One of the greatest tragedies in my Christian formative years, was that I cheerleaded into believing some so-called spiritual facts about God and Christianity that unfortunately had no meaningful foundation in the pages of Biblical text. The fact that I was an avid Bible reader meant very little, especially since I was using the text to support pet doctrines and as a springboard to get to the higher level of spiritual attainment according to these extra-Biblical concepts. No doubt, in my reading I learned basic truths of core Christian doctrine but I fell short at connecting the dots, which led to some distorted conclusions.
One of the best things that happened to me is my friend who challenged by exegesis, well actually my eisegesis because I did a pretty good job of reading things into the text that it didn’t say. He challenged me to provide Scriptural support for the extra-biblical doctrine that I had embraced, which by the way is promoted by very popular teaching today. In the end, I could not. But it did open a can of worms and a fresh perspective on Bible study that employed inductive methods and an expository approach to studying that taught me how to follow the flow of thought and connect the dots in a grammatical, historical, literal and canonical way. No longer was a ripping passages out of context to fit with cherished doctrine but rather learn to read in a way to just let the text say what it says.
This can be tricky though. Because I still have some old tendencies that I have to be careful not to seep in. I must know what they are, recognize them and put them in their proper place. No, I am not an expert nor do I purport to be. But I am an avid learner who is always asking the question ‘what is this really saying’. So in that, here are 10 questions that I always ask and thought they might be useful. I also think that these tend to be interdependent upon each other. One thing’s for sure, I think all of us can fall prey to some, if not all, of these.
1) Am I considering the context? Context is king and don’t be fooled to thinking otherwise. Every book in the Bible contains segmented markers called verses and chapters. While this may make Bible reading easier I think it can promote reading Scripture in a very fragmentary way that, with other factors mentioned below, can facilitate ripping a verse or passage out of its proper context. I recall listening to a very popular woman preacher on the radio (you all know who she is) and was talking about how we should have joy for every day living. She used Hebrews 1:9 to support the fact that we are “anointed” and should have joy above our companions. Sadly, I used to read Scripture in the same way and was chagrined at the peal of applause her “exegesis” received. This is but one of many examples I can cite that when context is not considered, it makes the text say something it does not. I also have to consider genre and read according to that genre. I can’t make narrative read like doctrine, no matter how good it might preach.
2) Am I conducting connection fallacies? This is applying the same connection at all times, such as a word fallacy. Words do have ascribed meaning, true. But again, context will determine what the word is also conveying. An example would be a comparison of Hebrews 4:12 with John 1:1 in defining “word”. Another example of connection fallacy are the connections that Michael is asking in his Transubstantian post. This is something I need to understand better. So I am currently reading Exegetical Fallacies, by D.A. Carson who also talks about grammatical, logical, presuppositional, and historic fallacies as well to understand better pitfalls to avoid.
3) Am I blowing up meaning? Because of the circles I used to travel, it is real easy for me to draw wild allegories, make connections where connections don’t exist or make my typology walk on all fours, especially when studying the Old Testament. So I have to consider the plain reading of the text and recognize when allegory is there. This does get tricky, especially with the Old Testament and gospel narratives. But here is where I find a few good commentaries come in handy. In fact, I’d say good commentaries are a pretty essential tool for all Bible study. They do help to curb unwarranted enthusiasm that might come thinking I’ve discovered some hidden or esoteric meaning that may be way blown out of proportion, or even meaning that is non-existent.
4) Am I considering the correlation?: The Bible is God’s story concerning Himself, breathed out through the penmenship of 40 different authors over the span of 1,500 years. Every verse, paragraph, chapter, story, poem, letter, book fits into this story like a puzzle piece. From Genesis to Revelation His story is about His revelation in Christ and ultimate reign. So I have to ask how does what I am reading fit in that story?
5) Is my flesh in the way? Flesh is self-focused and looks out for #1. Flesh asks ‘what’s in it for me?’. In our individualistic oriented society, the tendency is to always derive meaning from the text that will be beneficial to ourselves. This is not a bad thing in that God gave His word to us, so that we will know Him and know who we are in Christ, for those that believe. But I will naturally want to read in a way that will appease me. I also have to recognize that in passages that challenge what I want, can be dismissed or construed to justify thoughts or behavior I wish to maintain. I know, because I have tried to justify sinful behavior in the past! So I have learned to recognize what are my “buttons” that don’t want to comply. This is why I believe in prayer to foster a surrendered attitude before reading.
6) Am I bringing my presuppositions into the reading of the text? We all have them and they have been shaped by experience, culture and church (or lack thereof) upbringing. That means we can bring pre-existent ideas about what we think things are saying into reading that will formulate how we read things. I can’t remember who said this but I heard a really good truth to live by ‘always read like you haven’t seen it before’. It’s asking the question with every sitting of what is the text saying not what do I think it says.
7) Am I reading my theological assumptions into the text? I think its funny when I get accused of reading Calvin into things considering I developed a Calvinistic theology before I even heard anything about Calvin! Nonetheless, while I do agree with Calvin’s theology, I have to be careful to not read that into the text.
8.) Am I considering alternate theological positions? I have learned the value of considering alternate positions. After all, I am fallible and capable of getting things wrong. This was particularly highlighted to me when I took Soteriology through the Theology Program and began to learn about Arminian theology. It challenged me to consider a different point of view in looking at certain passages and it did cause me to wrestle with some things as well as prompt a desire to learn more about that position. In the end, I still remain a Calvinist but always need to consider where the other side is coming from. (I have yet to read completely Olson’s book, Arminian Theology but plan on it).
9) Am I being dismissive of the text? Regardless of how many times I have read a passage, chapter or book there is always something new to learn, some word or nuance that I have not considered before. I love the way God illuminates His word this way and it also shows me that I can never exhaust learning. Reading with freshness and inquisitiveness will also challenge me to wrestle with passages that may disrupt previously held thinking. In short, it is about having intellectual honesty with the text and acknowledge what it is saying, or at least ask I am looking at this right? This will often cause a great bit of wrestling but that’s ok. It is indeed hard to confess that you were wrong about something but I have had to do this quite a bit. I have learned it is well worth putting your foot in your mouth than keeping your hand on your hip.
10) Am I prayerfully allowing the text to leap in my heart and change my life? I had the immense privilege to take Bible Study Methods and Hermeneutics with Dr. Howard Hendricks (known by all DTSers as “Prof”). One of his sayings that has made an indelible impression on my heart is ‘the Bible wasn’t written to satisfy your cureousity, it was meant to change your life’. God’s plan is to reconcile His creation to Himself, to change us from being an enemy of God to being a friend of God, from being a servant of sin to a servant of righteousness, from considering the cross foolishness to the cross necessary. Jesus did not hang on the cross so we can spout intellectual superiority but live out humble submission to Him, to hopefully say as Paul in Philippians 3:7-11, to consider all else worthless compared to the surpassing value of knowing Him, being found in His righteousness to know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death. This is indeed a picture of a changed life and is the ultimate goal of Bible study.
So these are my questions I ask myself. I hope they are helpful. Or you may disagree and that’s ok too.
Addendum: Here some basic books that I recommend on the topic
Howard Hendricks, Living by the Book
Tim Lahaye, How to Study the Bible for Yourself
Roy Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation
85 replies to "Ten Questions I Always Ask Myself When Reading the Bible"
Great list Lisa. Thanks for the reminder.
I wrote something related recently Interpretative techniques, though “considerations” would have been a preferable title. I covered textual concepts but not heart issues, however I think you are correct to talk about the heart. Do you want to know what God is saying, are you trying not to sin, do you pray for understanding?
Holy smokes! That Hebrews 1:9 reading is breath-taking
#6 and #7 – The answer is always yes. Some think they can get around these limitations by acknowledging them – but i would submit that just makes these limitations more powerful (not less) because one thinks by acknowledging them they are somehow de-authorized in our interpretation. not true.
Your suggestion to have good commentaries is a good one I would suggest commentaries that lay outside your political, theological, ethnic “hometown” – the best exegesis is always done in an interpretive community, preferably one that has different presuppositions and assumptions than the interpreter so that she may interpret in concert with the Church.
If you we could all hold these in the front of our mind as we read Scripture, I think Christianity would be a very different, and better, place.
Another aspect of “context” I would emphasize is the cultural and literary background, such as whether given texts would have been considered strictly literal historic narrative.
If we read the text with our modern eyes alone, we can go down some VERY faulty paths.
As for commentaries, I find that the “New Interpreter’s” is a great way to get a perspective outside of our comfortable, evangelical nest. Even if we don’t accept every approach, it is very important that we see how the text could be read without all of our particular filters.
Greg Koukl’s line bears repeating:
Never read a Bible verse.
This list is excellent. It’s exactly what pastors and scholars of higher criticism do and practice when approaching Scripture.
Vance, you’re right. I would throw in cultural and literary too. I’ll have to check out the New Interpreter’s. I typically use the Expositor’s Bible Commentary
TU &D, are you saying that these are questions proponents of higher criticism ask? I’m confused.
“TU &D, are you saying that these are questions proponents of higher criticism ask?”
Dear Lisa,
Aren’t they?
TUaD,
Uh… As I understand it, these questions describe a good chunk of the grammatico-historical method. Plus some advice on watching for the impact of personal traditions, and making sure you’re not just a hearer of the word.
So if they’re higher critics who are also good exegetes, then yes, they’ll ask these questions. (Except for #4. A higher critic would deny the unity of Scripture, so they wouldn’t read anything in the context of the whole Bible.)
But you seem to be saying that these questions remind you of higher criticism… And I don’t follow you.
Could you point out a particular piece that you have a problem with?
Jugulum, thanks for that. I was beginning to wonder if I missed something. In a way, I guess you would have to have a presupposition of grammatical-historic utilization (although I do veer towards a canonical approach). But it is a presupposition nonetheless so that leaves me wondering how to not presuppose the presupposition 🙂 Or maybe in this case you have to.
Regarding higher criticism, I can see how the statements might be true of #1-3, but there is clearly a fork in the road where the higher critic chooses the path of rationalism.
Lisa –
Thanks for sharing your thoughts here. No doubt we need to consider solid Biblical hermeneutics to help us understand the things of God more and more.
One thing I would encourage you with, though, is to actually see Heb 1:9 as speaking to us, the people of God. The writer is quoting from Isaiah 61:1-3. Now we know that this original passage in Isaiah was prophetic of Christ, which He quoted Himself in Luke 4:18-19. And, it is true that the context of Hebrews 1 is speaking of Christ. But, here is something we must consider, and I believe to be a truth founded in Scripture – Everything Christ is called to participate in, we are called to participate in.
Christ is the great high priest, we are the royal priesthood. Christ is the Son of God, we are sons and daughters of God. Christ is the temple of God, we are the temple of God. Christ will crush the enemy under His feet, we will do so as well (Rom 16:20). And there is so much more about being united to Christ.
Thus, if Isaiah 61:1-3 and Hebrews 1:9 speak of Christ, then I believe it is perfectly right to say this is to be true of us. We are anointed with the Spirit of the Lord to proclaim good news, to set captives free, etc. And we are to be anointed with the oil of gladness.
Now, what this woman could have probably done better is explain what I just explained above. But she didn’t. But I would give her the benefit of the doubt, since her application was still correct in seeing it speaking to the body of Christ. We can apply Heb 1:9 to our lives, for we are in Christ and are called to share in the things of Christ.
Thanks again for sharing your heart.
Lisa –
I also wanted to share some thoughts about hermeneutics and context. Interestingly enough, as I think I’ve shared elsewhere (Theologica), it is funny how the NT writers would sometimes pluck out one verse from the OT to speak prophetically into a situation. This is exactly what Matthew did in Matt 2:15 when he quoted Hosea 11:1, ‘Out of Egypt I called my son.’ If we want to be nit picky, then we need to see the original context was speaking about the Israelites as a whole coming out of Egypt. I believe Christ is the great fulfilment of Israel. But, Matthew did kind of pull that one out of nowhere to talk about Joseph and Mary’s flight with Jesus to Egypt. It was all God’s heart. But not really in perfect line with Hermeneutics 101.
Or, even more interesting is how Paul plucked Deut 25:4 out of context to speak about elders being worthy of honour and wages: ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.’ That one always cracked me up. 🙂
In all, I think it is perfectly ok to believe that God could and would speak to us from one verse, or even a short phrase. God has done that in my life a few months back with Isa 43:19 – ‘I will make a way.’ That was a refreshing cup of water at times!
I think we need to consider the original context of all passages, and stay accountable with the body of Christ to guard against us doing weird stuff. But God is ok to highlight one verse to speak into our lives. I know some from your former church group abused such, and so I understand your heart to bring healthy teaching on Scriptural hermeneutics. But we can’t throw it all out. God is very good at doing this kind of thing.
Lisa,
Well, I definitely regard the GHM-to-find-authorial-intent as the core of good interpretation. I know there’s more to be said, but I do see it as the starting place. (And I’m not familiar with the term “canonical” as an alternative to the GHM.)
But it’s not even clear to me how #1-3 are particularly “higher criticism”.
I have read this and it is interesting. I think the way we conduct our lives is the best expression of our understanding.
Like I stated before, I write plays and movie scripts. I understand the concepts of context, subtext and the infamous double entendre and of course double speak. Before anyone objects I get the idea that the Bible is not a play, so that said….
But referring to context, we know in English that one word may have three meanings. So in what context should we take it? We need to understand from the whole Bible what is being said and I always look to other verses to support it.
Certainly there is a lot of exegesis in what we read because of our level of perception and understanding. But it is more than that, how do we apply it into our lives? Does it lead us in a right direction? Does it represent Jesus? One thing I learned is that our revelations change from reading to reading and we get a fresh view. We must go deeper and higher in God. If we limit ourselves to one single view because it seems right at the time, we can become stagnant.
Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
I am not a theologian in the sense that I have formal seminary training, or a PHD, as some claim here is their superior knowledge above the rest of us, and thus I cannot argue the bible on theological knowledge alone. But here’s what I think a lot of theologians, even those who are seeking truth miss:
We are supposed to be Bereans first. That does not require seminary training to understand what the Lord is saying. I believe a lot of times we want to make it more about what the church fathers believed, and what seminary training is about, and what pastors teach, (whichever ‘side’ they are on, Calvinist or Armianian), than about what the word of God says to all of us.
I think that’s a greater danger to the church, that we forget the common sense parts of the gospel message.
My point is, that is real message of the gospel- that understanding it is available to all, not just those who have training in theology
Sometimes we can miss the forest for the trees.
Jug, I’m not sure if canonical has another term but it is something we discussed in my trinitarianism class this past semester (with Dr. Svigel and it could have been terminology he coined). I agree that GHM is the foundation but canonical takes it one step further through correlation of the summing up of all things in Christ. Some would say the 2 are opposed, but I say one is a sub-set of the other. Of course, the tension would be veering towards some juicy allegory where not warranted.
And #1-3 would be questions the higher critic would ask but obviously not come out with the same conclusions. Or at least I think these are questions they would ask, according to TU&D.
mbaker,
I know that you introduced yourself before as a former reporter for a newspaper. You spoke about how you had to take a big message and compact it for space and time but stay true to the message. I think that is interesting.
Knowing there are so many ways to make a statement, does understanding what God is saying come from His efforts to simplify the message or does He cause us to understand it by forming our minds to grasp greater concepts?
I think it is from revelation to revelation that we grow in knowledge of God. We have to go from milk to meat as we grow. And I think God is smart enough to know just how to teach us. I know as I read the Bible I do tend to read it like it is dialogue, like what is God saying specifically to me in my situation. My situation does not stay the same for long, so therefore I have to keep up with where I am being led.
We can always start off on the wrong foot, but God will get us to the right place if we are willing to be led there. mbaker, I respect your wordsmithing.
Mbaker, I don’t think one has to have any type of seminary training to learn how the Bible is put together and how to read it. While I believe it is meant to be understood, it does require some consideration on the different genres, how to handle difficult passages and how it all fits together. But again, I don’t think that requires any kind of seminary training. After all, what God has revealed, He wants us to know, yes? I did put a few books as an addendum to the post that I think are very simple, useful books on the topic…designed for non-seminarians 🙂
Kara,
Thanks, and I so agree. It is always God’s message to us rather than our message to others. Great reminder!
Lisa,
I get what you are saying to a point. I do not believe in under intelluctalizing (i.e. or over intellectualizing ) which I have a sense that both sides seem to do, but in a sense that we really need to understand what God is saying to us, despite our training, or lack or it.
I truly hope you are understanding what I am saying here.
Lisa,
How the Bible is put together was done by the church fathers and definitely not in chronological order. Job is the oldest book but not listed first. Esther was not written in Israel and neither was Daniel. And the original Wycliffe and KJV contained the Apocrypha but was taken out just recently. So why don’t we study that? What suddenly became wrong with it why it is not there anymore?
My brother has a reprint of the KJV written in the same fonts and spelling from 1611 and one has to really know English when reading it. The Apocrypha is in the original. When we study the Bible it usually is not good to read into the commentaries that usually come with it because those are written by theologians of doctrines.
And like another commentator said on another post that reading the Jewish imagery was not right, but the four Gospels and the Book of Revelation contain so much Jewish teaching that we have to respect it at least.
Scott, you said:
“Everything Christ is called to participate in, we are called to participate in.”
I am not sure I agree with that. In fact, I don’t. For those areas that have been designated for like participation, this is true. But that can not be said of all Jesus said and did. He was the God-man with a specific purpose that none of us can claim. Rather, we consider Jesus’ words and actions in context of His redemptive purpose that only He could fulfill.
Also were the NT writers speaking prophetically into a situation or were they revealing the prophecy fulfilled? There’s a difference
Kara,
I am not sure how what I wrote can be construed as needing a chronological order or ignoring imagery. I never suggested such.
Also, commentaries were indeed written by men but I am puzzled at the reluctance to use them. We learn in community and should glean from those who have gone before, especially commentary writers who have taken great pains for indepth investigation. It helps to keep a balanced perspective lest we get some wild hair and run down the street with it.
Personally, I think the most dangerous people are those that think they just need Jesus and their Bible. Where are the checks and balances against strange interpretations?
Dear Lisa Robinson and dear Jugulum,
My bad. I was, um, teasing in bad fashion. I sincerely apologize.
I’m not a fan of higher criticism, its presuppositions, its conclusions, and its fruits.
I suppose there are some good, defensible aspects of higher criticism, but IMHO, they are vastly overwhelmed by the negative aspects.
I was merely trying to draw attention to your method of approaching Scripture, i.e., the grammatical-historical method vis-a-vis DTS, with that of the historical-critical methods favored by liberal mainliners and their liberal divinity schools and seminaries.
Pax.
TU&D,
Ah, I see now, that was a gotcha. Well you had me going for a minute. And are you saying we are a product of our seminary environment? I will take that as a complement. Although, you would be surprised at the variations that exist on campus. Not on major stuff though, like inspiration.
Lisa,
You said:
‘Personally, I think the most dangerous people are those that think they just need Jesus and their Bible. Where are the checks and balances against strange interpretations?”
While I can understand the strange interpretations part, (been there, dome that!) and the checks and balances (which are indeed necessary to prevent heresy), are you saying it’s Jesus plus theologians and commentaries? What about folks, like say those,in Africa who don’t have access to all of that sort of thing? Are you saying they can’t understand God’s word without the help of a theologian or a good commentary, or some knowledge of church history?
Sorry if I misread you, but that’s what it sounds/sounded like from everything on this site sometimes, like only theologians can interpret the Bible properly.
Mbaker, good point. I am not suggesting that only theologians can interpret the Bible and I’m sorry if I’ve come off that way. I am saying that there are some considerations that people should be aware of that’s all. The fact is we are all theologians, as Charles Ryrie says, “And therein lies the problem. There is nothing wrong with being an amateur theologian or a professional theologian, but there is everything wrong about being an ignorant or a sloppy theologian” (Basic Theology, pg 9). So my encouragement is not in creating an elitist theologian class, but avoiding being sloppy or ignorant concerning God’s precious word. If we have the resources at our disposal, why not use them?
In terms of folks in developing nations, the main point I was making was about learning in community vs. isolation.
Lisa,
Can we say every strange interpretation is wrong? And why should I accept a “majority rules” type of theology? Does it make me a dangerous person for promoting and advocating the need to understand Jesus through relationship?
When you speak to your husband do you grab the marriage handbook and see what he is saying to you, then you can only accept it if 10 other people told you that’s what he said?
I was merely pointing out your post #19.
How does it fit together? What are the different genres? How do you handle difficult passages and where are they?
And from your post #23
We have a personal relationship with Jesus, and no we do not all learn in community. How do you know for a fact that every commentator was teaching truth? They generally teach with an agenda to lead people toward a certain creed or doctrine.
I guess the biggest question should be…how do I know what I am being taught is true? The Bible says “Let every man be a liar but let God be true”. I am obligated to that because I read it in the Bible, therefore I need to take all that is said to me with a grain of salt because my obligation is not to man, but the Word of God. And God said not one word He speaks will drop to the ground but will accomplish that it was sent to do.
There is something wrong with my browser.
Also let me add this one for consideration, there is no such thing as a professional or amateur theologian. Any person who studies the Bible is merely doing what they should be doing any way as a believer.
Kara, yes that is the point “how do I know what I am being taught is true?”. The point of this post was to raise the questions and not necessarily to resolve the answers. Studying to show yourself approved in no ways obligates you to man, nor did I suggest that. In the end, we are all responsible to God.
Just curious, have you ever read through commentaries? While there may be some that have some form of indoctrination, I don’t think that can be true of the ones I’ve seen. A good one will expose the verse, consider the original language and give you something to think about. Where there are divergent views, they are presented. Sometimes there is a nuance in the original language or cultural aspect that we are not aware of and commentaries help bring that out to see what is going on in a particular passage. It is not an indoctrination technique but a study tool, that’s all.
Kara,
I am not Lisa obviously, but I would just like to comment on this question of yours that was addressed to her: “Does it make me a dangerous person for promoting and advocating the need to understand Jesus through relationship?”
I don’t think any one is saying that it is not important to know Jesus through relationship. However–what He shows us or we learn through relationship with Him is not going to contradict what is shown us in His Word.
Some of us have learned in a very hard way what can happen when those experiences with Him are not checked to see if they line up with what is taught in His Word. If we don’t check all things carefully by the Word, being specially careful to not take things out of context, we can find ourselves having all kinds of spiritual experiences that we believe are from Him and with Him and later come to realize are not from Him at all.
Kara, Ryrie’s point is that theology is expressing thoughts about God and anyone who does that is a theologian. Some get paid for doing that, like my professors and they would be considered a professional theologian. An amateur would be one who doesn’t. If you disagree with that, fine.
Lisa,
Thanks for defining what the difference is to you. It’s more important, I believe, in God’s eyes to understand what He is saying to us, theologically speaking, than anything we believe personally. Otherwise, we would have no need of divine wisdom, or guidance, because no matter who we are, and no matter how great the amount of our faith, or even our knowledge, nothing makes the Bible truer than His own unchanging commitment to be true always to His own word. That one fact always wins out in the end, thankfully for all of us, no matter how times or our personal beliefs change.
To me that’s the important difference, always.
God bless.
“It’s more important, I believe, in God’s eyes to understand what He is saying to us, theologically speaking, than anything we believe personally.”
I thought that is what I have been saying all along, to ask the question to get to what he is saying so that what we believe personally is lining up to what He has communicated. Sorry for any confusion.
Lisa,
You said: ‘Sorry for any confusion.”
Absolutely no need to apologize. It was a good teaching. Just needed to clarify a few points for those of us who follow this blog who are not theologians, and thus have to approach the Bible perhaps a little differently than you would as a seminarian.
Either way it’s good. We can all learn from each other, hopefully.
Lisa,
Yes, I have read commentaries. And I watch television shows about theology and have conversed with many types of theologians one on one. I read history books, philosophy books, sociology books and anthropology books. I read websites and websites and websites. I read newspapers and magazines. So I think I am pretty well read, just not well written sometimes.
The thing is sometimes we can become so overwhelmed with so much knowledge that we need to discover simplistic things. The point I try to make is this, we can be well educated, and not be very smart. The fundamental teaching of Jesus was first preached when He stepped out of the wilderness after the forty days of fasting, “repent and believe the Gospel”, and “repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand”. Very simple theology there.
You are apparently doing the very thing you feel God has called you to do in your life. But not all people were called to the same path of education and don’t have the same opportunity that you do. But they should not be made to feel less important than anyone else because Jesus said “even the poor have the Gospel preached to them”. Education is wonderful and great. If that’s for you embrace it. But there are many people who would love to have the opportunity and never get it. But Jesus never looks at them like they are less, and Jesus never commanded to go to seminary or Bible college, that is a matter of personal conviction.
I have always advocated higher education, people who know me know this is true. But I would never hint that someone who does not know theology is lacking. God is not a science, God is not a philosophy, God is not a study in socio-political statistical analysis of anthropological archeology. God is a spirit of such great magnitude that we can’t even scratch the surface of understanding. But if you find Him there, take comfort in that.
When my husband told his beloved grandmother that he felt he was called to preach she told him she would never come to see him preach because he never went to Bible college. It hurt him so much for her to say this. He was hurt because he did not have the opportunity to go. She died a few years ago and fulfilled her promise. My husband’s self worth is wrapped up in trying to please his family and looking for acceptance from them.
Kara, it is a little sad that what I have written has created a dividing wall between those who go to seminary and those who don’t. It was never my intention to create this hiearchy nor have I ever suggested that anyone who does not is less important, especially in the sight of Jesus.
What I have written was with the sole purpose of asking how to know God better. period. That is something we should do no matter or educational levels. These are questions I have asked before seminary and would still ask even if I never set foot in one. How this got twisted into a seminary vs non-seminary thing is beyond me.
“And are you saying we are a product of our seminary environment?”
Actually, that wasn’t the thrust of my comment above, but now that you ask, it is a relevant question and one that’s worth exploring.
IMHO, it’s the rare seminary student who can overcome the biases of his/her professors and the prevailing spoken/unspoken culture, mindset, and ethos that holds sway at their seminary.
Lisa, I enjoy, practically, everything you write. This post is no exception. You are so lucid in your thoughts, and it is very easy to grasp what you’re trying to convey. But I think, because some Christians ALWAYS equate knowledge only with going to seminary or something, you might thave been misunderstood by some here. And I personally think that is so, because of some insecurity (or hurt) lurking somewhere inside the Christian, which s/he is quite unaware of. Or, may I even go on to suggest that you-don’t-have-to-go-seminary types struggle with pride.
(Though I realize that seminary vs. non-seminary was not the subject of your post at all, I had make comments along that line, as some have intentionally/non-intentionally miscontrued your point!).
Lisa –
Why did I expect you wouldn’t like what I typed. 🙁
When I made the statement that ‘everything Christ participated in, we are also called to participate in’, this must surely be a qualified statement that I thought you would understand what I was getting at. I’m not stating WWJD. Jesus wasn’t married. It’s ok for us to get married. Jesus was circumcised. It’s ok if men are not circumcised. It’s not technically asking WWJD. But the heart of what I was saying does come through the pages of the NT. We are called to participate in and walk out all that Christ walked out. He died on a cross for humanity, we are called to death. He suffered, we are called to suffer. He was resurrected, we are called to resurrection. He is the reigning king, we are to reign with Him as a kingdom of priests. Jesus is the Sabbath rest of God, we are called to enter the eternal Sabbath rest. And we could go on and on expounding this truth. This is true as we keep it in its right perspective.
Thus, going back to Heb 1:9, we are called to be anointed by the Spirit and with the oil of gladness. We can’t deny it. It is absolutely true of God’s call for us. Doesn’t mean we won’t have tough days. But, because Heb 1:9 speaks about Christ, it speaks to us as His body. The body is called to be Christ in the earth.
I’d say they were doing both, right? They were showing the fulfilment of prophecy, but the nature of Scripture is prophetic, in that it declares the heart of God. It isn’t all prediction, but it is all of a prophetic nature.
In all, I simply wanted to show how I think Paul quoting Deut 25:4 to speak about elders in 1 Tim 5:17-18 is interesting. I almost crack up when I think about it. He took a verse completely out of its context to speak in a somewhat metaphorical sense about elders. Now Paul probably had some decent hermeneutics from GTS (Gamaliel Theological Seminary). So, I do agree with you in that we need a solid base for exegeting Scripture. But I still believe it is ok for us to see God as able to speak to us through one verse, again, emphasising the learning of good hermeneutics, staying accountable to Christ’s body, etc.
Thanks Lisa ! I always enjoy reading your posts and I always get something from them. Usually an attitude check I always admire your attitude and tone and honesty when you write. Anything you learn in seminary that you want to pass my way for free, I’m game!
Leslie, thanks for that. I was beginning to wonder if I have miscommunicated something.
Scott, yes I agree with you regarding the Scripture being prophetic and the clarification around Christ. But I still contend that verse has nothing to do with us. Do we have gladness because of the indwelling of the Spirit? Absolutely (or we should…hopefully). But we can’t use that verse to support it, especially since in context it is referring to the superiority of Christ. Sorry, maybe I am being a tad anal on that point I just think we run the risk of misapplication when we apply verses to us that having nothing to do with us.
Thanks Kim. I appreciate that.
Lisa,
I don’t think you meant for us to think you are intellectually arrogant in your approach to Bible study and hermeneutics. And we don’t think you are. But as with the approach you have presented is that you don’t want to fall back on your own understanding therefore you have theology professors and others make sure you do, but you seem to be just a little more willing to accept their version quicker than someone who might not fit into the mold.
I remember a discussion where I was explaining how I study the Bible. I stated I study the verses word for word, I said that I see where it lines up with other verses because we need “out of the mouth of two or three witnesses, and I stated I see how I can apply that into my life to which you replied my approach was naive.
Why is my approach naive? Is it just as easy to be carried away by false teaching as it is to be trapped by self-delusion? Yes it is, so where is the balance?
I do not think you are wrong for pursuing a degree in theology, but with that, how do you really know for sure that DTS is teaching you in the proper truths apart from doctrine inserted? I know David Jeremiah is an alumnist as well as Chuck Swindoll, so it is a well respected place. But those men do exhort in the Calvinist doctrine many times when they are preaching on tv. It does not mean they don’t have good things to teach. But why let someone define your relationship with Jesus?
I have to ask, would you accept a teaching from a secular university without investigation into their viewpoints? Would you accept a professor merely on the basis of his tenure? If you knew a university held a certain position that disagreed with what you have been taught, would you blindly go along with them? I don’t think most of us would if we know better. As much as DTS may be a great place to attend it should not be our primary teacher. And that is the point I am trying to say. DTS teaches Calvinism. All their teaching is from that viewpoint.
Hence, from their website..
Some churches disagree with that. So then by accepting their viewpoints you willingly go along with them in doctrines they themselves base in their own ideas and not along with the whole of Christian churches. They are teaching doctrine, not theology.
Ok I had to switch browsers…
http://www.dts.edu/about/whatmakesdallasdifferent/consistenttheology/
They teach premillenialism, dispensationalism…
those two are elements of doctrine. Many churches disagree with those viewpoints.
Everyone who reads the Bible is an exegete and a theologian, though with varying levels of knowledge and skill. Theology in one sense is a broader term than doctrine, and in another sense narrower. One would be called a theologian if one studies any aspect of things related to God (there is no word “doctrinologist”) and so would be the broader term, but in a more narrow sense “theology” would be the study of God himself (the doctrines about omniscience, etc.), in relation to other “ologies” like “ecclesiology” (study of doctrines about the church) or “pneumatology” (study of doctrines specifically about God the Holy Spirit).
There is much in the Bible that is straightforward and easy to understand even without any knowledge of ancient cultures and language: everyone sins, Jesus is the only way, love one another, be baptized, do not forsake gathering together, worship God with songs, do not commit adultery, etc.
However, it is both incorrect and naive to think that the entire Bible is that way. Significant portions of the Bible can only be understood if one does have access to knowledge about Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic and the cultures of the times. In such cases, one must work through it oneself, or depend on the authority of people they trust. If one is doing the latter, one must be more tentative about their beliefs in these areas. So, while the command to be baptized is straightforward, it is not so clear whether it should always require immersion, if infant baptism is OK, if rebaptism is ever necessary or required. It’s fine to accept infant baptism on the basis of the doctrinal teaching of one’s denomination or because of a trusted pastor or scholar. However, to move from one’s own beliefs to teaching or pressing those beliefs on others requires, or should require, a deeper level of one’s own study.
Regards,
John
Lisa,
I think the point is that many of us are hearing talk on this site about ‘deconstructing’ the Bible in order to understand it, so we naturally wonder if this colors all the posts.
Certainly I can understand that wrong preconceptions and suppositions we all hold about the Bible can and should be corrected. I’m thankful every day for folks who do that.
I have no problem with anyone going to seminary, in fact, I can see it must take a tremendous amount of commitment to fulfill such a calling from God. I am thankful for my wonderful pastor who trained and worked full time so he could share the Bible honestly with us.
However, I also see what folks are talking about when they are asked to get rid of all their preconceived beliefs about the Bible so they can be re-taught. I don’t see the value in that either. It would seem that’s taking two steps backward and one step forward,
I don’t see this as a personal issue about seminarians versus non-seminarians at all, but about the necessity to make over our Bible training in order to properly understand hermeneutics.
Lisa –
Heb 1:9 has to do with us if we are willing to consider that we are to participate in this with Christ. Therefore, I think we can use that verse to teach about our joy in the Lord. Actually, we might be able to use it more than others since the verse is grounded in Christ and we are to have a Christ-centred faith and gospel. No doubt the person could have just as well turned to Ps 21:6 to make the point – For you make him most blessed forever; you make him glad with the joy of your presence. And she could have better explained things. But the application is still acceptable.
Are you being anal? I’ll leave that to you. 🙂 I just know you saw people heavily abuse such a practice. Thus, I understand your desire to swing the pendulum back a little. But it is not an ungodly practice to consider one verse by itself. I think people wrongly consider Ps 46:10 and use it to speak of quiet times. But, in the midst of the whole psalm, it is speaking of the peace that comes when you know God rules over all the nations even in the midst of their turmoil. Still, God can speak to us from Ps 46:10 in regards to intimate time with Him, listening to Him. This is what I suppose Paul did with Deut 25:4. He took it out of the original context about ox and used it to speak into something relevant within thoughts on eldership. I think that’s ok. But we do have to guard against randomness and not be grounded in solid hermeneutics.
And, one thought that has come to me is I wonder if you possibly already have a low regard for this particular woman who spoke about Heb 1:9. Thus, you probably would not be willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. But I like JM, if it is her. She’s a lot better than most in the prosperity camp. 🙂
ScottL:
If I may ask you, from where do we get the idea that we are to partcipate in certain things that Jesus partcipates in? Thanks!
Kara,
Your insistence on bringing Calvinism into every discussion is disturbing. Especially, considering that the point of this post was to not bring theological positions to bear when examining Scripture. But I am afraid your disdain for Calvinism clouds your ability to really see what is being communicated and your venemous attitude towards it is unsettling.
Your statement about DTS teaching Calvinism is myopic and a little ignorant. The curriculum is designed to teach students to think theologically, critically, and be honest and thorough exegetes of the Scripture in preparation for the work of ministry.
And you have a contant habit of imposing thoughts into the text that were neither intended or conveyed. Someone previously mentioned that you mischaracterize what people write putting folks in the position of defending what you mischaracterize. This post is no exception.
I know that you and I will probably never agree on Calvinism. But that was never the point of this post in the first place. It would have been nice if you could have stuck to the topic of this post. Thanks.