The Importance of Bible Study

/

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so (Acts 17:11).

Study to shew yourself  approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth (2Timothy 2:15).

The importance of Bible Study

“Surfing the  net” researching what groups or people were saying about studying the Bible I came across this comment, whose source is Nairobi, Kenya and when I first read it I laughed for I can identify with the writer: I remember sitting in a Wednesday evening Bible study listening to those around me sharing their ignorance on the subject of Bible interpretation. The general consensus of those present, including the teacher, who was also the preacher, could be summed up like this: The Bible doesn’t need any interpretation and simply says what is means and means what it says. To substantiate their position, 2 Peter 1:20 was erroneously, and tellingly, cited, which says, “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation.”  According to these Christians, this passage proved conclusively that the Bible was not written to be interpreted by man, but simply to be obeyed. I can assure you it was a terribly frustrating evening!

Could we not say then that the Bible does say what it means and means what it says?

However, if we remain convinced of that point, then how can we know what the Bible means without making some kind of interpretation?

Some Basic Facts about the Bible

  • It was written across 1600 years [1500 B.C. to 100 A.D.]
  • Three languages can be found in the original writings: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek
  • The entire book is set in a Middle Eastern Cultural context
  • There are about 40 writers of what we call the Bible, and they were of vastly different occupations and backgrounds:
    • Moses, political leader trained in the universities of Egypt
    • Peter, fisherman
    • Amos, herdsman
    • Joshua, military general
    • Nehemiah, cup bearer to the king of Persia
    • Daniel, prime minister in the courts of Babylon
    • Luke, physician
    • Solomon, philosopher king
    • Matthew, tax collector
    • Paul, rabbi and tentmaker

 Each book was written under different circumstances

    • Moses in the wilderness
    • Jeremiah in a dungeon
    • Daniel in a palace
    • Paul traveling or inside prison walls
    • Luke while traveling
    • John in exile on the isle of Patmos
    • David wrote during a time of war
    • Peter wrote while Israel was under Roman domination
    • Joshua wrote while invading the land of Canaan.

 Each book has a central theme and purposes:

  • Genesis is a book of beginnings where we learn of sin and humanity’s fall from perfection.
  • Isaiah wrote to warn Israel of God’s coming judgment on their sin;
  • Matthew wrote to prove to the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah;
  • The Psalms are part of Wisdom Literature which reveals the human condition and attributes of God
  • John writes to show the divinity of Jesus and his oneness with God
  • Zechariah wrote to encourage a disheartened Israel who had returned from Babylonian exile;
  • Paul wrote addressing problems in different Asian and European churches.
  • John’s book we call “The Revelation of John” focuses on the end of the age and the eventual triumph of God over sin.

With these facts in mind, the question arises “how can a person far removed from the time of its writing, the people it centered upon, and from different cultures know its teachings without some kind of interpretation?”

II Peter 1:20 is not prohibiting us from interpreting Scripture.  If so, it would conflict with Paul’s second letter to Timothy (II Timothy 2:15), which says, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”

What then, is II Peter 1:20 telling the reader?  Simply this: No prophecy of Scripture ever originated with men “for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (v. 21).

In other words, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16). This is, of course, my interpretation of the passage. But, more importantly, this is the correct interpretation!  How do I know?  Because I interpreted this passage within its historical, grammatical, cultural, and logical context keeping in mind the unity of the scripture.

It is a logical conclusion that without the right interpretation, I cannot make the proper application of God’s Word to my life; without the proper application of God’s Word to my life, I am not going to be able to obey His Will; and without obedience to His Will, I am lost!

Study

II Timothy 2:15    Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not             to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Acts 17:10-12

10    And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming [thither] went into the synagogue of the Jews.

11   These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

12   Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

It is essential to take the entire Bible as the Word of God and try to see it as a whole work:

 Isaiah 28:9-12

9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? [them that are] weaned from the milk, [and] drawn from the breasts.

10   For precept [must be] upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little:

11   For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

12   To whom he said, This [is] the rest [wherewith] ye may cause the weary to rest; and this [is] the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

 

II Corinthians 13:1    This [is] the third [time] I am coming to you. In the mouth of two        or three witnesses shall every word be established.

John 8:17    It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.

 

Examples of Scripture taken out of text or interpreted contrary to Bible as a whole

I Corinthians 15:29   Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the  dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

The Bible clearly stands on its internal interpretation, that is why Paul wrote the Corinthians that this was the third time he was writing them, because…In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established [II Corinthians 13:1].

Let us take the claim that baptism is for the dead.  We can find more than three that links baptism to death (and subsequent resurrection):

  • Romans 6:3-4  Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?  4  Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father,   even so we also should walk in newness of life.
  • Galatians 3:27    For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
  • I Peter 3:21    The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

BUT-We find no other reference of baptizing for the dead.  Then according to the Bible’s own standard for establishing doctrine, how can one support the practice of baptizing for dead relatives, or friends?

Therefore, according to Bible interpretation and understanding, the passage is best derived from the text and what the flow of the scripture teaches-which is summarized in I Corinthians 15 itself:

  • Paul in this section of his letter to the church at Corinth deals with the lack of understanding about the resurrection and the controversy of some not believing it to be true.
  • Some in the church believed there was no resurrection from the dead. Paul relates what he experienced and knows (that he saw the resurrected Christ in vision-Acts 9).
  • Paul uses this entire chapter to defend the doctrine of the resurrection-that there would be a future resurrection, and what we will look like.
  • This is the subject and the context of this passage.
  • Paul states in verse 29, after everything is in control by God (verses 17 and 28), “Why else would people be baptized, just to be dead?” (No resurrection). Then Paul goes on with the subject, ” . . . if the dead rise not at all?  why are they then baptized, for the dead?” (or just be dead?)
  • Paul is simply stating that there is no reason to be baptized if you are not to be resurrected.

Another troublesome aspect of study is how does one interpret the scriptures when there appears to be inconsistencies?

Exodus 21:23-25 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Leviticus 24:19-20: And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him [again].

Deuteronomy 19:21. And thine eye shall not pity; [but] life [shall go] for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

In contrast to

Matthew 5:38-41: Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a  tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall  smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.  And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat,  let him have [thy] cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

Another passage:

Leviticus 20:10   And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man’s wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

John 8:3-11

3     And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4     They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5     Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6     This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with [his] finger wrote on the ground, [as though he heard them not].

7     So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8     And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9     And they which heard [it], being convicted by [their own] conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, [even] unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10    When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11    She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

 

We can easily point to Jesus as taking the law beyond behavior and actions and extend it into the spiritual part of man.  But to some that is too much of a leap, so I would suggest that one follow some well thought out guidelines for interpreting the Bible.  There are several lists, but I think this list summarizes how to read and interpret the Bible.   Remember, John Wesley used the Quadrilateral as a guide to interpret the bible:

  • scripture
  • personal experience
  • church tradition
  • reason.

Eight Rules of Interpretation

“And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” [2 Peter 1:19,20 NAS]

We can’t have a “sure word” about the meaning of Scripture (or anything else) unless we have a sure method to interpret the words. The following eight rules are the center of all grammatical interpretation. They have been accepted and used by scholars from Socrates to the present. While my hope is that they will be used to “rightly divide the word of truth” of the Holy Bible, they are equally applicable to legal, historical, and other such language.

1) The rule of DEFINITION: What does the word mean? Any study of Scripture must begin with a study of words. Define your terms and then keep to the terms defined. The interpreter should conscientiously abide by the plain meaning of the words. This quite often may require using a Hebrew/English or Greek/English lexicon in order to make sure that the sense of the English translation is understood. A couple of good examples of this are the Greek words “allos” and “heteros”. Both are usually translated as “another” in English – yet “allos” literally means “another of the same type” and “heteros” means “another of a different type.”

2) The rule of USAGE: It must be remembered that the Old Testament was written originally by, to and for Jews. The words and idioms must have been intelligible to them – just as the words of Christ when talking to them must have been. The majority of the New Testament likewise was written in a milieu of Greco-Roman (and to a lesser extent Jewish) culture and it is important to not impose our modern usage into our interpretation. It is not worth much to interpret a great many phrases and histories if one’s interpretations are shaded by pre-conceived notions and cultural biases, thereby rendering an inaccurate and ineffectual lesson.

3) The rule of CONTEXT: The meaning must be gathered from the context. Every word you read must be understood in the light of the words that come before and after it. Many passages will not be understood at all, or understood incorrectly, without the help afforded by the context. A good example of this is the Mormon practice of using 1 Cor. 8:5b: “…for there be gods many and lords many…” as a “proof text” of their doctrine of polytheism. However, a simple reading of the whole verse in the context of the whole chapter (e.g. where Paul calls these gods “so-called”), plainly demonstrates that Paul is not teaching polytheism.

4) The rule of HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: The interpreter must have some awareness of the life and society of the times in which the Scripture was written. The spiritual principle will be timeless but often can’t be properly appreciated without some knowledge of the background. If the interpreter can have in his mind what the writer had in his mind when he wrote – without adding any excess baggage from the interpreter’s own culture or society – then the true thought of the Scripture can be captured resulting in an accurate interpretation. Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “Our only interest in the past is for the light it throws upon the present.”

5) The rule of LOGIC: Interpretation is merely logical reasoning. When interpreting Scripture, the use of reason is everywhere to be assumed. Does the interpretation make sense? The Bible was given to us in the form of human language and therefore appeals to human reason – it invites investigation. It is to be interpreted as we would any other volume: applying the laws of language and grammatical analysis. As Bernard Ramm said:”What is the control we use to weed out false theological speculation? Certainly the control is logic and evidence… interpreters who have not had the sharpening experience of logic…may have improper notions of implication and evidence. Too frequently such a person uses a basis of appeal that is a notorious violation of the laws of logic and evidence.” (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, Boston: W. A. Wilde, 1956)

6) The rule of PRECEDENT: We must not violate the known usage of a word and invent another for which there is no precedent. Just as a judge’s chief occupation is the study of previous cases, so must the interpreter use precedents in order to determine whether they really support an alleged doctrine. Consider the Bereans in Acts 17:10-12 who were called “noble” because they searched the Scriptures to determine if what Paul taught them was true.

7) The rule of UNITY: The parts of Scripture being interpreted must be construed with reference to the significance of the whole. An interpretation must be consistent with the rest of Scripture. An excellent example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity. No single passage teaches it, but it is consistent with the teaching of the whole of Scripture (e.g. the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are referred to individually as God; yet the Scriptures elsewhere teach there is only one God).

8) The rule of INFERENCE: An inference is a fact reasonably implied from another fact. It is a logical consequence. It derives a conclusion from a given fact or premise. It is the deduction of one proposition from another proposition. Such inferential facts or propositions are sufficiently binding when their truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence. Competent evidence means such evidence as the nature of the thing to be proved admits. Satisfactory evidence means that amount of proof which would ordinarily satisfy an unprejudiced mind beyond a reasonable doubt. Jesus used this rule when he proved the resurrection of the dead to the unbelieving Sadducees in Matt. 22:23-33.

Study to shew yourself  approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane [and] vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness (II Timothy 2:15-16).