It’s Time to Learn the Basics

Great preachers and teachers may inspire you, but the deep truths of Scripture are discovered through personal Bible study.

Is the Bible Too Spiritual to Understand?

Since the Bible is a spiritual book you may say, “What will I learn from a book that is so spiritually complex?” You will learn more than you may imagine if you are the following:

1. A born again believer (John 3:3). Whether a person is a scholar or member of the laity, he/she must have experienced the new birth in order to fully comprehend the message of the Bible.
2. A disciplined believer (2 Tim. 2: 1-4). A believer is commanded to be diligent and faithful in his/her study to become a good solider. Discipline and training prepares him/her to teach others once progress is made toward Christian maturity.
3. A willing believer (Psa. 119:30). A believer must have a desire to be trustworthy, and to please the Lord. Psalm 119:30 highlights faithfulness in keeping the ordinances of God as self-imposed criteria.

Proper Tools are Needed to Guarantee Accuracy

Image: Hannah Busing

Learn from a Study Bible. Use one having a place to jot down you own handwritten notes. Take time to ponder and reflect on what you have written in your notes. Most Study Bibles contain numerous commentary notes; but be sure to compare the Study Bible commentary with other commentaries. If you use only one Study Bible and trust only its commentary for biblical accuracy, you will never develop a deep understanding of scripture.

Learn by studying different versions to gain deeper insight. Most Bibles agree on the essentials of scripture, although caution should be exercised when using a paraphrase. Although paraphrases may help the reader to better understand the Word of God, it is wise to consult a dynamic equivalent or literal version to achieve biblical accuracy.

Learn from a Bible dictionary. No tool is more important than a Bible dictionary. It explains archaeology, customs, climates, people, dates, doctrines, herbs, politics, empires, animals, and much more.

Learn from a concordance. Some Bibles have concordances, but in most instances they are not exhaustive. However, the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance is considered one of the best. Time-tested and inexpensive, it lists every word in both the Old and New Testaments.

Learn from a commentary. Commentaries often explain the Bible verse-by-verse. Evangelical commentaries rarely disagree on major points of scripture, and these are helpful to an interpreter for gaining more knowledge.

Learn from an English dictionary. Some words used today in various English Bibles are archaic. Use a dictionary to look up the definition of hard-to-understand words.

Learn from a word dictionary of the Bible. Difficult words are strewn throughout the Bible; and in many cases the original word in an English Bible may not mean what you think it does. A popular word dictionary helpful to interpreters is Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words.

Basic Principles of Interpretation

Pray. Ask the Lord to enlighten you and give you insight.

Search for Insight. Bible reading alone will not give you insight. Insight is acquired only by studying and reflecting on various subjects, themes, people, verses, words, events, etc.

Consider the type of passage. Ask yourself: What kind of Scripture (or passage) am I studying? Is it prophetic (apocalyptic), law, parabolic, simile, psalm, instructional, wisdom (poetical), discourses, or narrative? Various types of passages will mandate different methods of interpretation. Also, the books of the Bible should be studied in context, or in light of proper interpretation. Begin by considering the background and author of each book, and to whom it is addressed, before you draw conclusions. For example, interpreting the book of Revelation requires different guidelines than those required for studying Genesis.

Examine unique words and phrases used by biblical writers. God is the author of all scripture, but men “wrote” (or recorded) as God inspired them. For example, in the Gospels we find that Mark wrote to the Roman people. Romans were fond of power and action; thus Mark’s repeated use of “straightaway” (i.e., immediately) gains the attention of a Roman audience. On the other hand, Matthew desired to appeal to Jews. In doing so, he was careful to use terms with which Jewish people were familiar; such as “Messiah,” and the “Kingdom of Heaven.” Matthew avoided the term “Kingdom of God” as often as possible so as not to inflame the passion of Jews since they were forbidden to say or write the name of God. John focuses on the universal appeal of Christ and is concerned that people everywhere “believe” in Jesus, the Son of God. John uses the term “believe” over 50 times in the Gospel he penned.

Take time to research maps and locations of certain events. Most Bible students know who Moses is, but are unable to pinpoint the locations where certain events occurred in his life. Furthermore, most Bible students do not know the places where Jesus traveled during His 3 ½ years of ministry. Nor do they know where He performed miracles and healings, gave discourses, or talked to the religious, royal, or common people.

Learn to recognize frequently used figures of speech. It’s important that you learn what is literal and what is figurative. During the time the Bible was penned by human beings, various figures of speech were used. Even in modern times we use many of figures of speech. A popular contemporary American term is “Get out of my face.” We understand this to mean “Depart,” “Go away,” or “Leave me alone.” However, it is doubtful that two thousand years from today people would understand this term. The Bible contains many such figures of speech and it’s important not to develop a literal (or systematic) theology based on these terms.

In His Grip,
Dr. Harbuck

From the February 2010 edition of The Grapevine. Used with permission.

I just finished reading L. William Oliverio, Jr., monograph, Theological Hermeneutics in the Classical Pentecostal Tradition: A Typological Account. In the first six chapters, Oliverio maps the historical development of Pentecostal theology through a taxonomy of five types of historical Pentecostal hermeneutics. Along with their illustrative exemplars, these are: 1. the “original classical pentecostal hermeneutic” (Charles F. Parham, William J. Seymour, Charles H. Mason, Garfield T. Haywood); 2. the “early evangelical-pentecostal hermeneutic” (Daniel W. Kerr, P.C. Nelson, Myer Pearlman); 3. the “contemporary evangelical-pentecostal hermeneutic” (Gordon Fee, Roger Stronstad, Robert Menzies); 4. the “contextual-pentecostal hermeneutic” (Amos Yong, James Smith, John Christopher Thomas, Kenneth Archer); and 5. the “ecumenical-pentecostal hermeneutic” (Cecil M. Robeck Jr., Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Frank Macchia, Simon Chan and Koo Dong Yun).

Oliverio concludes by proposing a theological hermeneutic he finds most congruent towards ongoing 21st century challenges to both the worldwide Pentecostal tradition and the broader Christian tradition. One weakness to his taxonomy is that he admittedly works largely from North American Classical Pentecostal historiography. However, the interdependence between globalisation and globally diverse local Pentecostalisms, would suggest that his taxonomy comprises sufficient broadness for assessing emerging and local Pentecostal hermeneutical models worldwide.

Oliverio argues that the “original classical pentecostal hermeneutic” marked the “beginning of a new Christian tradition.” He also contends that even as the early Pentecostal movement understood its apostolic calling as that of calling the whole Church back to the root of New Testament “Pentecostal” experience, it was thereby highly ecumenical in orientation and moreover— comprising a broad range of theological diversity.

The “early evangelical-pentecostal hermeneutic” later emerged through the influences of fundamentalism and modern evangelicalism, which led to a new stress on the inerrancy doctrine and creation of a “pentecostal scholasticism.” The “contemporary evangelical-pentecostal hermeneutic,” emerged in the 1970’s, largely via the Lukan scholarship debates. It signified a new Pentecostal reliance on Evangelical hermeneutical methodologies, for arguing Classical Pentecostal doctrines of Spirit baptism along with the evidential tongues doctrine. Hence, this era marked a newfound appreciation for historical-grammatical methods of exegetical methods, focusing on identifying authorial meanings of scriptural texts.

I find it important to note Oliverio’s observation that the “contemporary evangelical-pentecostal hermeneutic’s stress on authorial meaning was itself philosophically rooted to the Hirschian (E.D. Hirsch) author-centered hermeneutic theory. Meanwhile, the “contextual-pentecostal hermeneutic,” which emerged in the latter part of the 1990’s, followed the Gadamerian school of thought (Hans-George Gadamer; fusion of the reader’s linguistic and conceptual horizon with the horizon of the text). Hence, this Pentecostal hermeneutic has stressed the reader’s contextual situation (especially the cultural-linguistic context) towards readings of Scripture, and the formative role this context plays towards theologizing. Oliverio identifies this phase as demarking the beginning of a truly authentic Pentecostal manner of theologizing. Yet Oliverio laments the historical wedge that has developed between these two hermeneutics, which he seeks to address through themes emerging from the “ecumenical-pentecostal hermeneutic” and his proposed “hermeneutical realism.

Introduction

Defining an ultimate Pentecostal hermeneutic is not an easy thing. This is because Pentecostalism by itself is a diverse phenomenon consisting of different types of groups. There is no homogeneity in Pentecostal grouping because different Pentecostal factions are established within different traditions,[1] even though the underlying theological formation is the same. This diversity in traditions brings with it varied theological approaches and thinking when establishing Pentecostal hermeneutics. But as Kenneth Archer observes “it is this diversity along with Pentecostalism’s ability to adapt without losing its essential beliefs and practices that has aided its growth.”[2]Pentecostal movements in different parts of the world have different factors behind their origins, but most of them have similar social-political and religious grounding. The early American Pentecostal movements, as Archer observes, have their basis on the post civil war era, which comprised of industrialization, urbanization and mass migrations. As the American society sought to discover a new identity, most spiritual movements, and especially Protestants, saw the possibility of moral reform through spiritual revival built on private action and personal responsibility.[3] It was out of these revivalist movements and social chaos that characterized post civil war America that American Pentecostalism was born. Similarly, as Ogbu Kalu argues, African Pentecostalism was born out of the African postcolonial identity crisis.[4] As Africans sought their true identity and responded to the white missionary ecclesiological structures and hermeneutics, a new approach to worship that was pneumatic in nature was born. It should however be observed, even in light of Kalu’s assertion that African Pentecostalism is not an extension of American Pentecostalism,[5] African Pentecostalism has been and continues to be highly influenced by American Pentecostalism. In both cases, Pentecostalism emerged as movements protesting the increasing evils in their immediate societies and the presumed “coldness” of the then mainline churches.[6]

Central to the Pentecostal belief and theology is the conversion experience and the infilling of the Holy Spirit. Pentecostals see holy living as an essential duty of the Christian. This holy life can only be obtained through the individual’s submission to the authority of Jesus Christ. Conversion is a personal choice and calls the individual Christian to personal responsibility. Every believer needs to maintain a life of holiness. This holiness cannot be attained through mere abstinence to sin, but through the guidance of the Holy Spirit hence the need for the baptism of the Holy Spirit, an experience that assures the indwelling of the Spirit of God in the believer. The Spirit gives the believer power over sin and enables them to proclaim the Gospel with power, testifying the saving grace of God through Jesus Christ. Speaking in other tongues is the main evidence of one’s baptism in the Spirit. These similarities in origin and doctrine become the common denominator in which Pentecostal hermeneutics can be discussed. This paper attempts to explore the general hermeneutical approach, methodology and theological direction that the whole of Pentecostalism embraces.

Pentecostal Theology and Interpretation

Hermeneutics has been defined as both the science and the art of interpretation.[7] “As a science, it enunciates principles, investigates the laws of thought and language, and classifies its facts and results. As an art, it teaches what application these principles should have, and establishes their soundness by showing their practical value in elucidation of the more difficult scriptures.”[8] Hermeneutics involves drawing meaning from the immediate context of the literature and at the same time it “is the search for the meaning of the text here and now.”[9] Thus we can clearly observe that biblical interpretation has two main dimensions. The first one seeks to find out the original meaning of the text; the one that the author intended for the first readers. The second one looks at the meaning that the readers of the Bible might attach to it. This second dimension shows that the environment and the experiences of the interpreter largely influence the meaning he/she attaches to Scriptures.

Kostenberger, an adjunct professor of women’s studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, is an apologist for the male headship and complementarian viewpoints regarding women in ministry leadership. She “attempts to chronicle the feminist quest of the historical Jesus” concluding that “what emerges from feminist scholarship on Jesus is not one version of the true Jesus but many different accounts of who feminists perceive Jesus to be” (16). Embracing a perspective based on Evangelical theological tradition, Kostenberger eschews “the viability of feminism at large” maintaining that “the validity of feminist biblical interpretation . . . comes into question” (16). She chronicles the feminist quest to understand Jesus through a study of various scholars and their works, inclusive of the radical, reformist, new feminist, egalitarian and evangelical streams of feminist theology. Although her examples are not inclusive of extant feminist scholarship, Kostenberger does include well-known representative scholars from the aforementioned streams, including Mary Daly, Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, Daphne Hampson, Letty Russell, Rosemary Radford Ruether, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, and Kathleen Corley, Linda Belleville, Douglas Groothuis, John Phelan, Aida Bensançon Spencer and others. Omitted are, for example, egalitarian feminist scholars Catherine Clark Kroeger, Alvera Mickelson and womanist theology scholars including Stacey M. Floyd-Thomas, Katie Geneva Cannon and others. This lack of inclusiveness in presenting a more comprehensive study of feminist theology is a primary weakness of the text. That stated, Margaret Kostenberger’s study of the included feminists is ambitious in presenting an historical and theological overview of both the nascence and further development of much of feminist scholarship.

Kostenberger also examines the hermeneutical framework, the genre of the Gospels and their historical-cultural background. She lists and briefly discusses, in literary context, those passages on Jesus and women in the Gospels. The book, in discussing these passages, hinders its possible scope and depth of scholarship. The individual discussions are simply too brief in content to provide an adequate account of the rich substance and nuance of each passage.

Of concern are both the narrowness of content and lack of spiritual depth in the book’s presentation of Jesus and his interactions with women. The Gospels’ present Jesus with a power, depth and intensity in describing both the qualities of humanness and divinity in His relationships with women. Readers of those passages cannot help but be confronted intellectually, emotionally and spiritually by the reality of the writers’ accounts. Kostenberger’s discussions miss the Gospels’ realness in revealing the multifaceted interactions of Jesus with women. The discussions miss the full depth of spirituality and emotion, the quality of intellectual exchange and Jesus’ tenderness for the weak; his prophetic yet loving confrontation of the sinner and his quiet, powerful compassion. Although Kostenberger mentions Jesus’ sensitivity to particular individuals and groups of women, and His recognition of women’s personhood, stating that “Jesus treated women consistently with respect, dignity, compassion, and kindness” (211) her brief accounts miss the opportunity for a more thorough discussion to highlight Jesus’ respect for the intellect and character of women; for the value of their lives; for their questions, their needs and their suffering. The discussions fail to include the Gospels’ passages that indicate Jesus’ invitation to women to join in mission and ministry; His invitation to the kingdom and His joy in affirming their giftings and callings. The Jesus in Jesus and the Feminists seems not quite the full, complete friend and Savior known by those women of the Gospels.

If we want to live our lives according to the Bible, how we approach Scripture means everything. What differences in interpretation can we see between the contemporary Word of Faith movement and the classic Faith movement?

This chapter is from Paul L. King’s book Only Believe: Examining the Origins and Development of Classic and Contemporary Word of Faith Theologies.

Many, perhaps even most, of the controversies regarding contemporary faith theology and practice have involved the interpretation of various passages of Scripture. Regarding the “health and wealth gospel,” Fee affirms: “The basic problems here are hermeneutical, i.e., they involve questions as to how one interprets Scripture. Even the lay person, who may not know the word “hermeneutics’ and who is not especially trained in interpreting the Bible, senses that this is where the real problem lies. The most distressing thing about their use of Scripture … is the purely subjective and arbitrary way they interpret the biblical text.”¹

Hermeneutics and the Contemporary Faith Movement

James W. Sire, in his book Scripture Twisting, addresses ways in which cults misuse the Scriptures: inaccurate quotation, twisted translation, ignoring the immediate context, collapsing contexts of two or more unrelated texts, speculation and overspecification, mistaking literal language for figurative language (and vice versa), selective citing, confused definitions, ignoring alternative explanations, among others.² Many of these misuses of Scripture in the contemporary faith movement have been pointed out by their critics. However, this does not mean that the contemporary faith leaders are cultic as some have claimed them to be, but it does demonstrate that there is a serious problem with some contemporary faith exegesis.

This is nobly said; but what does it mean? Implied is the hint that interpretations that differ from his are based on what people think, not on what the Bible says. But also implied is the truth that good interpretation should begin with the plain meaning of the text. The plain meaning of the text, however, is precisely what Copeland and the others do not give us, text after text. … But “plain meaning” has first of all to do with the author’s original intent, it has to do with what would have been plain to those to whom the words were originally addressed. It has not to do with how someone from a suburbanized white American culture of the late 20th century reads his own cultural setting back into the text through the frequently distorted prism of the language of the early 17th century.⁴

To illustrate Fee’s apprehension, a popular saying in the contemporary faith movement proclaims, “God said it; I believe it; and that settles it.” That statement is true as far as it goes. But it leaves something out: what is it that God really said, and what does it mean? Often this is presumed, rather than thought through and studied exegetically. Lovett, formerly a professor at Oral Roberts University, also writes of his concern, explaining, “The problem with exponents of the Rhema [word of faith] interpretation is their biased selection of biblical passages, often without due regard to their context. The self-defined phrase ‘confessing the Word of God’ takes precedence over hermeneutical principles and rules for biblical interpretation. This approach not only does violence to the text but forces the NT linguistic data into artificial categories that the biblical authors themselves could not affirm.”⁵ Simmons concludes that the shaky hermeneutical foundation of the contemporary faith movement stems from its acknowledged founder: “In Kenyon’s hands, even the texts that were a major focus of Keswickeans in general proved to be remarkably elastic. … Kenyon’s tendency was to stretch a term or metaphor to a literal extreme that the original word or figure of speech did not intend.”⁶

Adam Sparks, One of a Kind: The Relationship between Old and New Covenants as the Hermeneutical Key for Christian Theology of Religions (Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick, 2010), 325 pages, ISBN 9781606083451.

In this book Reformed theologian Adam Sparks attempts to contribute to the theology of religions conversation by offering a critique of some of the most popular approaches within this discipline. Unlike other projects that focus upon soteriology, this author limits his conversation to the relationship between the old and new covenants as it is treated by inclusivist models. In short, inclusivism maintains that people of faith traditions outside of Christianity may experience salvation by being included in the saving work of Christ. Ultimately, this means that it is not always necessary for an individual to be within the Christian faith in order to be a part of God’s redemptive activity. A Hindu, for example, may experience salvation, if God chooses to do so. The Hindu faith is not redemptive, rather it is God’s work within or despite his religious background that saves. There are many different nuances of the inclusivist position, and Sparks points out that many inclusivists affirm the fulfillment model. The fulfillment model maintains that Christ “fills out” non-Christian religions where they fall short. In other words, where other religions are incomplete, Christ fills in the gaps. Many inclusivist theologians apply the fulfillment model to the relationship between the old and new covenants. Just as Christ’s new covenant is the fulfillment of the old covenant, analogously, Christ must also be the fulfillment of all other religions. Christ not only completes the Jewish faith, but he is the capstone for all non-Christian religions. However, Sparks disagrees. He states “[T]he Israel analogy and fulfillment model have failed to comprehend the organic, progressive nature of this salvation history….[F]urther…the Israel analogy and fulfillment model undermine the significance of the Christ-event in salvation history by failing to appreciate the decisive effect of this event on history and the nature of existence”, and it is this point that motivates Sparks’ objective (xxiv).

Alexander Jensen, Theological Hermeneutics (London: SCM, 2007), 237 pages, ISBN 9780334029014.

Alexander Jensen’s Theological Hermeneutics is a historical introduction to theological hermeneutics, which Jensen defines as the way in which the problem of understanding has been addressed (2). The book surveys key theological hermeneuts and movements from antiquity, to the watershed that was the Enlightenment, up to the present postmodern context. Jensen argues that theological hermeneutics must be critical (214).

Beginning with his discussion on “Hermeneutics in Antiquity,” Jensen convincingly argues that criticism has always been present throughout the history of hermeneutics. Indeed, he shows that despite the popular impression of pre-moderns as not being critical interpreters, there have always been critical interpretations from antiquity until the Enlightenment. For example, because a literal interpretation of the text was not always amenable to interpreters, the criticism of allegorical interpretation dominated antiquity. And critical methods were developed to criticize allegorical interpretation.

Perhaps the most pivotal insight into hermeneutical thinking and criticism, however, came about as a result of Augustine’s recognition that language is imperfect and the spoken word does not perfectly convey one’s thought. In other words, the listener or reader will never arrive at the speaker’s or author’s thought, but can only approximate it (47). Jensen appropriately emphasizes that this understanding has guided hermeneutical thinking to the present, that is, except for a notable exception during the Enlightenment era.

Alexander S. Jensen is Senior Lecturer in Systematic Theology at Murdock University in Perth, Western Australia.

Before discussing this exception, however, Jensen’s survey highlights the fact that the discovery of errors in authoritative texts led Medieval and Reformation interpreters back to the sources (ad fontes). So the Bible and the Patristic tradition were used to critique texts. Therefore, Reformation hermeneutics, commonly considered to be based on sola scriptura also had its critical element of the “purified” tradition.

But a notable exception to the need for critical hermeneutics occurred during the Enlightenment. To be sure, the Enlightenment did usher in the Modern era of explicit historical criticism attributable to the development of Baconian scientific method, and Cartesian rationalism that suggested human reason is the ultimate authority. However, the realism of the Scottish Enlightenment and Thomas Reid’s “common sense” philosophy, again, contrary to the prevailing Augustinian understanding of the hermeneutical process, considered the spoken word to be representative of one’s thought. So, critical reflection was not needed for understanding. But, agreeing with the Augustinian tradition, and in light of his thesis, Jensen considers this common sense to be naive and a denial of one’s presuppositions and prejudices in interpretation (85).

Despite Reid’s “common sense,” the post-Enlightenment era, consistent with Augustinian thought, also evidences the continuous presence of critical hermeneutics. For, Friedrich Schleiermacher advocates both a grammatical and psychological critique of texts. William Dilthey’s historicism critiques texts in their historical contexts. The so-called (by Paul Ricoeur) “masters of suspicion,” Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Sigmund Freud, prescribes hermeneutical criticism because ideology, the will to power, and the author’s unconscious, respectively, may be the driving force behind texts.

Part of the Rightly Understanding God’s Word series by Craig S. Keener.

As appearing in Pneuma Review Spring 2006

Take a course on biblical interpretation with New Testament scholar, Professor Craig S. Keener.

The Reader’s “Social Location”

For those of us who embrace the Bible as God’s Word, our goal is always to hear what God was saying in Scripture. Because we believe God inspired the authors, we look for that meaning first of all in what God inspired the original writers to say to their original audiences. However else a text might be applied, it is the original meaning we can be sure was correct, and that provides us the model for how to apply Scripture in our own situations today.

Some students of literature have moved away from the question of what the author meant to the question of how a reader understands a text. Although we do not emphasize that question here (our primary goal for interpreting the Bible is understanding what the author meant, because we believe the Bible’s authors were inspired by the Holy Spirit), it is an interesting question and has some relevance. Different readers understand texts in different ways, and that is often because of the cultures and traditions we start with. Being sensitive to this issue can help us better understand why people interpret texts the way they do. Sometimes it can even expose our own prejudices or ideas we simply took for granted because we assumed that everyone thought the same way.

For example, a minister in a church that practices infant baptism may read about the baptism of the jailer’s “household” (Acts 16:33) and see a proof for infant baptism here. Someone who practices only believer’s baptism will object that we do not know that the jailer’s household included infants and that they all seem to have heard and believed (16:31-32). In modern biblical debates, everyone reads chosen passages in light of other passages they believe support their viewpoint. This is not to say that we should not try to make a better case for one position than another, but simply to observe that we most naturally incline to positions we have been taught. Recognizing the history of various lines of interpretation can help us guard against bias in the way we read the Bible. Church history is a very important safeguard in helping us put our own views in broader perspective. We can recognize the background of our own views and consider how this background influences us for good or ill. We can also challenge ourselves: how “obvious” is a view of a Bible passage if no one in history ever thought of it before? (This is not to say that majority views in church history are always correct, either. Sometimes those majorities simply reflect the cultures of those Christians writing down most of the interpretations! But church history does help us be more cautious.)

Recognizing different backgrounds (“social locations”) of various interpreters can also enrich the way we read the Bible. People in different settings ask different kinds of questions than people in other circumstances do, so we can sometimes learn from people who ask different questions as long as we follow the rules of context noted above. For example, Medieval European theologians focused on what the Bible says about issues like the nature of God, Christ, salvation, and angels. These questions are legitimate (and issues like Christ and salvation are central to the New Testament and to Christianity), but a believer who is beaten every day while working as a debt slave in Pakistan will also want to hear what the Bible says about justice, about suffering, and about comfort. The questions do not contradict one another, and both may come to legitimate conclusions; the Bible is big enough to address both kinds of issues.

Part of the Rightly Understanding God’s Word series by Craig S. Keener.

As appearing in Pneuma Review Fall 2004.

Take a course on biblical interpretation with New Testament scholar, Professor Craig S. Keener.

Bible Background (Part 1 of 2)

In any communication, some matters are stated but others can be left assumed. For instance, I am writing in English, on the assumption that I and my readers both know English; if Paul wrote to the Corinthians in Greek, he could assume that they knew Greek. I assume that my readers know what a Bible is, and would be safe to assume that my readers know what a car is, what a radio is, and what pounded yam is (though Paul’s readers knew none of these things, except what the Old Testament part of the Bible was). Paul could likewise allude to specific customs his readers practiced without explaining them, because the Corinthians already knew exactly what he meant (e.g., “baptism for the dead,” 1 Cor 15:29). But for us to understand Paul’s meaning we must either know Greek or have a translation, and we must either know the culture the biblical writers shared with their audiences or have access to resources that help explain that culture. What the writer could assume as part of his meaning was as much a part of the meaning as what he had to state.

We have noted previously the importance of whole-book context, because most books of the Bible stress particular themes addressing particular issues. We should not skip from one book of the Bible to another (except where one book specifically refers back to an earlier and widely circulated one), at least not until we have figured out each passage in its own context first. But one reason particular books emphasize particular themes is that they addressed particular situations. Although people sometimes ignore such verses, many verses explicitly state particular audiences for these books—for instance, the Christians in Rome (Rom 1:7) or in Corinth (1 Cor 1:2). There are appropriate ways to apply these books to today, but first we must take seriously what these works explicitly claim to be: works addressed to specific audiences in specific times and places. In other words, before we can determine how to apply the ancient meaning today, we must understand the ancient meaning. To skip this important step in Bible interpretation is to ignore what the Bible claims for itself.

Part of the Rightly Understanding God’s Word series by Craig S. Keener.

As appearing in Pneuma Review Winter 2004.

Take a course on biblical interpretation with New Testament scholar, Professor Craig S. Keener.

Whole-Book Context

While it is important to read each passage in the context that immediately surrounds it, it is also important to read it in the context of the entire book in which it appears—whether John or Judges or James or other books of the Bible. Often the particular passage fits into the argument of the entire biblical book, or sometimes it connects with themes that run through that book. In some cases, the story runs over several books in our Bible that were once connected as extended narratives (for instance, the Moses story in Exodus carries over from the Joseph story in Genesis, and 1 Samuel through 2 Kings are one long story; so also is Luke plus Acts).

1. Jewish-Gentile Reconciliation in Romans

Many Christians urge non-Christians to be converted by believing in Jesus’ resurrection with their heart and confessing with their mouth that Jesus is Lord. This summary of how to respond to the gospel is based on Romans 10:9-10. Romans 10 does in fact describe salvation in these terms. But have we ever stopped to examine why Paul specifically mentions the mouth and heart here (rather than in some other passages which describe salvation)? Would Paul deny that a deaf mute could be saved simply because they could not confess with their mouth? Or does Paul choose his particular words “heart” and “mouth” for more specific reasons?

We look first at the immediate context, as we did in the previous chapter of this study. Paul believes that we are saved by God’s grace, not by our works. Contrary to the means of justification proposed by Paul’s opponents (Rom. 10:1-5), Paul demonstrates from the law of Moses itself that the message of faith is the saving word (10:6-7). As Moses said, “the word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (10:8); Moses was referring to the law (Deut 30:10-11, 14), but the principle was also applicable to the gospel, which was also God’s word. In Moses’ day one could not ascend to heaven to bring the law down from above; God in his mercy already gave it to Israel on Mount Sinai (30:12). Nor was it necessary to descend again into the sea (30:13); God had already redeemed his people and brought them through the sea. They could not save themselves; they had to depend on God’s mighty grace (cf. Ex 20:2). In the same way, Paul says, we don’t bring Christ up from the dead, or send him down from the Father; like the law and Israel’s redemption, Christ’s salvation is God’s gift to us (Rom 10:6-7). Moses declared that this message was “in your mouth and in your heart” (Deut 30:14), i.e., already given to Israel by God’s grace. Paul explains that likewise God’s message was in your mouth when you confessed Christ with your mouth and in your heart when you believed in Him in your heart (Rom 10:9-10). Faith could come only from hearing this word, the gospel of Christ (10:17), as we noted above.