I agree with the bulk of what’s written on Josh’s post, “Interpreting the Bible” at the Smoak House. To his well-stated comments I would like to add the following thoughts.
Nowhere in Scripture (including 1 Timothy 3:16-17) does God guarantee universal applicability of the totality of Scripture; rather, I’m convinced by several factors that His first priority was for the Scriptures to be relevant to the original audiences, while Providentially ensuring ongoing relevance for secondary audiences. Relevance to us can never be divorced from the relevance to them, else scarcely would He even use a book written long ago and far away in foreign languages to talk to us.I believe that’s why we see differences in genre and style: God not only allowed, but chose the eclectic literary variation we see in the Bible in order to be as relevant as possible to the original audience, and we as diligent students of the Scripture must put a little sweat and tears into it to get at what He was saying back then before we bother Him with the “So what’s it mean to me” stuff. The Spirit’s illumination comes in when it comes time to convert what it meant to them to what that means for us.
It is against all the facts to assume, as so many modern Christians of all stripes do, that God snips a little bit here and a little bit there, all out of context, and cobbles them together for my own personal edification like a kidnapper assembles a message from magazine and newspaper lettering. My God is a bit more ingenious than that. The fact is that our omnipotent God could have created His own universally-relevant genre, could have written His truth on titanium tablets, could have chosen a medium not specific to any language - He could have, but He didn’t. He chose rather to take men tied to their own languages and cultures and use the literary styles relevant to them, all of which need to be translated and explained to people of other times and cultures, not by some magical Holy Spirit decoder ring, but by a little elbow grease. Why should it surprise us that what it meant to them was intended to be the most fundamental part of what it means to us? God had the Church canonize Scripture in order to give us a record of His interactions with humanity that continue to reveal divine character, methods, and principles, not to provide the Holy Spirit a book of selected quotations as an inventory from which He could draw when He wanted to give us personal revelation.
By digging in a little time of personal research and interaction with other believers, we show that we are in earnest and take God’s choice to interact with history seriously, and the Holy Spirit is then happier to apply it to us as He intended it. Even a simple and uneducated Christian, if devoted to truth, is able to glean this sort of truth. For instance, do a little research on the book of Zephaniah: he prophesied Nineveh’s fall. What good does that do me now? Well, a little extra-biblical research (which can be found in the notes of most Bibles nowadays) shows that the perverse city of Nineveh did indeed fall, and not long after Zephaniah’s prophecy. Two very profound yet unfathomably significant observations are 1) that God does what He says He will do and 2) that God takes sin deadly seriously.
Of course there’s a whole lot more to Zephaniah than that, but I think this demonstrates that the frequently-posed argument, “Well, not everyone can learn Hebrew and Greek!” has little bearing on what I’m saying. I would also add here that God can give us new insight into things in a macro sense than the original audience had: we can see the serpent’s head crushed in ways the original Genesis audience were incapable of. We can see other prophecies fulfilled in ways they couldn’t. This is all what is known as “progression of revelation”, a modus operandi that God seems to be fond of.
If the Bible’s just there for the Holy Spirit to extract rhema words from, why waste the space with all the non-refrigerator-quality prophecies in Haggai and the drudgery of Leviticus and the chronologies of Genesis? I suppose that’s why it’s so common for Christians to try to find hidden meanings in everything - maybe sometimes the minutiae of the esoteric requirements of the Law just don’t have to have any greater significance than what occurred to the ancient Israelites, namely, “Boy, keeping this Torah is tough stuff!”
Okay, that’s the end of my comment. As for all my posts, especially the ones I seem the most opinionated about, I would like to request feedback. If you disagree, you don’t have to formulate a crushing response; if what I say is wrong, perhaps merely dislodging a brick will cause it topple. I may be passionate, but I’m more passionate for truth than for a well-formulated argument.
Email this post to a friend

2 responses so far ↓
1 Leah // Sep 27, 2007 at 1:54 am
I completely agree that our interpretation of the Bible should be contextual, and that we should certainly study matters with an eye to original audience, meaning, and purpose, BUT to deny that the Holy Spirit ever illuminates truths in a non-contextual way is limiting, I think. God can speak to us individually through a donkey, a song, or even a street sign if he wants to, and though we should never rely on cool coincidental-seeming things for wisdom, they can often remind us of God’s favor, his promises, or his concern for the little details of our lives. The danger, I believe, lies in preaching those truths as relevant for everyone, or turning them into Christian catchphrases (or worship songs) which show no knowledge of the original text.
I know that God sometimes gives random rhemas because I’ve experienced it. One day I was very angry with a woman in our church about something. In conversation with Mom and Saige, I disgustedly blasted this woman with a very specific insult: “But she’s just so COMMON.” I continued through the day unrepentant, until that night, reading my Bible before bed, the Holy Spirit directed me to Acts 10:15 in my KJV Bible, which ends with God’s warning to Peter: “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.” I realize that contextually, this is a warning to Peter about his attitude toward the Gentiles, but for me that night, it was a call to conviction using the very same word I had spewed about that woman. I wasn’t doing an in-depth study on Acts, surrounded by commentaries, but God nonetheless spoke. Is this his primary way of speaking through his word? No. But that doesn’t mean he never does it.
2 Steve // Sep 27, 2007 at 2:56 am
Thanks for the input!
Please realize, I never said anything about God not being able to do whatever He wants. Being omnipotent, I’m sure He is capable of removing things from context, of using a misleading translation to point out bad attitudes, of doing anything He feels like He needs to. What I am saying is that such a use of Scripture is out of the ordinary, and not a function of the very nature of Scripture itself, contrary to what some Christians believe. God made the earth to orbit the Sun; if He ever chooses, there is no doubt in my mind that He can make it begin to orbit Io. But in the same way that it is not in the nature of the earth to orbit Io, it is not in the nature of the words of Scripture to “orbit” unrelated circumstances. God can make them do that, yes, but I certainly agree that it is less likely than our hearing God speak after in-depth Bible studies, while we are surrounded by commentaries.
Leave a Comment