So What Did He mean?

[B-A-C]

I am wary of the view that we can obey the Bible without the need for interpreting it. Often we talk of the Bible as the 'users manual', but in fact it is nothing of the sort. It is an account of God revealing himself and his plan for creation to his people in a history that unfolds over hundreds of years. It addresses the needs of people in very different times, places and situations.

Amen to part about obeying without understanding. I am reminded of a story of a prisoner of war that was beaten everyday
because he didn't obey the enemy commander. After the war was over he was commended for not "giving in".
It was then he confessed, "I never understood exactly what it was he wanted me to do".

I divide the old testament and new testament (besides the obvious covenant differences).
The old testament reveals the character of God. He is still same God. He didn't change.
The new testament, the teachings of Jesus/Paul (and the other disciples) are a manual of sorts
of how we should live today, what we should and shouldn't do so to speak.
I don't believe the needs of people 2,000 years ago are really any different from what they need today.

 

[Bendito]

Now this is what I was talking about.....What did God say? He was speaking English in your copy of the Bible...Why do you need to translate it? You speak English...Yes The Bible is a users manual. Yes. Its a history book. Yes its a book of promises. Yes its a wondrous book of teaching, healing, deliverance and just plain cool knowledge...But why do you feel you have to ask "Now what did the author really mean? God meant what He wrote as He wrote it. Period....
To translate it with our measly wisdom is to try to learn God with our petty cranial thinking...Let's just omit the Holy Spirit from our lives here! But then why did Jesus give us the Holy Spirit?
John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Ephesians 6:21
But that ye also may know my affairs, and how I do, Tychicus, a beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord, shall make known to you all things:

John 16:13 (KJV)
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come

Simply lean on the Holy Spirit to teach you and never mind trying to interpret the Word into the language its already in.

 

[amadeus2]

Hi @amadeus2 Fair points all of them.

My understanding of scripture has changed over the years too. I am wary of the view that we can obey the Bible without the need for interpreting it. Often we talk of the Bible as the 'users manual', but in fact it is nothing of the sort. It is an account of God revealing himself and his plan for creation to his people in a history that unfolds over hundreds of years. It addresses the needs of people in very different times, places and situations.

We are richer and wiser if we approach the scriptures with prayerful reverence and care rather than be too quick to announce 'the bible says'.

Yes.
I see the Bible as the dead carcase of Jesus. When we eat of it and it is quickened in us by the Holy Spirit then it will never die.

 

[Hekuran]

Simply lean on the Holy Spirit to teach you and never mind trying to interpret the Word into the language its already in.

Even the apostles worked hard to interpret the Bible. Read Acts 15 - the early church working out the requirements for gentiles to be saved. Peter himself says 'I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God...' In this case he does not say: 'the Holy Spirit has told me'.

It was clearly not an easy debate. Note that the text makes it clear that the pharisees were believers: there's no hint in the text that their actions were considered divisive or destructive in this instance.

Lastly, most of us do not follow the recommendation of the council in Acts 15:20: 'abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood'. How can anyone's decision not to follow this New Testament instruction be explained without some element of interpretation?

 

[Brad Huber]

Even the apostles worked hard to interpret the Bible. Read Acts 15 - the early church working out the requirements for gentiles to be saved. Peter himself says 'I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God...' In this case he does not say: 'the Holy Spirit has told me'.

It was clearly not an easy debate. Note that the text makes it clear that the pharisees were believers: there's no hint in the text that their actions were considered divisive or destructive in this instance.

Lastly, most of us do not follow the recommendation of the council in Acts 15:20: 'abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood'. How can anyone's decision not to follow this New Testament instruction be explained without some element of interpretation?

Have you forgotten the dream Peter had about what was clean and what wasn't? Even though it doesn't say "the Holy Spirit has told me", it does say that the Comforter will guide you in ALL things. Do you know the difference between the Holy Spirits gentle touch and the hard touch when we are too stiff necked to listen? Do you think it even "wise" to do things because we think its good without seeking either the influence of the Holy Spirit or the written words of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Hekuran]

I haven't forgotten any of these things. I'm saying that the church has been interpreting the scriptures since the earliest days.

 

[Curtis]

Interpretation of scripture is not something man does, it is what God does as he teaches him. There will always be a unlearning of things we thought were true, but were not, and a learning of new things to take their place. It is called spiritual growth. Revelation of God's Word will always be seen as "foolishness" to the human un renewed mind because the Wisdom of God is foolishness to the natural man. It is when man interprets the Word he finds himself in trouble with other believers. The Word of God is always taught by God the Father, confirmed by his Word, and the Holy Spirit who bears witness to that truth. If we learn it by any other means it is just knowledge learned by the flesh that will one day pass away.

 

[Bendito]

Even the apostles worked hard to interpret the Bible. Read Acts 15 - the early church working out the requirements for gentiles to be saved. Peter himself says 'I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God...' In this case he does not say: 'the Holy Spirit has told me'.

It was clearly not an easy debate. Note that the text makes it clear that the pharisees were believers: there's no hint in the text that their actions were considered divisive or destructive in this instance.

Lastly, most of us do not follow the recommendation of the council in Acts 15:20: 'abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood'. How can anyone's decision not to follow this New Testament instruction be explained without some element of interpretation?

Wow! This one got me rolling on the floor laughing.....This argument is still going on today...Do we follow the law or not? They were not arguing over interpreting the Word...The Pharisees still wanted to control the believers. Just like today..... "Things must be done in this way." They said. The bible did not give a 'recipe' for salvation, other than to say 'Believe' ... My friend, you might want to read this chapter again.

 

[Hekuran]

The bible did not give a 'recipe' for salvation, other than to say 'Believe' ... My friend, you might want to read this chapter again.

Oh dear! Have you not considered God's covenant with Israel? There's a bit more to it than saying 'believe'...

I don't know where you got the idea that the Pharisees in Acts 15 wanted to control the believers. You are missing the vital point - even though I emphasised it - that the Bible says that they were believers.

 

[Bendito]

Oh dear! Have you not considered God's covenant with Israel? There's a bit more to it than saying 'believe'...

I don't know where you got the idea that the Pharisees in Acts 15 wanted to control the believers. You are missing the vital point - even though I emphasised it - that the Bible says that they were believers.

Here ya go....
Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
That's all it takes to be saved.

The Pharisees were in control of the people for centuries and they wanted to maintain that control

5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

At this point in time the Old Covenant was fulfilled and the New Covenant was in effect. Believe me my friend.....I never forget about covenant...In covenant is life.

 

[Curtis]

Acts 15:1, 5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise

Anyone who tries to mix the Old Testament law, with the righteousness that only comes by faith would be called a "false teacher, brother"

Gal 2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
Gal 2:4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
Gal 2:5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

 

[Hekuran]

And what we are doing in this thread now is finding ways to interpret the scriptures.

• Do Galatians 2 1-10 and Acts 15 refer to the same event?
• Are the believers who belonged to the sect of the pharisees really believers or are they 'false brothers?'
• Peter and James speak the decisive words in the debate - were they persuaded during the debate, or did they come with their minds already made up. And what position had they taken up to this point?
• should we take this as an isolated event or as an indicator that the early church was close to splitting?
• The result of the debate is a compromise - is that what God wanted, or was there a better way?

Answers to any of these - even tentative answers - would require us to do some interpretation.

 

[Bendito]

And what we are doing in this thread now is finding ways to interpret the scriptures.

• Do Galatians 2 1-10 and Acts 15 refer to the same event?
• Are the believers who belonged to the sect of the pharisees really believers or are they 'false brothers?'
• Peter and James speak the decisive words in the debate - were they persuaded during the debate, or did they come with their minds already made up. And what position had they taken up to this point?
• should we take this as an isolated event or as an indicator that the early church was close to splitting?
• The result of the debate is a compromise - is that what God wanted, or was there a better way?

Answers to any of these - even tentative answers - would require us to do some interpretation.

And what we are doing in this thread now is finding ways to interpret the scriptures.

• Do Galatians 2 1-10 and Acts 15 refer to the same event?
• Are the believers who belonged to the sect of the pharisees really believers or are they 'false brothers?'
• Peter and James speak the decisive words in the debate - were they persuaded during the debate, or did they come with their minds already made up. And what position had they taken up to this point?
• should we take this as an isolated event or as an indicator that the early church was close to splitting?
• The result of the debate is a compromise - is that what God wanted, or was there a better way?

Answers to any of these - even tentative answers - would require us to do some interpretation.

I'm sorry Hekuran....What it takes is going to the Holy Spirit for instruction. HE is the teacher...Interpretation is not in any way a teacher....On the other hand...your word usage above indicates a certain issue with semantics....Are you talking about discernment instead of interpretation perhaps? Still discernment is best guided by the Holy Spirit too. Discernment not guided by the Holy Spirit it will be guided by another spirit...
There can be NO growth without one leans on the Holy Spirit for instruction.

 

[Hekuran]

@Bendito The opening post talks about talks about people talking about what the Word means and that fits with the way I am thinking about interpretation.

Reading back over the thread, I think the fundamental difference between what we are saying might be in our view of human intellect. Your posts seem to pit human intellect and the Holy Spirit against each other, I think of them as working together.

Is that a fair analysis?

 

[Bendito]

@Bendito The opening post talks about talks about people talking about what the Word means and that fits with the way I am thinking about interpretation.

Reading back over the thread, I think the fundamental difference between what we are saying might be in our view of human intellect. Your posts seem to pit human intellect and the Holy Spirit against each other, I think of them as working together.

Is that a fair analysis?

Not at all...The opening post was about somebody saying, or writing something, saying what he means, and then others sit around trying to figure out what they think he said instead of taking what he said as he said it. If I write something to you, a letter, and you read it and try to convince yourself that I said something different from what I actually said. I would be insulted or at least frustrated....I wonder how God feels when you do that to Him.

 

[Hekuran]

OK. If interpretation is about finding meanings that are different to what has been said, I too would want nothing to do with it.

At the same time I see the honest seeking after what the Scriptures mean as honourable and a vital part of my Christian growth.

 

[Dave M]

#Hekuran.

Lets take this verse for example
2 Corinthians 8:9
For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich.

when you listen to the prosperity gospel they take the word rich here and apply to earthly materialism and make it all about me me me.

When I see the word rich here I take it mean eternal life and the riches of salvation.

So Hekuran and everyone else how do you see the word rich being used in the above verse.

I mean Jesus talks about the traps of being rich and how it will make it harder for you to enter heaven, so why on earth would this mean he wants us to earthly materialism rich??

The word Rich in the bible takes on different meanings. Many words with multiple meanings exist in the English language. Technically, almost every word has a multiple meaning
Read more at Words with Multiple Meanings


what say you,???????????????

 

[Hekuran]

I think that the primary thing that Paul has in mind is our inheritance in the Kingdom of God, and not so much about accumulating money or possessions. We need to interpret scripture by scripture - that is, we seek to work out how each part of the Bible relates to the whole of the word of God. I agree that prosperity teachings fall down on this point - emphasising and exaggerating passages that talk positively about riches and minimising or ignoring altogether those that talk of the dangers of wealth. It's all to easy to use a metaphor for our heavenly reward in a way that sounds like a promise of prosperity here and now.

Other meanings of riches? Following Jesus has also brought me riches in the community life I have, it brings me a richer appreciation of everything I have in this life. My bank balance is not especially pretty reading at the moment, but I am rich in hope in a way that many of my friends are not.

 

[Hekuran]

One passage that begs for interpretation is the opening miracle of John's gospel - turning the water into wine in John 2. At the end of the account of the miracle John describes it as the first of the signs. 'Sign' is a strong hint that the miracle has a greater significance beyond itself.

Taking the key elements of the miracle - wedding ceremony, water, empty ceremonial jars, the bridegroom - and thinking about how all these things were used as motifs in the Old Testament gives some very powerful but subtle clues about who Jesus claimed to be.

In the Old Testament wine is often used in the as a symbol for God's blessing in the coming age. Isaiah 25:6 “On this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined.”

Out of the empty ceremonial jars of the law comes the blessing of the new age. Jesus is pointing to God doing something new - bringing about the fulfillment of the law and ushering in God's Kingdom.

If we constrain ourselves to stick with facts and not to look beyond them for their meaning, then we miss out on what God has to say for us.

 

[Dave M]

outstanding Hekuran