christ and His people. As Christians, we must remember that this is our blessed hope. This world’s troubles and difficulties are not the end of our story; no, we are part of something that is bigger than ourselves, an eternal story that far surpasses our momentary lives here on earth. Moreover, the Book of Revelation teaches us that our sufferings, our difficulties, our heartaches, they matter deeply to God. He takes note of every wrong, every insult that we suffer, and one day, He will right those wrongs and vindicate His people. This is the central message of Revelation. Of course, the difference is in the details as they say, and there are still many details within the pages of Revelation that we must wrestle with. But this is the point, we must wrestle with them. We cannot ignore or neglect this last book of the Bible simply because it is too challenging, too difficult, too different. We must explore with our minds and our hearts what the Spirit is saying to His church. We must pray that He will give us ears to hear, and when we engage this book in earnest, we may be confident that we will find the strength to persevere and hold fast in hope.
For further study, see Osborne, Grant R. Revelation. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002.
Recently, I was following a thread on a friends Facebook post where the participants were discussing their disagreement on a question of biblical interpretation. The specific issue under debate is not important at the moment, and I’ll just say that I was surprised to find that this particular exchange was more graceful than these kinds of forums usually are. However, with that being said, after reading through the various points and counterpoints being made, I came across one response that made me pause. Figuring that the minds of the other participants were unlikely to change, one commenter attempted to conclude the discussion by saying:
“When it all comes down to it we should rely on The Holy Spirit of God to reveal His truths to us!! Don’t take what man has to say about it!!”
~Unnamed Facebook Commenter
In my previous post, I examined the question of “man-made” bible study resources, and I concluded that there is great wisdom in listening to the voices of those who have studied the Bible before us. We were never intended to approach Bible study as if we are the “lone ranger” of Bible interpretation, carving a path that has somehow never been carved before. Commentaries, theologies, and the like are part of God’s gift to the church (Ephesians 4.11-13); they are part of that “great cloud of witnesses” within which we pursue Christian maturity and godliness (Hebrews 12.1). However, even greater than these is the gift that is God’s Spirit. In the New Covenant, we who have been united with Christ by faith have been indwelt by God’s very Spirit, and He is the one who writes the Word upon our hearts and moves us to obey it (Jeremiah 31.33, Ezekiel 36.27). This is what makes Christian biblical interpretation unique; we have God’s Spirit (1 Corinthians 2.10-16).
Unfortunately, there is great misunderstanding as to the exact nature of the Spirit’s role in biblical interpretation, and in the space that follows, I would like to explore the contours of the Spirit’s work in Bible interpretation. According to the view represented by the Facebook comment above, all we need to do is read the Bible and then open our hearts and minds so that the Spirit can tell us what the Scripture means. This approach is essentially a recapitulation of the ancient heresy of Gnosticism. In other words, it suggests that Biblical knowledge comes to us by some kind of secret mystical experiential revelation from the Spirit apart from the text. But this is not the way that the Spirit works. Revelation is fixed, and the canon is closed. Moreover, the Spirit will not do for us what God has equipped us to do for ourselves. He has given us rational minds with the ability to read and comprehend His revealed Word. This is why we are repeatedly commanded to read, study, and grow in the knowledge of the Scriptures.
The Spirit’s work in biblical interpretation is not primarily revelatory; He does not impart the content of biblical meaning. Rather, His work pertains more to our accepting and obeying the principles that are revealed in the Scriptures. This is what is known in theology as the doctrine of illumination.
The Spirit convinces God’s people of the truth of the biblical message, and then convicts and enables them to live consistently with that truth. The Spirit does not inform us of Scripture’s meaning.
~Klein, Blomberg, & Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation
The Spirit illuminates our hearts to accept the truth of God’s Word, and He helps to conform our will in submission to that Word through conviction. This illumination comes to us not through some mystical experiential supra-rational revelation, but through the classic word-centered spiritual disciplines. In other words, once we have done our exegetical work in the text, then we must do our closet work (ala Matt 6.6) through memorization, meditation, and prayer. When we engage in these rhythms of the Spirit, we put ourselves in a posture where He can use the fruits of our study to sift our souls. As the Scripture says,
“For the word of God is living and effective and sharper than any double-edged sword, penetrating as far as the separation of soul and spirit, joints and marrow. It is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”
Hebrews 4.12
Under the New Covenant, one of the primary roles of the Spirit is to mediate the knowledge of God, but this ministry cannot, nay must not, be separated from the Word of God. Throughout all of Holy Scripture, the Spirit of God and the Word of God work together to transform the people of God into the image of God. More often than not, this transformation happens in ways and means that are consistent with the way God has made us. We do not seek any secret mystical revelation of God’s Word; rather, we use all of the natural and supernatural resources that God has given us to understand His revelation of Himself to us through His Word.
1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by God’s will: To the faithful saints in Christ Jesus at Ephesus. 2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Title: On an Introduction to Ephesians Series: John Newton Pastors Conference Church: Grace Baptist Church, West Memphis, AR Date: May 20, 2022
Charles-André van Loo’s 18th-century Augustine arguing with Donatists
I once was told by a well meaning deacon in a church that I previously pastored that my preaching was not “spirit led”. Now, in the interest of transparency, at that time, for the AM services I was ordering my preaching schedule by the traditional Christian calendar and selecting my texts from the Revised Common Lectionary. For my reasoning on this, see my posts here and here. And for the PM services, I was preaching expositionally verse-by-verse through the Minor Prophets. My purpose in this post is not to defend myself against the criticism; it was perhaps well intended. Rather, I would like to examine the underlying presupposition that informs such a critique.
In many rural Bible-Belt churches, it is usually assumed that being “spirit led” is synonymous with spontaneity, that the preacher who is “led by the Spirit” receives a direct word from the Lord to be preached to the church every week. To put it another way, it is the spiritual perception of the preacher that informs and empowers the preaching task rather than the systematic study of Holy Scripture. In its most egregious expression, I have seen many a preacher step into the pulpit and cast his prepared sermon aside, explaining that God had given him another sermon just a few moments before during the song service.
The problem with this kind of perspective on preaching is that it locates the efficacy of preaching in the preacher, in his spirituality, in his perceptivity and attunement to the voice of the Spirit. It removes the power of preaching from the inspired Word of God and puts it in the experience of the “so-called” man of God. As the Apostle Paul would say, “May it never be!”
Of course, this is not a new question in the life of the church; after all, there is nothing new under the sun (Eccl 1.9). This same issue had to be addressed in the early church, and at that time it was called Donatism, so named after Donatus Magnus, who was consecrated as Bishop of Carthage in 313 AD. Beginning in 303 AD, the Emperor Diocletian issued a series of edicts rescinding the legal rights of Christians in the Roman Empire and demanding that they comply with traditional pagan worship practices. This time period is now known as the “Great Persecution”, because this was the last and most severe persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire before Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, essentially legalizing Christianity.
However, during that ten year period of persecution, rather than become martyrs, some Christian priests capitulated to the persecution and surrendered their copies of Holy Scripture as a token repudiation of their faith. These traditores, as they were later called, were eventually reinstated to their ministerial service, but the validity of their continued ministry was questioned by Donatus and his followers. In other words, the Donatists argued that the administration of the sacraments by traditores was invalidated by their previous moral compromise. This position became known as ex opere operantis, which is Latin for “from the work of the worker”, meaning that the validity of the ministry depended on the worthiness of the bishop performing it.
It was the great theologian Augustine, Bishop of Hippo from 396-430 AD, that was the most vocal opponent of the Donatists. In his seven volume work On Baptism, Against the Donatists, he argued for the counter position ex opere operato, which is Latin for “from the work worked”, meaning that the validity of the ministry rests not in the one who performs it but in the finished work of Christ and is guaranteed by the promise of God. In other words, the efficacy of God’s grace is not dependent upon the human vessel offering it but on the power of God to affect change in the one who receives it. This position eventually won the day, and the Donatists were subsequently condemned by the church as heretics.
Coming back to our original question as to the efficacy and power of preaching, the assumption that this is based on the spirituality of the preacher is not unlike the heresy of the Donatists. It puts the power in the man instead of putting it where it belongs, which is in the Spirit inspired Word of God. As the Apostle Paul reminds us, “All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness.” (2 Tim 3.16), and as God promises through the prophet Isaiah, “my word that comes from my mouth will not return to me empty, but it will accomplish what I please and will prosper in what I send it to do.” (Isa 55.11)
So, instead of placing the blame on our pastors for ineffective and powerless preaching, maybe we should turn the question back on ourselves and ask if we are open to receiving what the Spirit has already said in His Word. As long as the Word of God is being faithfully and accurately proclaimed, then the responsibility falls to the hearers to respond accordingly. Therefore, let us pray that the Spirit will give us the eyes to see, the ears to hear, and the heart to receive what He is saying to the church through His inspired Word!
33 Teach me, Lord, the meaning of your statutes, and I will always keep them. 34 Help me understand your instruction, and I will obey it and follow it with all my heart. 35 Help me stay on the path of your commands, for I take pleasure in it. 36 Turn my heart to your decrees and not to dishonest profit. 37 Turn my eyes from looking at what is worthless; give me life in your ways. 38 Confirm what you said to your servant, for it produces reverence for you. 39 Turn away the disgrace I dread; indeed, your judgments are good. 40 How I long for your precepts! Give me life through your righteousness.
In the the fifth stanza of Psalm 119 ( ה/he – pronounced “hey”), the psalmist expresses his complete dependency upon God for understanding His Word. And so, he prays to God for illumination.“Teach me, Lord, the meaning of your statues, and I will always keep them. Help me to understand your instruction, and I will obey it and follow it with all my heart.” (Verses 33-34) Illumination is simply that work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer by which He opens our minds to understand and apply the Scriptures. And it is this “spiritual” understanding that distinguishes the believer’s reading of Holy Scripture from the nonbeliever.
The reality is that there are secular scholars (historians, linguists, philosophers) who know the history, language, and theology of the Bible better than the average Christian. Their historical reconstructions are more compelling, their literary analyses are more sophisticated, their exposition perhaps even more accurate. However, they do not believe in the one who said, “and yet they testify about me.” (John 5.39) The difference being that they do not have the indwelling Holy Spirit whose specific job is to lead believers into all truth. Therefore, we must conclude that illumination gives us an understanding that is more than merely intellectual. It goes beyond the literary and the historical to the transformational. It is the Spirit who brings the dead words to life, who renews and revives the weary soul.
And so, we must affirm that illumination is not the imparting of new information, as opposed to that which is largely gained simply by being a good reader. Rather, illumination is the creation of a new capacity to receive the inspired Word of God and to be changed by it. As our psalmist goes on to pray, “Turn my heart to your decrees and not to dishonest profit. Turn my eyes from looking at what is worthless; give me life in your ways.” (Verses 36-37) Our psalmist clearly understands that what he needs is more than a mere intellectual reading of Holy Scripture; what he needs, and what we all need, is that Spirit given illumination leading to transformation. “How I long for your precepts! Give me life through your righteousness.” (Verse 40)
It is somewhat appropriate, I think, that I am writing on this on the day in which many Christians will make a “New Years Resolution” to read the Bible more in 2020, perhaps, by starting some kind of Bible reading plan, e.g. the Bible in one year, etc. And, of course, this is a worthy goal to aim for. But there must be a realization that we are not simply reading for information; we are reading for transformation. This does not mean that every reading will be some kind of mountain top spiritual experience. Some, in fact, will be dull drudgery (re: Leviticus). But faithfulness over time, daily dependence upon the Spirit, humbly praying for eyes to see and ears to hear will slowly result in the transformation of our being into the image of Christ. This is why we call it a spiritual discipline, faithful obedience while relying upon the Spirit.
There is an inherent fascination in the human psyche with knowing the future. We all would like to have the ability to know and/or predict the future, because, let’s be honest, the unknown can be downright frightening. In the Christian context, this fascination works itself out in an obsession with the prophetic portions of Holy Scripture. Passages like Daniel’s 70 weeks, Jesus’ Olivet Discourse, or John’s Revelation along with numerous others become the seed bed for a diversity of end-times scenarios and perspectives. Modern day geo-political entities and events are identified with biblical images to suggest that we are living in the end times, or even to predict specific dates for the end of the world and Jesus’ second coming. So-called prophecy teachers write books espousing their views on end-times events, and they host prophecy conferences to advance their particular eschatological agendas.
The problem with all of this is that it is based on a fundamental hermeneutical error as it relates to the interpretation of the prophetic genres of Holy Scripture, namely that these prophecies speak with specificity to the events and political personalities of our own day. Certainly, the teaching of Holy Scripture, especially its prophetic portions, applies to the day in which we live, but these passages do not identify the specific movements of geo-political entities or personalities as we know them. The actions of nations like Russia, Iran, Syria, or Israel in our world have no relationship whatsoever to the prophecies of Holy Scripture. So, instead of trying to use current newspaper headlines like a cipher to “decode” the prophecies of the Bible, we should attempt to understand these texts within the boundaries of a reasonable and sound hermeneutical method. In the space that remains, I will attempt to lay out some of interpretive principles that may guide us in our understanding of the prophetic genres of Holy Scripture.
First, we must give interpretive priority to the original author’s intended message for his specific audience. In other words, a text cannot mean something today that it did not mean when it was originally written/spoken. But, someone might say, “well, isn’t the Holy Spirit the original author of all of scripture,” and then, they might go on to argue for a sensus plenior, a fuller sense than the human author was able to realize. However, we must affirm that in inspiration God did not violate or override the identity of the human authors. Rather, in His graceful condescension, he used the personality and circumstances of the human authors to convey timeless truths, even while speaking to a specific people at a specific time in a specific way. So, any “fuller sense” we may supposedly identify must be consistent with the human author’s intended message, and if an interpretation or any applications we come up with would not make sense to the original audience, then we have violated this fundamental principle.
Second, and somewhat related to the first, we must give interpretive respect to the original context in which a particular a text occurs. In other words, a text without a context is a pretext for a proof text. The original authors of Holy Scripture were writing to specific people living at a particular time in a particular place, so, in order to understand their intended message, we must give consideration to the particulars of their historical and literary contexts. This is especially true when it comes to texts like the prophets, because, more often than not, they are using evocative cultural imagery, symbolism, and metaphors that would resonate with their intended audience. So, any supposed correspondence or identification of their imagery with persons, places, or things our modern context must be considered suspect if it could not have made sense in the original context within which it was spoken/written.
Third, we must reconsider our understanding of the prophetic task. The prophets of the Old Testament, and those prophetic texts in the New Testament, are not interested in laying out a step by step playbook for the events culminating in the end of the world. That kind question is more a reflection of our own interests than it is of theirs. The prophets were more interested in forth-telling God’s truth for their audiences than they were in foretelling future events, and all of their foretelling serves their overall purpose of forth-telling. Their primary interests and motives were moral, to bring about change in behavior and conduct; they were not interested in prediction simply for the sake of prediction. In other words, the prophets purpose is to indict Israel for her failure to keep God’s covenant and call her to repentance, to warn of impending judgment and punishment for disobedience, and to instill a hope for the future restoration in spite of that punishment. We must remember that almost all of their predictions find their fulfillment in Israel’s immediate future, and the ones that do refer beyond that immediate time frame find their fulfillment in the eschaton at Jesus’ coming. So, any supposed fulfillment in our own day should be rejected outright as outside the boundaries of the prophetic task.
Finally, we must not let our theological/eschatological presuppositions (read hobby horses) control our understanding of Holy Scripture. Rather, Holy Scripture should govern our theological/eschatological conclusions. Most of the obsession with the prophetic scriptures presupposes the framework of classic dispensational premillenialism; however, this kind of presupposition puts the proverbial cart before the horse. Now, I am not interested here in evaluating the particular tenets of that eschatological perspective, but it is important that we do not impose our preferred theological or eschatological viewpoint on the text. We certainly can and should draw theological conclusions from Holy Scripture as a part of the interpretive process, but we must remember that those theological conclusions should be held in submission to not in presumption of the teaching of Holy Scripture.
Ultimately, we must remember that the purpose of eschatology in the Bible is always sanctification. In nearly every instance, the foretelling of future events is meant to elicit life changing transformation. So, when we teach or preach from the prophetic portions of Holy Scripture, we would do well to follow their lead and invite our audiences to respond likewise. Even when our world seems dark and dim, our eschatological hope in Jesus’ second coming should lead to renewed and strengthened faith for living. If our interpretation of the prophets does not accomplish this task in us and in our hearers, then we have completely misunderstood the prophetic genres of the Bible.
Yesterday, February 14th, marked the annual cultural commemoration of Valentine’s Day. It is a day that is supposed to celebrate romantic love and affection, and it is usually expressed through the giving of flowers, candy, cards, and the like. And there is nothing wrong with that; however, for Christians, this February 14th also marked another holiday, namely Ash Wednesday. Ash Wednesday marks the beginning of the season of Lent, a 40 day period of preparation for the celebration of Holy Week climaxing in Easter. This preparation is usually characterized by repentance, confession, fasting, and acts of service.
Since most churches here in the area do not observe Lent, or if they do they don’t have a traditional Ash Wednesday service, my wife and I attended Ash Wednesday Mass at Blessed Sacrament Church, so that we could participate in the imposition of ashes, where a cross is marked on a worshippers forehead with ash. In the Bible ashes are most often a symbol of repentance, contrition, even mourning; a pentitent person would mark themselves with and/or sit in ashes to show outwardly their inward emotional state. Ashes also symbolize our mortality, as in the stanza, “Remember that you are but dust and into dust you shall return.” During Lent, we remember our mortality, because Jesus took our mortality into himself at the incarnation. He went to the cross to die, even as we all will die someday, and he rose again to new life, even as we all shall be raised. This life is passing, short, and fleeting, but our eternal hope rests in the immortality of Jesus in his resurrection.
Repentance means to change one’s mind, and it implies an intentional turn from sin to godliness. However, what is missing in this definition is that true repentance is motivated by godly grief over our sin. (2 Corinthians 7:10) During Lent, we try to see and feel our sin the way God sees it, so that we can appreciate the atoning death of Jesus even more. He who knew no sin became sin for us. So, in repentance, we acknowledge our sin as the abhorrent afront it is before a holy God. We turn away from it in righteous disgust as we learn to truly desire godliness in our character and behavior.
Lent is also usually accompanied by fasting. And Jesus did not say “If you fast”; he said “when you fast”, implying that He assumed that fasting would be a regular part of Christian discipleship. (See Matthew 6) Fasting is a timeless and valuable spiritual discipline, but our cultural aversion to anything uncomfortable and our insatiable need for self-indulgence has caused us to neglect it altogether. Yes, fasting challenges us to throw off the insanity of our cultural slavery to consumerism, to give up our creature comforts, and to forsake our dependence on stuff for the sake of Christ.
Now, when it comes to fasting, the specifics of the fast are ultimately irrelevant; whether you fast one meal or one whole day, whether you do it every Friday or not, or whether you give up something other than food. The goal of fasting is to free us from our dependence on things and to cultivate our dependency on Christ. I am giving up coffee for this Lent season, and if you know me, then you know that coffee is vital part of my morning routine. I am not a morning person, not even close. But I have chosen to give up this creature comfort, this practical addiction, for the 40 day duration of Lent, because as my body aches for the fix of caffeine, so my soul should ache for communion with the Spirit of the living God.
The season of Lent is also usually accompanied by acts of service or charity, as we seek to become more like Jesus. He spent his time ministering to the bottom rungs of society, the sick, the lame, the blind, the demon possessed, and we are called to be His hands and feet in the communities and neighborhoods we live in. After all, He said, “whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” Some people choose to give the money that they would have spent on whatever they chose to give up to charitable or Christian causes. Whatever you choose to do, the teaching of Jesus is clear, do it in secret without seeking the praise of others, “and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.” (Again, see Matthew 6)
Lent is an invitation to follow Jesus, once again, as He journeys toward the cross. Along the way, we seek to become more like Him, to be set free from “the sin that so easily entangles”, and to soak in anew our need for a savior, for His atonig death and His lifegiving resurrection. There are no rules, regulations, or requirements for its observance, only freedom in the Spirit as we seek to allow the Spirit make us more like Jesus. It is a time to renew once again our repentance from the way of the world and our embracing of life in the Spirit.
I once heard a pastor say, “It doesn’t really matter what people think about the Bible.” He went on to explain that, in this statement, he is addressing a (mostly) “bible-belt phenomenon” in which people get together for informal Bible studies, “pool their collective ignorance”, and without any real authority on the matter claim “Well, I think the text means this or that.” He concludes that this practice reflects a break down of basic hermeneutical skills, because it empties the text of its objective meaning by making it dependent upon what a person brings to it.
Now, let me just say that I share this pastor’s concern. In our study of the Biblical text, we must give interpretive priority to the meaning that the original authors – both divine and human – intended in light of their historical and cultural context. However, it would be easy for someone with no seminary or bible college training to infer from this that it is impossible to really understand the Bible without the proper training in hermeneutics & Bible study methods. From this, they might even conclude that it is pointless to even read/study the Bible on their own or that they should really just leave study of the Bible to the “experts” (read scholars/pastors) who have been trained to do it. As the Apostle Paul would say, “May it never be!”
In other words, we must affirm, as one of our fundamental theological values, something called the perspicuity of Scripture. We must believe that the message of Holy Scripture is essentially clear and understandable to any and all who are willing to open its pages. Of course, this does not mean that every nuance is easily defined or that there are no obstacles to overcome in the interpretive process. However, it does mean that God has revealed himself in the Bible in a way that He meant for us to be able to understand.
Scripture can be and is read with profit, with appreciation and with transformative results. It is open and transparent to earnest readers; it is intelligible and comprehensible to attentive readers. Scripture itself is coherent and obvious. It is direct and unambiguous as written; what is written is sufficient. Scripture’s concern or focal point is readily presented as the redemptive story of God. It displays a progressively more specific identification of that story, culminating in the gospel of Jesus Christ. All this is to say: Scripture is clear about what it is about. (Callahan, The Clarity of Scripture, 9)
Secondly, as pastors and teachers, if we truly believe that a basic understanding of hermeneutical principles and bible study methods is necessary in the study of the bible – and it is – then we should include this as a foundational part of the teaching/preaching ministry of the church, both implicitly and explicitly. Implicitly, we must model good hermeneutics in the pulpit; yes, our lessons and sermons must serve as examples of how to study the Bible well. We must let principles like authorial intent, historical/cultural context, literary flow-of-thought, and the big idea guide us in our sermon/teaching preparation. We must give first priority to what the text says over our own thoughts (read soapboxes). On the other hand, explicitly, we should make it a goal to teach people how to study the Bible, both from the pulpit in a large gathering and in a small group setting. People need to understand the contours of the biblical genres, and they need to know how to evaluate and use the wide range of Bible study resources that are so readily available in today’s information culture. They could even stand to learn a little about the biblical languages and how they work. In other words, our goal in preaching and teaching should be to work ourselves out of a job, i.e. to teach people how to study and understand the Bible for themselves.
Lastly, we should trust the Holy Spirit. He is the one who inspired Holy Scripture, and He is the one who illuminates our minds to its truths. Moreover, He is the one who applies those truths in our lives to bring about radical lifechange. In other words, engaging in the study of the Bible without giving attention to the work of the Spirit can never be more than historical investigation, no matter how consistently the principles of hermeneutics are applied. We must remember that Bible study is one of the spiritual disciplines by which the Spirit makes us more like Christ, and He can be trusted to testify to the truth. (John 14:26, 15:26, 16:12-15) This does not negate the role of the preacher/Bible teacher, but it does move our dependency from fallible human beings to the Holy Spirit of God. He is the only infallible interpreter of Scripture.
Ultimately, hermeneutical considerations are a means to an end, and that end is a more accurate and clearer understanding the biblical text itself. Studying hermeneutics gives us the basic skills and tools to understand the Bible better, i.e. the way the original audience would have understood it, the way that the inspired authors intended for it to be understood. So, what we need to say is: “It doesn’t matter what people think; it matters what the text says!”
33 Teach me, 
Faith seeking Understanding 
On Biblical Interpretation and the Holy Spirit
Recently, I was following a thread on a friends Facebook post where the participants were discussing their disagreement on a question of biblical interpretation. The specific issue under debate is not important at the moment, and I’ll just say that I was surprised to find that this particular exchange was more graceful than these kinds of forums usually are. However, with that being said, after reading through the various points and counterpoints being made, I came across one response that made me pause. Figuring that the minds of the other participants were unlikely to change, one commenter attempted to conclude the discussion by saying:
In my previous post, I examined the question of “man-made” bible study resources, and I concluded that there is great wisdom in listening to the voices of those who have studied the Bible before us. We were never intended to approach Bible study as if we are the “lone ranger” of Bible interpretation, carving a path that has somehow never been carved before. Commentaries, theologies, and the like are part of God’s gift to the church (Ephesians 4.11-13); they are part of that “great cloud of witnesses” within which we pursue Christian maturity and godliness (Hebrews 12.1). However, even greater than these is the gift that is God’s Spirit. In the New Covenant, we who have been united with Christ by faith have been indwelt by God’s very Spirit, and He is the one who writes the Word upon our hearts and moves us to obey it (Jeremiah 31.33, Ezekiel 36.27). This is what makes Christian biblical interpretation unique; we have God’s Spirit (1 Corinthians 2.10-16).
Unfortunately, there is great misunderstanding as to the exact nature of the Spirit’s role in biblical interpretation, and in the space that follows, I would like to explore the contours of the Spirit’s work in Bible interpretation. According to the view represented by the Facebook comment above, all we need to do is read the Bible and then open our hearts and minds so that the Spirit can tell us what the Scripture means. This approach is essentially a recapitulation of the ancient heresy of Gnosticism. In other words, it suggests that Biblical knowledge comes to us by some kind of secret mystical experiential revelation from the Spirit apart from the text. But this is not the way that the Spirit works. Revelation is fixed, and the canon is closed. Moreover, the Spirit will not do for us what God has equipped us to do for ourselves. He has given us rational minds with the ability to read and comprehend His revealed Word. This is why we are repeatedly commanded to read, study, and grow in the knowledge of the Scriptures.
The Spirit’s work in biblical interpretation is not primarily revelatory; He does not impart the content of biblical meaning. Rather, His work pertains more to our accepting and obeying the principles that are revealed in the Scriptures. This is what is known in theology as the doctrine of illumination.
The Spirit illuminates our hearts to accept the truth of God’s Word, and He helps to conform our will in submission to that Word through conviction. This illumination comes to us not through some mystical experiential supra-rational revelation, but through the classic word-centered spiritual disciplines. In other words, once we have done our exegetical work in the text, then we must do our closet work (ala Matt 6.6) through memorization, meditation, and prayer. When we engage in these rhythms of the Spirit, we put ourselves in a posture where He can use the fruits of our study to sift our souls. As the Scripture says,
Under the New Covenant, one of the primary roles of the Spirit is to mediate the knowledge of God, but this ministry cannot, nay must not, be separated from the Word of God. Throughout all of Holy Scripture, the Spirit of God and the Word of God work together to transform the people of God into the image of God. More often than not, this transformation happens in ways and means that are consistent with the way God has made us. We do not seek any secret mystical revelation of God’s Word; rather, we use all of the natural and supernatural resources that God has given us to understand His revelation of Himself to us through His Word.
For further study:
On the Spirit and the Word
Share this:
2 Comments | tags: Bible Study Resources, Closet Work, Commentaries, Exegetical Work, Gnosticism, Holy Spirit, Illumination, Meditation, Memorization, New Covenant, Phillip Powers, Prayer, Spiritual Disciplines, Theologies | posted in Biblical Theology, Hermeneutics, Spiritual Formation