How should you interpret the Bible?

[Kronos]

Hello All;
I am leading a discussion next Month on how one should interpret the bible. I've allready led one discussion on this subject and I sucessfuly demonstrated the dangers of quoting single verses out of their context, the context of the whole chapter. I was at this stage planning on Using the text in Acts 5 as a vehicle for discussion and exploring different ways in which this could be interpreted. If you start the chapter at verse 12 as we did in service the other day then you get a totally different interpretation than if you start at verse one. I would appreciate any input you people may have;

Thank You

Kronos

[McCulloch]

While it seems like a really good hermeneutic principle to insist that passages must be taken in context, that approach will end up being self-defeating. You see, the writers of the New Testament are guilty of ripping Old Testament passages out of context, wildly distorting their original intent, to make their point.

[ThatGirlAgain]

While it seems like a really good hermeneutic principle to insist that passages must be taken in context, that approach will end up being self-defeating. You see, the writers of the New Testament are guilty of ripping Old Testament passages out of context, wildly distorting their original intent, to make their point.

I agree that the various NT authors loved to quote mine, especially Matthew and Paul. But is that not itself a demonstration that proper understanding requires context?

What the NT writers intended the reader to understand requires context, for example, the widespread misunderstanding of Paul's use of the word 'works' because one-liners containing that word get pulled out of the context of his larger discussion.

An example of quoting out of context by Paul is in Romans 3 when he quotes Psalm 14 to the effect that “no one is righteous, not even one�. Reading the entire Psalm one realizes that it is the ‘fools’ (the morally impaired) who are unrighteous and are oppressing the righteous people of God. But Paul needs to make a point about gentiles and Jews being equivalent in their need for salvation and cuts the Jews down to size by quoting out of context. The irony is that the Psalm distinguishes the Jews as the righteous ones and the non-Jews as the unrighteous.

It seems that interpretation in context would lead to better understanding of what an author is trying to say and whether it is reasonable or not.

[Shermana]

Likewise, reading Paul without certain passages where the Context crucially hinges on is a common practice, which is anti-cherry-picking (the art of ignoring select verses that completely change the desired context). For instance, much is said that Paul says you must not obey the Law, or that it's a "curse".

Sure, just ignore Romans 2:13 and 3:31 and Galatians 3:12 which specifically say you must still obey the Law, no matter what you think about it.

There is also speculation that more than one of the "prophecy" passages are later interpolations. One of them for instance mistakenly attributed something to the wrong prophet originally.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Likewise, reading Paul without certain passages where the Context crucially hinges on is a common practice, which is anti-cherry-picking (the art of ignoring select verses that completely change the desired context). For instance, much is said that Paul says you must not obey the Law, or that it's a "curse".

Sure, just ignore Romans 2:13 and 3:31 and Galatians 3:12 which specifically say you must still obey the Law, no matter what you think about it.

Paul is talking about two kinds of law, which becomes clearer by looking at these passages in context. In Romans 2, we see him talk about both the law of Jewish ritual and requirements and then about the natural moral law that righteous gentiles follow.

Romans 2

12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

Romans 3 again references two laws: the “works of the law�, the Jewish rituals and requirement and the law that requires faith which is “apart from the works of the law�.

Romans 3

27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

Galatians 3 again talks about two laws – works and faith. The ‘curse’ is supposedly on anyone who relies on the works of the law, as per the requirement in Deuteronomy. Personally I think Paul’s argument here is a bit strained. He seeks support in one-liners from the OT that are really not related to each other. The Deuteronomy curse is on those who do not follow the law, not those who do. And the “faith� quote is supposed to undo Deuteronomy. When one has to go to the Book of Habbakuk (who?) to mine quotes, things are getting a bit desperate, are they not? And the “hung on a pole� and trying to link back to the “works of the law� curse strikes me as really strange.

Galatians 3

10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.� 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.� 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.� 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.� 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

There is also speculation that more than one of the "prophecy" passages are later interpolations. One of them for instance mistakenly attributed something to the wrong prophet originally.

Not familiar with this one, I am afraid. There are several passages in Paul’s writings that are believed to be later interpolations, but I do not know of any relating to prophecies.

[Kronos]

Thanks very much for your input people, I will have to do some research and post a reasoned reply tomorrow. I never thought that the NT writers were fond of verse mining or putting a spin on earlier works. You also have to think of the historical context as ThatGirlAgain says, you have to consider the target audience as in Corinthians when it says "Women should not talk in church" obviously times have moved on and our two Lady Elders would strongly disagree with this. Catch up with the thread tomorrow.

Kronos

PS

My friend John's favorite bible is "The Message" and I use the "Amplified" the King James Bible Is 400 years old this year, thats why we covered it in our earlier debate. I think its one of the most impactfull books ever written in English as it coincided with the development of printing and everyone wanted to read it. It had the effect of increasing literacy rates tremendously, but maybe thats a new thread.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Thanks very much for your input people, I will have to do some research and post a reasoned reply tomorrow. I never thought that the NT writers were fond of verse mining or putting a spin on earlier works. You also have to think of the historical context as ThatGirlAgain says, you have to consider the target audience as in Corinthians when it says "Women should not talk in church" obviously times have moved on and our two Lady Elders would strongly disagree with this. Catch up with the thread tomorrow.

It is strongly suspected by a number of scholars that the ‘women should shut up’ portion of 1 Corinthians is an interpolation. Here it is (italics) in context.

1 Corinthians 14

29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.

34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.
39 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

Reasons for thinking this is an interpolation:

1. It interrupts the flow of the presentation. First Paul is talking about how prophesying in church should be done in an orderly fashion – “For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.� Then he goes into this issue about women not speaking. Then he goes back to the original idea - “Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?� Try reading the above passage both with the italicized section, then without it. Does v 36 make sense following v 35? Or following v 33 with vv 34-35 omitted?

2. It does not jibe with other parts of this same Epistle.

1 Corinthians 11

3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved.

Paul has the man as superior to the woman (no surprise there!) but still has the woman prophesying, which he allegedly forbids in chapter 14.

Also right there in chapter 14, immediately after telling women to shut up in church, Paul advises both men and women to be eager to prophesy. (v 39)

3. There are some old manuscripts where vv 34-35 do not appear after v 33 but after v 40. Speculation is that vv 34-35 might have been a marginal note put in by someone reacting to Paul’s allowing women to prophesy. It could then have been copied as if it were part of the text. One copyist may have inserted it where the note began (after v 33) and another may have inserted it in where the note ended (after v 40).


If this is an interpolation, it might be merely a symptom of time marching on. Paul expected the end of the world to happen very soon and thought little of social distinctions that presumably were going to be obsolete shortly. When the end of the world did not happen, older social conventions began to creep back.

[Kronos]

Hi Chaps and chapesses. thanks for your help but i find myself a bit bemused, Someone said when I opened this discussion topic that they diddnt want to muddy the waters, I think their allready pretty muddy.
I really dont want to be too contentious in my discussion group as these are my friends, I've always felt it is wrong to impose your faith on others as faith is a private thing, but you cant hide behind that.

I will think on

[ThatGirlAgain]

Kronos,

To return to hopefully clearer waters, that is to return to your original post...

It seems to me that understanding Act 5:1-11 requires understanding the preceding section in Acts 4.

32Now the company of believers was of one heart and soul, and not one of them claimed that anything which he possessed was [exclusively] his own, but everything they had was in common and for the use of all.
33And with great strength and ability and power the apostles delivered their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace (loving-kindness and favor and goodwill) rested richly upon them all.
34Nor was there a destitute or needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses proceeded to sell them, and one by one they brought (gave back) the amount received from the sales
35And laid it at the feet of the apostles (special messengers). Then distribution was made according as anyone had need.
36Now Joseph, a Levite and native of Cyprus who was surnamed Barnabas by the apostles, which interpreted means Son of Encouragement,
37Sold a field which belonged to him and brought the sum of money and laid it at the feet of the apostles.

Acts 4:32-37 [Amplified]

In v 32 we see that the ‘believers’ lived communally. Are all Christians expected to live this way? The reference to delivering testimony in v 33 seems to argue against that. This community was preaching the story of Jesus to others but not necessarily requiring others to join their communal way of life. As we will see Acts 5:4 supports this idea.

We might refer back to the story of the rich man who asked how to gain eternal life, repeated in all of the Synoptic Gospels. Jesus tells him to follow the commandments. When he asks what more he can do, Jesus tells him to “sell all he has, give to the poor and come follow me�. To me it sounds like Jesus was talking about literally following him on the road then and there, helping to spread the word. This would best be done by a group with no other ties, as evidenced by several other comments of Jesus, like letting the dead bury the dead. In Luke 14:25-35, Jesus makes it very clear that following him means giving up your old life completely. But he seems to be discouraging the “huge crowds� that were probably getting in the way. The most reasonable interpretation to my mind is that when Jesus said “follow me� he meant literally follow him ‘on the road’ and not a universal injunction to give up everything.

From this point of view, Act 5:1-11 seems less problematic. Some people wanted to join the community actively preaching the word but did not want to follow the rules, hiding some of their money. They could have stayed out and kept it all. “As long as it remained unsold, was it not still your own? And [even] after it was sold, was not [the money] at your disposal and under your control?�(Acts 5:4) But as Jesus made very clear, joining the community of active preachers meant total commitment.

Help any?


.

[Prince]

Scripture say's" All your children shall be taught by God and great will be your childrens blessings".

It is written in the prophets: They shall all be taught by God. Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me.

Whoever has my commandments and keeps them is the one who loves me. And whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and reveal myself to him."

Only the son knows the father and only the Father knows the son and whoever the son wishes reveal him.