Reading the Bible Clearly
There have always been certain passages in the Bible that I felt strange about. What I was taught did not seem to fit with what I read in the Bible. For example, I used to read James say “Faith without deeds is dead” with a twinge of guilt, or I’d read Paul talk about tongues, prophecies, and miracles and get the feeling that he was talking to somebody else, or I’d read Paul’s seemingly harsh words to women and wonder why, then, Jesus was so kind and empowering to them. It hasn’t been until the last few years that I’ve been able to read certain passages clearly - as if they were written to me and were meant to be followed instead of assented to intellectually or rationalized.
Humanity has a long history of interpreting our own desires into what we read in the Bible, and it continues today. Of course, it requires some complicated exegesis, and we have to carefully explain it to the common churchgoer who cannot be expected to understand the Bible properly for themselves, but in the end we have a Bible and a God that we can be comfortable with. Mark Roberts has this to say about our “exegetical cleverness” (you can read the whole sermon here):
For many of us, this is how we view God: as an all-powerful, majestic Sovereign, but one from whom we are protected by our fences of theology and limited expectations. Sure, God once did amazing things, unpredictable things, even scary things with his people. But that was long ago in Bible times. Now we have the Bible itself, a document we can control with our exegetical cleverness, so the omnipotent Lord, the God of Pentecost, can remain safely within his pen of our biblical interpretations. We can study this God. We can admire this God. We can even feel a certain kind of awe for this God. But, thank God, we don’t have to deal with the unpredictable might of a God who actually does supernatural things in our lives.
To my relief I’ve discovered that, with wisdom and humility, the Bible can more often than not be read in a straightforward manner, but it is by no means safe to do so. I have to accept that the Bible doesn’t always say what I want it to say. I want the Bible to say that I can live my comfortable life. I want it to say that I can keep all the stuff I collect. I want it to say that I can have my GameCube and play Mario Kart everyday. I want it to say that I don’t have to worry about the poor, or the sick, or really anyone but myself and the people close to me. I want it to say that being liked is important and that I’m a better person because people like me. I want it to say that God will bless my life materially if I follow most of His rules. I want it to say that I don’t have to leave my country, my friends, my family, and everything I’ve known to live in a place where no one is like me and I am the outsider.
I want to find in the Bible some assurance that my life is fine the way it is and that I don’t need to do anything differently. But when I try to read the Bible clearly, with humility, and without trying to interpret my desires into it, I don’t see those things. What I do see is that I’m asked to drop everything, leave everybody I know, ignore what others think of me, give all I have, love everybody without condition or expectation, and go do the things that Jesus did - miracles and all.
I think that is why we find it hard to read and study God’s word…it’s not nearly as difficult to understand as we might think it is, but instead it challenges our thinking and our actions. Maybe that is why we think reading and studying God’s word is difficult…we think, “if I claim I don’t understand, then maybe I don’t have to change.”
Wow, what a powerful article, bro. I find this often when debating theology. Many will say, “Oh that’s just *your* interpretation.” to dismiss what I or others might have said. It is only frustrating because the Bible is pretty clear on the issue and someone is denying God’s clearly spoken word (sometimes to the point of outright blasphemy).
The current question that is being debated (in my mind) is this: Who interprets the Bible and who’s interpretation is right? How do we know?
I know the answer to that is that we ultimately cannot know for sure. The reason: Because anyone can pour ANY meaning into Scripture. I can say that baptism REALLY means to eat an ice cream cone for God (wouldn’t that be nice). And I can stand firm in that meaning no matter what anyone else says. This is why I like what you are saying: The Bible can (for the most part) be read in a straightforward manner taking things for what they mean and say. This challenges us to live the life that we are REALLY called to, not just a ‘Get Out of Hell Free Card’.
Sure, there are some things (maybe many things) that we might never understand with certainty. Sure, one can TWIST scripture to say nearly anything, but a systematic AS WELL AS a Spirit-led approach to scripture is invaluable.
Skillful, relatively un-biased exegesis can yield a coherent, cohesive common theology that almost all of us can buy into. I like Wayne Grudem’s “Systematic Theology” for that reason. He leaves the door open for uncertainty, and presents various interpretations. But he gives tools for understanding what the text MUST say, when it’s clear.
I totally agree with Lucinda. The challenge isn’t in understanding the Bible, it’s in living the Bible.
*Sigh* When will I learn to stop reading this blog? It’s just so inconveniencing to have the Word of God presented so clearly all the time. ;)
-Matt
About that Paul quote you mentioned. How does a woman get saved through childbirth? Is this a reference to Christ’s being born of a woman? I don’t get that one at all.
In Don William’s book about Paul and Women he points out that the grammar used in v. 12 is more literally translated “I am not currently permitting a woman to teach me” - the parts of speech are closer to “I am not permitting” than “I do not permit”. But that doesn’t help me on my childbirth question…
-Matt
To your first comment, Matt, I’m thinking it’s kind of unfair. Like it’s easy for me to say these things now that I’m leaving the country and “doing the stuff”. I mean, I am doing the stuff, so I do have a basis to talk from, but on the other hand I wonder if I would have been so adamant about these things a couple of years ago.
To the other one, this is one of those passages that, if you take the translated English and try to read it clearly, you get the interpretation that women can’t teach (and that they kinda suck). That would be the “clear reading” of the text, except that it doesn’t make sense with the rest of the Bible, which leads me to believe that what appears clear in English is probably not exactly what Paul was getting at.
Jamie’s sermon on the topic was great. I won’t retell the whole thing here, but he did end by pointing out the dynamic translation of this trouble passage from The Message. He noted that N.T. Wright, one of the great theological thinkers of our time and one of the original translators of the NIV, agreed that The Message has a pretty good translation of the original text:
Wait, I’m confused - what is unfair? I didn’t follow you on that one…
As for the women passage, I still don’t understand how childbearing and salvation are related. In the NIV translation, it almost reads as though giving birth earns a woman salvation, which is clearly wrong. The Message seems to hint at the fact that Christ was born of a woman, but nothing is explicit. Maybe I should just learn koine greek, so I can read the Bible in its original language.
-Matt
Two things I would like to address. The first is reading Scriptures for what they say. I have found that as soon as you see yourself “rationalizing” Scripture, stop immediately because you are probably wrong. In my teaching I sometimes read through a portion of Scripture that instructs on how we ought to live and say, “this really doesn’t pertain to us as Christians only unbelievers” only to see heads nodding affirmatively in the class. At that point I like going back and looking into what it really says and I see people, including myself, squirm. We don’t always want to take verbatim what it says - it hurts.
Secondly, the issue of women being submissive. God’s order is “You wives must submit to your husband’s leadership in the same way you submit to the Lord”. My observation throughout life has been that when this order is reversed, chaos ensues. But men aren’t off the hook. We are to love our wives “even as Christ loves the church” - unconditionally. I believe Paul takes this concept to teaching as well. It doesn’t mean they are lousier teachers than men because, if in fact they are submissive to God, they will be demonstrating God’s love to others by being obedient to God, which includes the submissive nature that is being discussed. True it sounds chauvinistic but that is God’s order - again, something we don’t want to hear because “our society is different”. We must be careful, God never changes. Clearly the key phrases are “the same way you submit to the Lord” and “even as Christ loves the church” - submission to God first and foremost in all things and all these other things will fall into place. To love my wife as Christ loves the church demands a submissive heart on my part beyond that which any one can imagine. Living a godly life always boils down to this one simple concept, God-centric not self-centric.
As far as salvation and child-bearing, I will let Matt go to the original Greek and figure that one out.
Jamie’s point was that “women will be saved through childbearing” would be better translated “women will be saved through the childbearing” - that is, as The Message says, through the birth of the Messiah brought about by women. Actually, now that I say it that way, it makes extra sense. You know how sin came through one man (Adam) to all humanity, and salvation also came through one man (Jesus)? I think what Paul is saying is probably along the lines of sin came through one woman (Eve) and likewise salvation came through one woman (Mary). Hence “[woman's] childbearing brought about salvation, reversing Eve.”
To wives’ submission, “submission” in English has taken on a fouler connotation since the original NIV was translated. It is, like Dad said, the same submission required on both sides: husbands to wives, wives to husbands, humanity to Christ, Christ to humanity. It is servanthood, and it is anything but one-sided.
As to women teaching, I am unconvinced that the Bible forbids them to teach (hm, double negative, what I mean is: I think women are allowed to teach). Don’s book supports that better than I could, but my position is essentially based on what I know of the kingdom of God from reading the Bible as a whole contrasted with the theology of denying women the right to teach others. The two just do not fit together, which means either my concept of the kingdom of God is wrong (which would take some fancy exegetical maneuvers to prove) or the traditional concept of women in the church is wrong (which, likewise, takes a little exegetical maneuvering, but it is not nearly as fancy nor unbelievable).
Hey this is my first blog respose (well first, other than the one I wrote 5 minutes ago that got deleted). What a momentous day, that sounds like a double negative. To address the women stuff, which I have studied and have a book called “Why Not Women” that addresses it. I have come to the conclusion that Paul was addressing a certain group of women or even a specific woman during a specific time in Ephesus, where among other things it was a center for a following of the fertility goddess. Women also were sometimes not allowed to be educated at the time as men were and Paul is supporting that women should learn how to learn the right way to learn and use their knowledge in a good way. In my opinion it is possible because of the goddess following, women were trying to dominate over men, and not that men should dominate over women but they should be in submission to men (which I won’t touch on as I believe the submission topic has been well discussed in the previous responses). It seems that the women/woman was teaching against what the men/man were teaching and that at the time many women were being deceived. Paul brings up the saved through childbearing possibly to address the fact that God can overcome deception as He did in the case of Eve’s deception with bringing Jesus into the world through childbirth by Mary which saves all. Hope that addresses it on most angles.
While I do agree, Lisa, that Paul was taking to a certain group of women at a particular time, I do not think that this passage can be taken in a wholly cultural way (and I am not sure if you do or not). What I mean to say is that there are those that will have no problem with women being a pastor of a church and their reasoning against this Scripture is that it was purely a ‘cultural thing’. But when we look at the passage, Paul does not give cultural reasoning. He goes all the way back to the beginning and justifies his teaching with the example of Adam and Eve. Surely the cultural times of Adam and Eve were different than that of Paul, but he uses them as the justification for his teaching.
From this we can conclude that while Paul was speaking to a specific group of women in a specific circumstance, his teaching was not wholly cultural and actually should apply until Christ comes back, because it has applied since the first man and woman were created.
I AM A STUDENT STADING LAW BUT I WANT TO KNOW WHO THE LORD IS.WITH THIS I WILL BE HAPPY IF YOU CAN ASSIST ME TO LET MY DREAMS COME TO REALLITY.OR SEND ME ONE BIBLE.