This thread is in response to a side topic that appeared on the Noah’s Ark thread. It seems many had different ways of interpreting the bible and how we ought to study it. So here it is, a new topic. I’ll try and respond to Matthew’s quote as best as I can. I’m first to admit, I’m not the most qualified to be the go to guy on this topic, and have a lot of questions myself. There seems to be nothing in the bible that tells us how to read the bible, but more so what God’s word is to us.

The best I have ever read is in Gordon Fee’s book How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. I highly recommend it. But once again that is coming from somone without theological training and is no expert. I’m hoping someone of greater expertise in this area can be the go to guy for questions and answers.

Matthew wrote:
Where I still have trouble is in grappling with this concept of the human author’s “intention”, referring to Matthew in the quote above. If Scripture is truly inspired by the Holy Spirit (I assume no argument on that?), then I would think that it is the Holy Spirit’s intention, and not Matthew’s, that I should be concerned about. In fact, I’d go as far as to say that I can safely ignore Matthew’s “human” intention, because the Holy Spirit has inspired the word and ensured it got written down. He used Matthew in a physical sense, of course, but isn’t that all?

My belief (at this point in time, i have not looked in to it enough, so I’m happy to be wrong) is that we have to understand the author’s intent first. The bible is 100 percent human as it is 100 percent God’s word.

What makes you think you can ignore Matthew’s intention if the original readers didnt? Is there a passage of scripture that tells us we can do this? this seems like an assumption.

The danger of saying you don’t have to understand the Author’s intention (i think) is that you run the risk of saying “This is what the Holy Spirit said to me, it doesn’t matter about what the author’s intention is”. but what happens when someone else “spirit inspired” interpretation is completely different.

Maybe a good example is 2 Timothy 3:16. The so often quoted “All scripture is Gd-breathed” text. This is true. But many people attribute it to the whole bible (i do as well actually). But when Paul is writing to it, he is actually refferring to the Old Testament. This is obvious becacuse the New Testament didn’t exist at this point, and neither (I’m assuming) did Paul know that his letters were going to be included into the book that we know as the bible today. We use other passages to deduce that All of the New testament is God breathed.

So when you use 2 Timothy 3:16 to say that you believe the book of Revelation to be God’s word for you, you misquote Paul. His intention was to display the Old Testament was God’s word.

I’m going to do a bit of reading. I think the last time i went through Fee’s book and did a lengthy post, it was when the forums went bonkers and it went missing.

Regards

Geoff

(edited for spelling and grammar...though I’m sure needs plenty more editing)

Re: Biblical Interpretation

Hi Geoff

Thanks for starting the new thread :)

[quote author="Geoff Chambers"]The bible is 100 percent human as it is 100 percent God’s word.

Maybe this is where I am struggling - I always thought that the Bible was 100% God’s word, 100% Holy Spirit inspired, that every word is there because the Holy Spirit wanted it to be, free from human input other than the physical act.  Is this not so?

[quote author="Geoff Chambers"]What makes you think you can ignore Matthew’s intention if the original readers didn’t?

How do we know the original readers didn’t?  Is there Biblical or even historical evidence that they didn’t ignore the writer’s intention and adopt the view that it is only the Holy Spirit’s inspiration?

[quote author="Geoff Chambers"]Maybe a good example is 2 Timothy 3:16..... But when Paul is writing to it, he is actually refferring to the Old Testament. This is obvious becacuse the New Testament didn’t exist at this point, and neither (I’m assuming) did Paul know that his letters were going to be included into the book that we know as the bible today

Paul may not have known that his books would be included.  But the Holy Spirit certainly would have, surely?  Again, I can’t see anything in scripture that overrides the Holy Spirit’s complete control over what is written down.

Cheers

Matt

Matthew Smith wrote:

I always thought that the Bible was 100% God’s word, 100% Holy Spirit inspired, that every word is there because the Holy Spirit wanted it to be, free from human input other than the physical act. Is this not so?

In Luke 1:1-4 Luke states that he is involved in some serious investigative journalism. So here is at least one place where something human other than the physical act of writing went into shaping scripture.

For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:21)

I’ve always thought of the bible as written by “men speaking” with all that this entails (thought, research, prayer about the issues, and also the physical act of writing). And then this whole process guided fully by God through the Holy Spirit.

Thanks for raising such an important issue for us to keep thinking about.

Thanks Matthew. i’ll do my best to try and answer your questions. Though they won’t be very good answers, they will probably be more questions.

Matthew wrote
Maybe this is where I am struggling - I always thought that the Bible was 100% God’s word, 100% Holy Spirit inspired, that every word is there because the Holy Spirit wanted it to be, free from human input other than the physical act. Is this not so?

I believe it is 100 percent God’s word, 100 percent Holy Spirit as well. But i don’t believe it is free from human input other than the physical act.
I believe God chose to speak his word through human words in history, meaning every book in the bible has a historical particularity. Each book is conditioned by the langage, time, and culture inwhich it was originally written. God chose to speak his eternal truths within the particular events and circumstances in human history (Fee - How to...). There is no verse saying this, but it is clearly obvious as you read it that there are contextual situations that are far from us (such as baptism of the dead, third heaven...or “Troas, bring me my cloak").

Once again there isn’t a verse which says that there is no human input in the bible is there?

Matthew wrote:
How do we know the original readers didn’t? Is there Biblical or even historical evidence that they didn’t ignore the writer’s intention and adopt the view that it is only the Holy Spirit’s inspiration?

It’s very hard to say that they ignored the author’s intention. Paul’s letters were written in response to a whole bunch of issues in the early letters. How do we know that? Because he says so. Things like “Now, about the matters you wrote about”. Would it help us to know what these matters were? I think yes, or we may apply something in the wrong way, and use Paul’s words (and ultimately god’s words) in a way that was never intended.

But on Matthew. When you look at the Genealogy of Jesus in the first chapter, you may not think it is a big deal at all. But to a Jew it is a massive deal, and would have shocked them because it proves Jesus is descended from David. We know it was Matthew’s (and God’s) intention to display this.

Matthew wrote:
Paul may not have known that his books would be included. But the Holy Spirit certainly would have, surely? Again, I can’t see anything in scripture that overrides the Holy Spirit’s complete control over what is written down.

Yes, it would have surely. I can’t see anything that overrides the Holy spirit’s complete control over what is written down either, and i don’t think human intention and context take away from this at all.

Hi Geoff[quote author="Geoff Chambers"]But on Matthew. When you look at the Genealogy of Jesus in the first chapter, you may not think it is a big deal at all. But to a Jew it is a massive deal, and would have shocked them because it proves Jesus is descended from David. We know it was Matthew’s (and God’s) intention to display this.

On the contrary, I do think the genealogy is a big deal.  Absolutely.  My contention would simply be that it was the Holy Spirit’s intention to display this, through Matthew.  So, it may well be that we are talking semantics (on this point anyway). 

For example, I can understand references to the cultural context at the time as you mention above.  But my position would be that the Holy Spirit has supernaturally inspired (through the human writers) the entire text.  Every single word.  This would include the words used by Paul in responding to those who had raised certain issues with him.  And include cultural references as well.

So, for example, while we in 2007 may not know what this “baptism of the dead” means (and I sure don’t), is it not possible that the Holy Spirit has directed this at someone in an earlier time that would know what it meant?  I believe the Holy Spirit has put it there for a reason, but do I need to refer to human influences simply because I don’t know what that reason might be?

Cheers

Matt

Matthew wrote:
For example, I can understand references to the cultural context at the time as you mention above. But my position would be that the Holy Spirit has supernaturally inspired (through the human writers) the entire text. Every single word. This would include the words used by Paul in responding to those who had raised certain issues with him. And include cultural references as well.

So, for example, while we in 2007 may not know what this “baptism of the dead” means (and I sure don’t), is it not possible that the Holy Spirit has directed this at someone in an earlier time that would know what it meant? I believe the Holy Spirit has put it there for a reason, but do I need to refer to human influences simply because I don’t know what that reason might be?

I don’t think i disagree with anything written there. I think to understand what the Holy Spirit is saying through the scriptures we (to a degree) can gain a better understanding through contextual knowledge and authorial (is that a word?) intent. Some might say that this implies that God’s word is not powerful enough on it’s own, I don’t think we have to jump to that conclusion.
Paul says to Timothy in one of his letters “Think over what i say, and the Lord will give you understanding”. God doesnt say we don’t have to think, because God will just give us understanding, and he also doesn’t say you better think real hard about this because that’s the only way you will gain understanding. There’s a whole chrsitian wolrdview in that statement!
I think it’s similar with how we understand the whole of scripture. We have to think hard about a lot of scripture is saying, and in order to get what scripture is saying it is helpful (if not essential) to understand cultural context and the author’s intent, as well as continual pereseverance in prayer.

I believe the author’s intent is what the Holy Spirit is guiding him to say, they do not have to be seperate, which is why context and cultural factors are incredibly important.

I hope this is answering your question. I feel that we may be arguing a different thing, and aggreeing on a lot more than we realise.

Thanks

Geoff

Perhaps this will help the discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Theology

One quote:

Biblical Theology puts individual texts in their historical context since what came before them is the foundation on which they are laid and what comes after is what they anticipate.

Biblical Theology is sometimes called the “History of Special Revelation” since it deals with the unfolding and expanding nature of revelation as history progresses through the Bible.

[quote author="Geoff Chambers"]I believe the author’s intent is what the Holy Spirit is guiding him to say, they do not have to be seperate, which is why context and cultural factors are incredibly important.

I hope this is answering your question. I feel that we may be arguing a different thing, and aggreeing on a lot more than we realise.

Geoff, I think you’re right.  I just don’t know what the difference really is anymore!  :)

Because if I read your first statement in the bit I’ve quoted here, I absolutely agree, the key part being that the Holy Spirit is guiding (or in my terms, inspiring) him to say what he says.  Absolutely.  And are context and culture important?  Absolutely - but again, the Holy Spirit’s impact and intention in that, not the human impact or intention. 

Let me approach it another way if I may.  Right at the start of all this, I think you indicated to me (and please correct me if I am wrong) that we need to understand the writer’s intention and cultural understanding first, in order to interpret a piece of Scripture.  Is that roughly right?

If I’ve got that right, then, if we have no other information from that time to guide us as to the writer’s intention and cultural context, would not our only source of information about the writer’s intention come from Scripture itself?  And if that is true, then if the Holy Spirit has inspired all Scripture, every single word, then aren’t the writer’s intention and the Holy Spirit’s intention one and the same by default?  In which case, we’re back to the basic rule of Scripture interprets Scripture aren’t we?

I hope you can follow all that.  My mind feels like a pretzel right now........:).  We could be starting another one of those circular threads!

By the way, Ken, I saw your quote from wikipedia - haven’t got time to follow the link right now, I will follow it up later.  In principle I agree with the quote, but I suspect that “the unfolding and expanding nature of revelation as history progresses through the Bible” might mean different things to different people :)

Cheers

Matt

Graeme Goldsworthy’s Gospel-Centred Hermeneutics is a first-class guide to biblical interpretation. He claims that the bible itself shows us how it is to be interpreted [but that didn’t stop him writing a 400 page book to show us how it has done this!]

This is a book worth ready in its entirety slowly, and then, when the Harbour Bridge geezers start the paint job again, read it again. [Actually they tell me the Harbour Bridge repaint story is a myth.]

[quote author="David McKay"]Graeme Goldsworthy’s Gospel-Centred Hermeneutics is a first-class guide to biblical interpretation. He claims that the bible itself shows us how it is to be interpreted [but that didn’t stop him writing a 400 page book to show us how it has done this!]

Thanks David.  I mean no disrespect to you or to Graeme Goldsworthy himself, but I read the Gospel in Kingdom etc trilogy and my eyes kind of glazed over.  When I was told it was required reading at Bible college, I think it was at that point that God revealed to me why He’d never called me to the ministry.........:)

Cheers

Matt

What is it you don’t like, or find perplexing in Goldsowrthy’s books, Matthew?

I’ve read the book on Preaching the Whole Bible As Christian Scripture [correct title?] and found it very stimulating and am wading through the one I mentioned, and am thoroughly enjoying it.

I hain’t read the trilogy, but.

[quote author="David McKay"]What is it you don’t like, or find perplexing in Goldsowrthy’s books, Matthew?

I’ve read the book on Preaching the Whole Bible As Christian Scripture [correct title?] and found it very stimulating and am wading through the one I mentioned, and am thoroughly enjoying it.

I hain’t read the trilogy, but.

Hi David

It was a while ago, so I can’t remember all the details of the books.  I just remember that I simply didn’t understand them.  Please don’t misunderstand me, I am not saying he was wrong or anything, I just didn’t get it. 

From memory he spent several hundred pages trying to get across what I would call the “high-level” concept that the gospel is central to the whole Bible.  I’ve probably misstated it, but that’s how I recall it.  Now let me say, I can understand that the gospel is central to the Bible, but the way Graeme applied that thinking to the Kingdom, Wisdom and Revelation left me floundering. 

Unfortunately, I don’t have that kind of mind.  I have a low-level detail type of mind and the way he was saying it I just couldn’t grasp hold of what he was driving at.  For me, it made something that should have been simple pretty hard.

I am glad that God didn’t make it a requirement that you had to go to college to understand the Bible.  I really wish I could understand all those theology books, but it just isn’t me.

Cheers

Matt

Hi Matt.
Late in life, but not too late, I trust, I have begun reading the bible through quickly. It was inspired by a plan for reading the NT in 91 days from Greg Oliffe, rector of St Albans, Leura Anglican Church, I think.

I’ve found that Jeremiah makes a lot more sense when you read Genesis -Deuteronomy and the history books first.

And I have also found that all those books about the bible start to make more sense, too!

Goldsworthy is not always easy to read, but I think he really does have something to say.

Matthew wrote:
Let me approach it another way if I may. Right at the start of all this, I think you indicated to me (and please correct me if I am wrong) that we need to understand the writer’s intention and cultural understanding first, in order to interpret a piece of Scripture. Is that roughly right?

Well, I don’t know if need is the correct word. If I had no knowledge of 1st century Judaism or Roman practices, I could still read the bible and know God’s salvation plan through Christ. I would know that he died for my sins so that I could be in a relationship with God. The spirit would work in me and I would enter into his kingdom through the grace of God.

However, I’ve just been reading recently the Cross of Christ, and what a difference it makes when you understand how 1st century Judaism viewed the cross, and what it meant. When we read about the cross today we bring with us images of hot cross buns, neckaces, big t’s on top of massive church building. However back then it brought shame, it was criminal, the worst way for someone to die.
Does it make a difference to how one views the cross? I would say “yes”. Well it did for me anyway. I would still say this was guided by the spirit, but i would also say that without and understanding of 1st century Israeli and Roman culture I would say i may not have grasped it like i do now (and I’ve still got a long way to go!).

Also there is the prodigal son. It makes a difference in knowledge of the text when you realise the shame it brings back then to run. To us it doesn’t make a difference. (actually, when i was in Yemen a few years back i was running down the street somewhere, people gave me strange looks). I think knowledge of the cultural understanding of the day helps understand the text.

What about the Good samaritan. It makes a difference when you know how despised they were by Jews in the first century.

So this is not so much author’s intention, but it is cultural understanding. I don’t believe it is essential, but it can definately help in our understanding, and God’s spirit will work through that.

Matthew wrote:
If I’ve got that right, then, if we have no other information from that time to guide us as to the writer’s intention and cultural context, would not our only source of information about the writer’s intention come from Scripture itself? And if that is true, then if the Holy Spirit has inspired all Scripture, every single word, then aren’t the writer’s intention and the Holy Spirit’s intention one and the same by default? In which case, we’re back to the basic rule of Scripture interprets Scripture aren’t we?

I guess if it is all we have, scripture, the Holy Spirit will do it’s work and help us to understand, yes. But we do have other methods to help us understand the text better that God has given us, so therefore we should use them to be faithful to God’s word.

I’m not sure if i understand this scripture interpreting scripture. Because we as readers are always going to be involved in inerpretation whether we like it or not. You cannot say, i onlyinterpret scripture with scripture, because you are actually using your interpretation of a scripture to interpret scripture. That may not make sense. But it is impossible for scripture to interpret scripture alone. we are all involved in interpretation whether we like it or not, and we bring with us all our own cultural understandings of words and meanings to that which may not have originally intended when first written. That’s why it is important to understand culture and author’s intention.

I’ve probably made no sense, but i’m doing my best :)

Thanks

Geoff

[quote author="David McKay"]Goldsworthy is not always easy to read, but I think he really does have something to say.

Hi David

I’m sure he does.  I just don’t understand it :)

I don’t want to start up another debate on this thread about “taking the Bible literally”.  That’s been done to death elsewhere.  But I think that the root problem for me in understanding people like GG is that I read the Bible and accept at face value what it says (allowing for the use of idioms and imagery etc).  As a mug parishioner, I can’t do much else.  I may go to a Goldsworthy to try and further illuminate what I have read, but if I don’t understand what he says, I’m left with the text itself (and most of the time, that’s OK).

As an example, I have read theology books where the writer will say something like this:

“Despite the text saying (whatever the text says), what God is really saying here is (something else)”.....or words to that effect (I wish I could think of an example that I could illustrate with).  But what that does for a simple soul like me is to complicate what might otherwise be a straightforward exercise in reading the text and accepting it.  And it sometimes adds a layer of interpretation where I have to rely on someone else, rather than God, for my understanding.

I’m not sure if that explains why I find Goldsworthy confusing, but I suspect he might not read the Bible in quite the same “literal” way that I do.  Whatever the reason, I simply don’t understand what he says.  I’m glad you do though :)

Thanks and cheers

Matt

[quote author="Geoff Chambers"]What about the Good samaritan. It makes a difference when you know how despised they were by Jews in the first century.

With Groups like Samaritan’s purse, many people would think that being a Samaritan is a good thing to be. And not just that, but Pharisees were looked up to. These days most people would think a Pharisee is some sort of Jewish legalistic jerk. Today we would usually think of these two groups as the opposite of what Jesus’ listeners would!