Posted on 04/08/2005 4:22:22 AM PDT by TheTruthess
Learning how to study the Bible does not need to be difficult. We have learned two basic principles that are fairly simple: read to learn (know), and develop an intense desire to discover the truth.
We will now focus on a third principle that is just as basic. Reading is necessary to understand the meaning of scripture and, as we have noted, it must be reading with the goal of gaining knowledge. But, there exists an additional dimension to this principle of reading: We must read all that the scriptures have to say about a subject in order to have a complete understanding of that subject. We must, in essence, get the whole truth.
As you might suspect, this principle is one that we understand and respect in areas of study outside the Bible. No one assumes that a newspaper headline conveys all of the truth contained in the article that follows it. The headline, while grabbing your attention and certainly functioning as a memorable part of the story is just that - only a part of the story. Likewise, when you read a passage in the Bible, it is important to keep in mind that it is only part of the story.
Consider the first verse in the Bible, Genesis 1:1, which states: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." What is taught concerning the creation of the physical world in this passage is true, but it is certainly not all that the Bible has to say about the subject. There is so much more to be understood. To illustrate this note: (1) Psalm 33:6-9 informs us that God created and sustains the world by His word; (2) Hebrews 11:3 teaches us that God made the creation out of nothing; and (3) John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:15-17 and Hebrews 1:2 instruct us that Christ played a role in the creation. These three corollary thoughts to creation are not exhaustive either; to be complete we would have to survey all of the Bible and glean every passage that relates to the topic. Only then would we be able to say that we have fairly represented what the Bible teaches about creation.
To further impress upon you just how important this principle is, consider this lengthier Bible account. On the night that he was betrayed, Jesus went to the garden of Gethsemane. All four of the "gospels" refer to the events of this night, and it is by examining the totality of their teaching that we demonstrate the importance of getting the whole truth.
When we examine the events of this night, as Mark 14:47 states, we note: "And one of those who stood by drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear." If you were teaching somebody about the events that took place on this occasion, and you referred to this passage, you would be examining a passage that taught the truth, but you would not be examining all that the Bible teaches about the subject.
In addition to studying Mark's account, we must note what else the Bible says about this subject. Matthew says: "And suddenly, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear." (Matthew 26:51) Mark's account told us: (1) someone near Jesus drew a sword and (2) that person hit a servant of the high priest with the sword, thus cutting off his ear. Matthew adds the following information: (1) The person standing nearby was "with Jesus" and (2) he used "his sword" (as opposed to someone else's) to cut off the ear of the high priest's servant (KJV in Mark simply says "drew a sword," but other translations say "drew his sword.")
Upon closer examination, we learn that this is still not all of the truth. Luke states: "When those around Him saw what was going to happen, they said to Him, 'Lord, shall we strike with the sword?' And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus answered and said, 'Permit even this.' And He touched this ear and healed him" (Luke 22:49-51). From Luke we learn: (1) Those with Jesus first asked about using swords. (2) It was the right ear of the high priest's servant that was cut off. (3) Jesus said "Permit even this." And, (4) Jesus touched the ear of the servant and healed him. Had we consulted only Mark or Matthew, or even both, we would have missed this additional information. Only Luke presents it. To have ignored what Luke said would be tantamount to studying only part of the truth.
There exists one more account of this event. John informs us: "Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. . . . One of the servants of the high priest, a relative of him whose ear Peter cut off, said, 'Did I not see you in the garden with Him?'" (John 18:10, 26).
From this passage we learn: (1) It was Simon Peter who drew his sword and cut off the ear of the high priest's servant. (2) The servant was Malchus. And, (3) one of Malchus' relatives was present at the time of the incident.
Though each of the four accounts presented the truth, no single account presented all of the truth. We learned all of the truth when we studied all of the evidence. Everything that we learned up to that point was true, but it was only part of the truth.
The lesson is clear. We must study all of the Bible's teaching on a subject before we claim to know the truth. This principle applies to everything the Bible teaches. If we only study some of what the Bible says about a topic, then it is possible that we will have overlooked some passage that would shed more light on our study. Such is the case with the example given about the events that took place in the garden of Gethsemane on the night that Jesus was betrayed, and such is the case with all Bible subjects.
Before we can know all about the Bible - we must be willing to study all of the Bible.
Read to learn. Study with great desire. Read all you can.
In order to understand the "whole" truth of the scriptures you must also have a fundamental understanding of the history of the church. It is not enough simply to read scripture looking for subtle nuances. You must have an underlying grasp of doctrinal positions and ideas. The context of scripture changes within each doctrinal position. For example, the monergistic and synergistic folks aggressively discuss the meaning of John 3:16, Romans 9 or 1 Tim 2:4. Catholics have a different interpretation from Protestants of John 5. The interpretations of these “simple” verses are different depending on each theological perspective.
It is my belief that the doctrines and theologies which are represented within today’s culture have become twisted and distorted, far from the intended meaning. I liken our time to King Josiah where Judaism became distorted from the founding principles; so much so the people were practicing some warped form of Judaism. Nowadays, in order to fully understand the context of scripture, I would suggest you also need to have a fundamental grasp of church history and the theological changes that occurred throughout time.
If you want to read the Bible the way the first Christians read it, pick up the Church Fathers and read them. They heard the Apostles with their own ears, or were taught by those who heard the Apostles. These writers give us the best interpretation of what the Scripture means. I especially enjoy reading their interpretation of the OT to "prove" Christianity, such as Irenaeus' "Proof of Apostolic Preaching". A lot of good stuff there.
Regards
But you would agree that these writers were uninspired, wouldn't you? Must we read the uninspired to understand the inspired? Kinda like in high school were I read cliff notes instead of the book.
I agree completely. The proper way to study the Bible is to go into the study without preconceived doctrinal prejudices. I know that is hard to do sometimes, but it is still the proper way. The Bible should shape our beliefs, instead of our beliefs shaping the Bible.
"But you would agree that these writers were uninspired, wouldn't you? Must we read the uninspired to understand the inspired?"
Certainly. The Bible, and it alone, is inspired and inerrant written Word of God. However, it is quite obvious by looking at the number of Protestant denominations, that the Bible is not self-explanatory. Apostolic Tradition, the way the early church interpreted the Bible, is necessary to determine WHAT God wanted taught to His Church. The Apostles were given the task to teach and preach (by Jesus/God), and they took this job seriously, as their successors continue to do. That is why it is necessary to read the Bible in the same way as the Apostles read it/wrote it 2000 years ago.
Example...Who is Christ and what is His relationship to Christ? Reading the Church's History, we see that there was a controversy on this question: Was Jesus the essence of God, or somehow "born" of the Father, a creation? The Bible is not clear, and if you read the "discussions" back and forth at the time, you will find that the Church and the Arians both referred to Scripture. What won out was that the Church could trace their interpretations back to the Apostles, while the Arians couldn't. Theirs was a novelty not taught by Christ. To say this question was unimportant is to not realize that if we say "Christ is a creation", then why are we worshipping Him? It is paramount that we maintain that Christ was/is God. Think of how our Church would be changed if this wasn't the case!
Reading the Bible without the Traditions of the Church leads to a problem: Luther said it well "...for every head, there is a different doctrine, a different faith". 20,000 Protestant denominations bears out his realization of the monster that he created, Sola Scriptura.
Regards
"The proper way to study the Bible is to go into the study without preconceived doctrinal prejudices"
Impossible. Everyone has preconceived notions and prejudices. It is clear, and Scriptural, that one needs help in interpreting Scripture to come to the same teaching that the Apostles meant to be taught (Check out Acts and the Ethiopian - How can I understand it?). Hold onto the traditions, whether oral or written. Can you show me where the Bible says that is no longer applicable, or is that a tradition of men? If one humbly submits to the Church's teaching authority, there is not a problem that "beliefs shape the Bible". This problem only occurs when one, in his pride, thinks he has figured it out on his own.
Regards
?????
"Who is Christ and what is His relationship to Christ?"
LOL!!! Sorry about that. I meant who is Christ and what is His relationship to the Father.
Thanks for catching that.
Regards
So much of what you have said here is just not true.
Most of the early church fathers did NOT hear the apostles with their own ears. Most of them are 2nd through 5th century and later ... and the apostles were long dead well before the end of the 1st century.
Polycarp - may have known John, late 1st century
Justin Martyr - mid 2nd century
Irenaeus - late 2nd centrury
Tertullian - late 2nd to early 3rd century
Augustine - late 4th to early 5th century
etc. etc.
While I enjoy reading what they thought about the Scriptures, its presumption that they have the best interpretations.
My understanding (though not solid as it should be) is that the early church fathers had plenty of poor interpretations as well ...
Ahhhhhhhhh ... So.
Now it makes sense.
"So much of what you have said here is just not true."
If we define "Church Fathers" as defined by the Church, including writers all the way up to St. John Damascene, you are correct technically. However, when you read Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, the writers of the first one hundred years, knowing that they were the second generation of Christians, in some cases, the same generation as John the Evangelist, you see that there is a continuity of teaching.
Your postion presumes (correct me if I am wrong) that the general teachings of these men became totally corrupted so quickly after the death of the Apostles, without anyone making a stir. These same men, who marched off to martyrdom in some cases because they would not compromise to paganism are being accused by you of corrupting Christ's teachings in one generation, despite Christ's guarantee that the Church would be protected by the Holy Spirit. Remember, these guys REALLY believed that Jesus rose from the dead. They had seen miracles. They trusted in the teachings that the Pastorals so nicely show was a prized possession to be protected at all costs.
"While I enjoy reading what they thought about the Scriptures, its presumption that they have the best interpretations."
I have learned a lot from reading their spiritual insights into the Scriptures - men who practically had memorized the Scriptures. What is "best" is subjective, as everyone has different needs.
By reading these Apostolic Fathers (a term dubbed to the first two generations of writers), we see that John 6 REALLY meant His FLESH, not some spiritual meaning. Here is a prime example of where Sola Scriptura and bringing presumptions to Bible reading absolutely fail. If one is wrong about their interpretation of John 6, their salvation is in jeopardy..."unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you shall not have eternal life". According to Protestants, these gents were completely wrong on what Jesus meant by Flesh. How did that happen? Where can one show that the Apostles taught differently?
"My understanding (though not solid as it should be) is that the early church fathers had plenty of poor interpretations as well ..."
And those interpretations were promptly declared so! For example, consider Origen. His idea of the resurrection is finally nuanced - his definition of "spiritual man" is not gnostic. However, other Catholics, didn't like the way he worded his musings. Some "simple-minded" might move away from the Apostolic Tradition that our bodies would be raised after death. It is very interesting to read these back and forths, and has helped me personally to see what the Church teaches and why they came to their determinations.
Regards
It is also quite obvious that by looking at the extreme divisions among early churches (4th Century and earlier), nevermind the 1600 years of division that followed, that the way the early church fathers interpreted the inspired Word of God has never been as consistent as you are trying to portray it here. Furthermore, as THE Great Communicator, God has passed on His Word to us to tell us what He wanted to teach us. And He has provided us the comfort and tutoring of the Holy Spirit to understand His will. And while there are several Protestant denominations, their fundamental understanding of the Bible is essentially the same. And they share that fundamental understanding with all Christian faiths, including the Catholic church. The fact that church traditions differ, is just further evidence that man can never be as true and consistent as the Word of God. Trust the Word of God. Not the word (and teachings) of man.
Given a solid, balanced pattern for studying the whole counsel of God in Scripture . . .
I don't understand what has left Daniel, Ezek, Matt 24, Acts 2, I Cor 12-14 . . . so seemingly obscure/easily mangled to/by you.
Neither as a psychologist nor as a Christian can I really understand that near as well as I'd like.
I don't know if it's more a certain kind of rearing;
or
a certain kind of Sunday School/church/denominational teaching;
or
a certain kind of psychological set, cluster of dynamics;
or
a lot of the above.
Most of the overseas youngish believers I know of who have had no preconditioning and merely take The Bible, perhaps as you suggest . . . and read it and take it logically at face value--end up with a very Biblical understanding of Scripture, the 2nd Coming, the end-times--rather close to my own understanding with insignificant variations, if any.
Why you seem to have been unable to do the same is real mystifying to me. But I'd love to be enlightened.
Yes,! and no doubt
one has to know and understand as well
all the tidy little boxes full of the trillions of additional laws, rules and regulations so pontifically elaborated on by the religious rulers of Jesus' dusty pathed days.
/sar
Except you become as a little child, you shall in no wise enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
I wonder how many thousands of volumes of commentaries, histories, cultural summaries etc. little children carry around in their noggins?
I confess that I only really read your post after Quix responded to it, but I wish I had read it earlier. I simply could not agree with you more. The more I read about church history, the more I understand the events of history, and why church doctrine has developed into what it is today. There is no church today that can claim to be what the Apostles intended it to be. The only thing consistent about church doctrine has been the fact that almost no aspect of it is consistent. While I am not Orthodox, I credit the Orthodox church with being the closest to the original churches of early Christian history, but that isn't saying much. However, in the final analysis, I am certain God was very much aware that what Christ started, man would currupt. I have no doubt that God has included man's fallibility in all matters in His plan. I am thankful for the record of His written Word, and I wait with some anticipation to find out how far off we've strayed from where Christ left things.
"If we define "Church Fathers" as defined by the Church"
I define them as the original apostles. Peter, Paul, John, as well as writers James and Jude, warned of false teachers existing, even back then. There is no doubt in my mind, that within minutes of 3,000 being added to the church in Acts 2, the devil was busy concocting methods of deception. After all, remission of sins (Acts 2:38) was a power he just couldn't allow to be preached and obeyed, not without a deceptive fight. See 2 Cor. 11:13-15; the devil and his willing (ignorant or otherwise) followers were (and still are)passing themselves off as apostles and ministers of righteousness.
"By reading these Apostolic Fathers (a term dubbed to the first two generations of writers), we see that John 6 REALLY meant His FLESH, not some spiritual meaning."
Since you despise "sola scriptura", do you delete verse 63 in John chap. 6? "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."
That verse harmonizes with the first few verses of John 15, notably verse 7 "if ye abide in me, and my words abide in you...". (A footnote: Jesus and the disciples are on their way to the garden of Gethsemane as of the last verse of chp 14, "Arise, let us go hence.")
I've said it before, and I say it again: If Jesus was eating the Passover with his disciples, and the bread and wine was literally his flesh and blood, then why did he need to go to the cross? And why did he eat his OWN flesh and blood? Hmmm...strange interpretation, IMO.
And to all a goodnight,
Zuriel
Augustine wrote that the time of Christ is like a pebble cast into a lake producing a ripple effect. Each ripple represents man's corruption of doctrine through time. The further away from the pebble's origin, the more ripples and the greater the corruption.
I think that's an apt description. I believe it is only when we go back and examine each of those ripples can we come to a deeper understanding of what the original splash looked like.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.