Rules of Biblical Interpretation

cool........

 

What "Bible text" were you speaking of???

(the "context" for this thread is exegesis -- remember?)

in Christ,

Bob

 

Acts 17:11 "They searched the scriptures DAILY TO SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO".

"example" that we have in the NT for "Sola scriptura" is living proof that the OT was not treated as "a book to be understood once we finally have enough NT scripture to start reading the OT". RATHER the NT doctrine was being CONFIRMED or REFUTED based on the OT text.

Pretty hard to hold to "sola scriptura" in the NT while arguing that nobody could understand the OT without the NT text completed.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Step one -- rewrte the text as your bias would have written it. This will help get a clear understanding between the gap of what you would bring to the text and what the text actually says.

Step two - set your own version aside. Do not try to "get it back".

Step three - how does the author use terms like "sick, and forgiven and prayer" and "annoint"? Is is pretty much consistent with other Bible writers? (It appears that it is). For example Christ said "Ask whatever you will in my name and it will be given to you"

Step 4 What would you expect a NT reader of that text to "conclude" - given that they understood the language but were not "Bible scholars" to the point of inserting long theological twists and turns into text that appears to be direct and to the point.

Step 5. Modifying examples -- do you have examples in scripture where the church prays for something/someone and they do not get the answer they seek. (Prayers for Dorcas for example).

in Christ,

Bob

 

I think most of the "rules" here are quite good and appropriate.

To add to and support some of what has been said so far, here is the way I approach a text that I am going to preach or teach on:

1. I start by prayer. At every turn in the process that I will describe below, prayer is included. Christian interpretation of the Bible must be bathed in prayer, otherwise we are just sharing interesting trivia with one another.

2. I read the text in its context many times. Doing this helps me see its literary connection to what is around it.

3. Then I pull out a legal pad and begin thinking about how the passage fits with the context of the entire book in which it is found. This may (and often does) require me to read and re-read the entire book several times. Doing this helps me root the passage in question in the themes and emphases of the book in which it is found.

4. Then I begin thinking of how the text fits with the rest of the Bible. I start by thinking about how it fits in its canonical context (OT prophets or NT Gospels for example). Then I think about how it fits inside the Testament in which it is found. Then I consider how it fits in the context of the Scripture as a whole. To complete this step, a good concordance and/or bible search website/program is highly recommended. Doing this step helps prevent me from building a theological case from one obscure text in the Bible, instead causing me to weigh all of the evidence.

5. Then I continue with my legal pad, this time focusing back on the passage in question. If I have time, in this step I translate the text from its original language into English, utilizing as few tools as possible. Doing this will reveal to me "problems" in the translation of the text as well as idioms and other interesting turns of phrase that may not be so obvious in English.

6. I'll then go back over the text, this time in English, and I'll write down all of my thoughts about each verse. I do this prior to consulting commentaries so that my interpretation is not unduly influenced by others from the start. During this step I'll write down anything from questions that I want answered, to things I find funny, to exegetical insights, to connections with other parts of the Bible, to notes about literary genre, to thoughts about the audience and their culture, to who the author and audience are, to applications and possible illustrations.

7. Only after step 5 is completed fully will I consult the commentaries. At this step I try to look at more than those that I know will agree with me. So I will look at ones that are liberal and conservative, Protestant and Catholic, Reformed and not, historcal-grammatical and literary, traditional and feminist. Doing this is important so that I will not simply go to commentaries that always confirm my thoughts; instead I am challenged to either defend my thoughts or change them. Also, consulting a wider range of commentaries will ensure that I think about most of the important issues that a text may raise and that I will not only be influenced by one method of interpretation.

8. At this point I usually begin feeling pretty confident in how I understand a text. I usually will summarize my exegetical findings at this point so that I can refer back to them quickly when actually writing the lesson or sermon.

9. Now, after all of that work, I will actually write the lesson or sermon, thinking specifically about how the text applies both to my life and to the lives of those to whom I will be speaking. This is the hardest part, because applying the Bible to our lives is usually not as easy a one-to-one correspondance. The great cultural and historical gap between the 21st century and the many centuries represented in the Bible sometimes make application seem almost impossible. Thus, I often spend much time here trying to discern what the main point of the passage is or what timeless truths are found in it. Then, once the husk of culture and history is stripped away, applying the point or the truth of the passage is much easier. Sometimes consulting homoletical commentaries is very helpful at this point.

10. Then I take my written sermon and lesson and spend time "learning" it. I like to teach and preach with notes, but I don't like to depend on my notes. By "learning" my lesson or sermon I won't have to read my notes, but instead will just use them as a guide or as a way to get back on track after chaising a rabbit (which I tend to do).

Underlying my method are several "rules" that makes sense to me:

1. Christian interpretation is something that must include prayer.
2. Literary issues are of vital importance in understanding a text. This includes genre, context (immediate, of the whole book, of the whole type of literature, of the Testament, of the whole Bible), etc.
3. The "introductory" issues of a text help us understand much about it. By "introductory" I mean the identity of the author and audience, the date it was written, where it was written, etc.
4. Understanding the historical-cultural context of a text is also indespensible. Knowing about the culture of the audience will help us to understand how they might have heard the text and it may give us hints as to why the author wrote the text in the first place.
5. Grammatical, lexical, and syntactical issues are also very important. Since the Bible is made up of words, understanding what they mean and how they relate to one another cannot be stressed enough. If you do not have access to Hebrew and Greek, then you may have to rely on a Bible study program or commentaries here, which should be fine (as long as the commentaries are diverse).
6. While commentaries are very useful, they can quickly become a crutch that allows preachers and teachers to stop thinking for themselves. Also, only consulting commentaries with which one agrees can lead to interpretations that are not balanced at all. Instead, do as much work on the text as you can by yourself, and then consult a myriad of commentaries.
7. Applying the text to today should be the final step of interpretation and when making application one should always hold in mind what the intent or purpose of the text is. Doing so will prevent us from trying to force on 21st-century believers the cultures represented in the Bible, but will instead free us to be challenged by the truth or point of the text.

 

//Thus, I often spend much time here trying to discern what the main point of the passage is or what timeless truths are found in it.//

Amen, Brother -- that is the way to do it.
The timeless truths are the ones that are easier to apply to today. I ask myself when Studying for my Sunday School class what can we (I'm in my S.S. Class also, the teacher) find in the scripture that will help us serve the Lord Jesus even better during the next week.

Somewhere today I noted that instead of the picture "shaking the very dust of a place off your sandles as a witness against them" I "put my Crocs* in my cloths washer to wash the dust off as a witness against you for not receiveing the Good News as I brought it to you."

*mandatory Trademark statement, I like Crocs, I'm just a user, I don't make them or sell them. I have no plans against the 'Crocs' trademark. I do plan to buy some more Crocs if these pairs ever wear down???

I've been told that I should no longer be a deacon for I have married two womans (I thought I did good, I took a widow off the widow's list by marrying her). My first wife died. It isn't like I had two wifes at the same time. I had a Second Millinnium (1001-2000) wife 1963-1999. I have a Third Millinnium (2001-3000) wife 2002-present. Who is going to be my wife if I get rewarded by serving in the Millinnial Messanic Kingdom? Don't think I'll have a wife then. Of one thing I can be sure - God is still on the throne of the Universe and on the throne of my heart -- these matters are the Lord's business.

 

The reason why I included all that I did before the concern you brought up was to mitigate against that concern being a problem.

Here's an example: homosexuality. One could read the texts about homosexuality in the Bible in a very different way than the traditional way. Almost every instance is either some form sexual aggression (like in Sodom and Gomorrah) or part of a list. So people have argued that the Bible is not against loving, monogamous same-sex marriage, but actually it is against sexual aggression. However, by doing the hard work of steps 1-6 first, one cannot come to this conclusion. By reading Romans 1 and the texts in 1 Cor about homosexuality, it is inescapable that non-aggression homosexual relations are in mind (in Rom: "even the women are lying with other women"... Paul couldn't be clearer). So the question is does this prohibition against homosexuality still apply across cultures? Well, to be a bit crude, since men and women still have the same parts as they did in Paul's day and since these parts were clearly intended for one another, the prohibition still applies.

However, Rom 1 is part of a bigger unit (Rom 1-3). The point of that passage is not that homosexuality is wrong (which it is) but that every single human being, Jew or Gentile, has sinned and is in need of the saving work of Christ. So while Paul is clear that homosexual acts are sinful, he uses homosexuality as on piece of his argument that everyone is sinful. So if I were preaching the passage I would certainly not shy away from saying that homosexual acts are sinful, but I would focus on Paul's main point...that we are all in need of a savior.

The real reason behind my rule #7 is to prevent me from asking people to act like first-century people instead of Holy Spirit filled, kingdom focused people. Somethings, in my opinion, will apply directly across the years ("You shall not murder"), while other things are part and parcel of the culture of the biblical authors and audiences (no mixed cloth).

 

At this point in time of history it would be a good thing not only to compare older and newer Translations and Versions for similarities and agreement, but for changes and contradictions, Don't you think it will be some sort of shock to find out the latter two things? and send one to work for answers?

 

I have noticed from the threads and discussions of of late the less 'tradition' around a subject, the less discussion and the more definite the Scripture around it, the murkier the discussions.

 

One that doesn't apply directly to us, in my opinion, is the injunction in 1 Cor 11.2-16 for women who pray and prophesy in church to wear head coverings. I have written about this much more in the two threads dedicated to this subject, but Paul is arguing from cultural norms of his day. His point, it seems to me, is that worship leaders (especially women) should dress in such a way so as to not hinder the gospel and to promote unity in the church. So in today's church that may look different than it did in the first century. Actually, in most churches if a woman were to wear a head covering, it (the head covering) would likely be attended to more than her words!

 

Yes, I agree with the cultural regulation here.

But I know of one church where women are required to wear some form of head covering.

 

Then in that church if a woman were to pray or prophesy without her head covered she would not be heard!

 

I thought she was expected to cut off her hair:

"But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head" (TNIV).

 

Paul is making an argument from absurdity. He is saying that if a Corinthian woman didn't want to cover her head then she should shave it (something only a very, very, very small portion of ancient women did...it was highly shameful and took away their sign of femininity). My point, however, is supported by the verse you quoted. Clearly what Paul is saying is culturally influenced, since head coverings and hair cutting/shaving had particular meanings to the Corinthians. Thus, we have to dig for what Paul's point is in this passage: which seems to me to be that leaders in worship should dress decently so that their message will be heard and so that unity will be promoted.

 

I quite agree with you, but let me add that I also believe Paul is regulating role distinction, that males are to be figures of authority, and women should reflect that in their attire.