Interpreting Scripture

Here are a couple of questions that have been asked about interpreting Scripture. This is not an exhaustive explanation of interpreting Scripture however, it will give you a good start!

1. Give a definition of “canon.” Where does the word come from and what does it mean with relationship to the study of the Bible? Discuss the development of the New Testament and the criteria of canonicity used by the early church. Why did early Christians feel a need to establish an authoritative list of Scripture? What element in the criteria of canonicity is most important in your opinion? Which element is least important in your opinion? Be sure to give reasons why you chose these particular elements. How would you respond to a person who claimed that the canon of the Bible should still be open?


The word canon means rule or measuring stick. The reason for this is because the books in the Bible make up Scripture or canon that is authoritative. McRay wrote, "The term canon in Christianity refers to a group of books acknowledge by the early church as the rule of faith and faith." (1) Enns stated, "The process of the recognition and collection took place in the first centuries of the Christian church." (2) For the Old Testament to be considered in the canonization of the Bible was whether the book indicated that God gave the divine word to the author, the author had to be recognized as a spokesperson for God, and was the book historically accurate. For the New Testament to be recognized to be added the book was inspired, whether the author was an apostle or under apostle authority, and if the book or "letter" was well recognized by the early church. This is also how I would respond to someone that would exclaim that the canonization should be open; there are too many "uninspired" authors" and false teachings even in writing.


There was a need to create the canonization of the Bible to have a unified Bible that was undoubtedly inherent. There were "false teachers" that were teaching wrong doctrine and the early church fathers wanted to stop that before if continued. Many of the biblical authors would discuss false teachers in their letters and those teachers still continued. It was an important decision to canonize the Bible to to stop false teaching however, it still continues.


The most important aspect that I believe that is important in the canonization process is that whether the Bible was written by an apostle or under the authority of an apostle. The reason for this is because even after the resurrection and ascension of Christ there were others that claimed to be written by the authority of God. Many of those "gospels" are still around such as the gospel of Thomas and Mary. Liberally scholars today are starting to to take these gospels seriously especially the gospel of Mary because it is supposedly wrote by Mary of Magdalene.


2. How important is “literary context” to understanding the Bible properly? What are 3 important principles that should guide the practice of interpretation? Define the following terms: immediate context, book context, and Bible context. Which one of these is most useful in hermeneutics? Why? If you were given the task of teaching a class on interpretation, how would you explain the task of understanding the literary context of a passage? Why would it be important in your opinion? What problems could arise if one doesn’t take the literary context into consideration?


The importance of literary context is that the Scripture that is being read in properly understood. Klein wrote, "Misunderstandings can certainly arise when people hear only part of what is said and base their understanding on it." (3) When reading Scripture this means that the best practice for interpreting a verse is to read the Scripture before and after it. This is called immediate context. This will help to ensure that a better understanding of a particular verse is better understood.


Learning the book's context is to understand the who and why of the book. The reader should know who the author was and why the book was written. This will give the reader a bigger picture and fuller understanding of verse that is being interpreted. Context of the Bible is to understand the message of the whole Bible. There is a word of caution in this area. The Scripture of the that is being studied and interpreted other biblical books should be consulted such as those either on the same subject, in the same testament, or by the same author.


All of the elements are very important in hermeneutics because if even one element is left out Scripture can be interpreted in a wrong manner. I have seen "Christians" take one Scripture in the Bible without fully reading the chapter or reading just a few verses after to justify their sins. I have also witnessed preachers behind the pulpit that have preached a sermon behind the pulpit without referencing another Scripture. Again, I have witnessed evangelists that have taken Scripture wholly out of context to fit their "agenda". This is all disheartening, sad, frankly has made me made when I hear this type of preaching or teaching. Not only are they doing those hearing the sermon a disservice, but they are doing themselves a disservice. Examples of Scriptures taken out of context are the Scriptures that discussed Cain and Abel when Hebrews could have been referenced ( and others), but weren't. 1 John 1:8-10 has been taken out of context without reading the preceding verses or the following chapters to justify sin.


I have had the task of teaching about literary context because of the reasons stated above. It is important because people could justify their wrong lifestyles and sins if literary context is not considered. Another Scripture that is taken out of context is that Christ said that we are not to "judge" when then word really means to condemn. Again, in literary context we would have to look at other Scripture where Christ said that a tree will be known by their fruit. In book context we could also look to Paul when he stated in 1 Corinthians 5:12, "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?" If these contexts are not considered then wrong beliefs about biblical texts are being learned.


Soli Deo Gloria,
Roger D. Griggs


References:
1. J.R. McRay, Canon of the Bible in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by Walter A Elwell, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2001), 155.
2. Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Publishers, 2008), Kindle Loc. 3232.
3. William Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2014), 214.

Is this Real or Propaganda?

I'm still hearing about this "Heaven is for Real" propaganda from people. Now, on the rise is the "90 Minutes in Heaven" that recounts the story of a pastor who was "dead" for 90 minutes and saw the "Pearly Gates". 

Personally I have problems with these kind of stories and the millions they make off of them. First, it goes beyond any true doctrine that should be taught. Secondly, it gives people "false hope". Lastly, I truly feel that it's lies that are being taught to bring up more "feel good" religiosity. 

I've researched many of these stories. The "Heaven is for Real" story was finally made right by the boy who claimed he was put up to it by his pastor dad. The problem I have with this "90 Minutes in Heaven" story is that there are too many circumstances that surround this story that doesn't make sense. Don Piper was on his way back from a Baptist Convention when the wreck happened and thus declared dead in 1989; for 90 minutes! If you are dead for 90 minutes, you are dead! If you are truly "clinically" dead for 90 minutes body organs to include the brain begin to truly shut down. You will truly be dead and will not live to tell the story. Also, if you see Heaven, you are there to stay. He wrote his book and first publicized in 2004 (after the event happened six years earlier) which made its way to a recent movie format. If he was going to a Baptist Convention, in my mind he was a Baptist minister right? He was also "exiled" from many people in certain circles. However, now he does much of his ministry in the Pentecostal churches. He is even a pastor in a Pentecostal church. In my mind, I think the only denomination that would truly accept this story is the more charismatic religions. I mean I could go on and on about this! 

Now, that I have stated my opinion about this, what is your opinion? Should we as Christ's ministers leave this alone because as Christ said, "if they aren't against us, they are for us (paraphrased)." Finally, is this kind of propaganda truly necessary to provide hope to the faithless that Heaven is for Real? 

I thought faith consisted more of seeing or hearing such stories as this. "You have faith because you have seen, but better are those who have not seen and have faith". 

Ok, begin with your comments!