Question:
When each of us reads the Bible we don't do it in a vacuum. We bring our own assumptions and social contexts to a text that was written in a time different (with it's own assumptions etc...).[/cliche Bible 101 class] My question is how do we limit our own eisegesis? But, on the other side of the coin, how do interpret in a way that is relevant to our time? Even if we were able to objectively read the text and bring out only what the author intended, how do we know what is intended for us? Is it all, or part? What parts?
This is particularly directed at both the Old and New Testaments. Many Christians, whether on purpose or not, don't believe the Old Testament civil laws apply (unless restated in the New Testament). There is some push from more liberal Christians that things like divorce and homosexuality were looked down on in the authors time, so that's why they are outlawed/discouraged. Do we take what the text says, or the "trajectory" of the text. If the Bible was "progressive" in some sense, do we continue to be "progressive." Is there a stopping point, along this progressive path, something too far? Is it possible to take all of the Bible at face value now? But more importantly is it right? Is that what the authors intended?
I have a further question for those who would seek to in effect loose some of the "baggage" of the authors social context. Who decides what is meant for us? How do we avoid some kind of existential, every-man-for-himself style of interpretation where each reader pulls out what he/she wants to?
Answer:
Originally Posted by acrossthesirion I have a further question for those who would seek to in effect loose some of the "baggage" of the authors social context. Who decides what is meant for us? How do we avoid some kind of existential, every-man-for-himself style of interpretation where each reader pulls out what he/she wants to? Tradition?
Answer:
Originally Posted by joshaber Tradition?
Who's tradition? Catholic? Protestant? Anabaptist?
Answer:
Originally Posted by acrossthesirion Who's tradition? Catholic? Protestant? Anabaptist? All of the above?
Answer:
Originally Posted by acrossthesirion When each of us reads the Bible we don't do it in a vacuum. We bring our own assumptions and social contexts to a text that was written in a time different (with it's own assumptions etc...).[/cliche Bible 101 class] My question is how do we limit our own eisegesis? But, on the other side of the coin, how do interpret in a way that is relevant to our time? Even if we were able to objectively read the text and bring out only what the author intended, how do we know what is intended for us? Is it all, or part? What parts? You're getting at several different issues here. For instance, what is the purpose of Bible-reading, hence what is it to read the Bible "correctly"? Do different modes of Bible-reading -- liturgical, theological, devotional, etc. -- involve different styles of proper Bible-reading? What is the relation of Bible-reading to theology? Is the Bible our theology textbook, intended to offer us directly all the theology we should know, or must theology be constructed over time through interaction with the Bible?
To center the issues, let me ask another question... Who interprets the Bible? The Church. The Church is the Body of Christ, indwelt by the Spirit and called into being by the Word. You'd be amazed how much eisegetical atrocities simply by accepting that it is the Church who reads the Bible and does theology -- as an community living as Jesus' Body, not as "objective," abstract, individual "thinkers."
Originally Posted by acrossthesirion This is particularly directed at both the Old and New Testaments. Many Christians, whether on purpose or not, don't believe the Old Testament civil laws apply (unless restated in the New Testament). There is some push from more liberal Christians that things like divorce and homosexuality were looked down on in the authors time, so that's why they are outlawed/discouraged. Do we take what the text says, or the "trajectory" of the text. If the Bible was "progressive" in some sense, do we continue to be "progressive." Is there a stopping point, along this progressive path, something too far? Is it possible to take all of the Bible at face value now? But more importantly is it right? Is that what the authors intended? Almost always, when someone says that the Bible was "progressive" for its time so we should be "progressive," they take the trajectory of progression from the history of Western philosophy instead of from the Bible. Western philosophy believes in progress, Christian theology believes in redemption.
If you read their stuff (say, John Spong or those who try to reconcile homosexuality with the Bible), it's so horrendously argued that you can't help but think that they're just uncritically eating up secular thought and tossing around superficially "Christian" arguments in order to claim to be "Christian."
Answer:
Originally Posted by Chrysostom Almost always, when someone says that the Bible was "progressive" for its time so we should be "progressive," they take the trajectory of progression from the history of Western philosophy instead of from the Bible. Western philosophy believes in progress, Christian theology believes in redemption.
But Christian theology also teaches that believers are sanctified over time; the "progress in the faith" that is spoke of in Philippians 1:25. Does this not conflict? I mean of course Christian theology believes in redemption, but does it not also teach progression, in one sense at least?
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you...
Answer:
Originally Posted by Chrysostom To center the issues, let me ask another question... Who interprets the Bible? The Church. The Church is the Body of Christ, indwelt by the Spirit and called into being by the Word. You'd be amazed how much eisegetical atrocities simply by accepting that it is the Church who reads the Bible and does theology -- as an community living as Jesus' Body, not as "objective," abstract, individual "thinkers." Interesting, though I'm not sure I completely understand you. Could you elaborate? What does the Church interpreting Scripture look like?
Originally Posted by Chrysostom Almost always, when someone says that the Bible was "progressive" for its time so we should be "progressive," they take the trajectory of progression from the history of Western philosophy instead of from the Bible. Western philosophy believes in progress, Christian theology believes in redemption.
If you read their stuff (say, John Spong or those who try to reconcile homosexuality with the Bible), it's so horrendously argued that you can't help but think that they're just uncritically eating up secular thought and tossing around superficially "Christian" arguments in order to claim to be "Christian." I think I get what you're saying here (correct me if I'm wrong). Progressive is just a Western idea projected back on to the Bible as if it were a concern of authors. But in reality it is just a concern of the reader.
Originally Posted by ddts But Christian theology also teaches that believers are sanctified over time; the "progress in the faith" that is spoke of in Philippians 1:25. Does this not conflict? I mean of course Christian theology believes in redemption, but does it not also teach progression, in one sense at least?
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you... We we're using progressive to mean progressive morals.
Answer:
Originally Posted by acrossthesirion We we're using progressive to mean progressive morals.
Yeah I understand that, it's just that in this thread and the "enlightenment" thread in philosophy John has said that "Christian theology believes redemption, not progression" and I'm trying to understand how sanctification, which is a process which progresses, fits into this.
Answer:
Originally Posted by ddts But Christian theology also teaches that believers are sanctified over time; the "progress in the faith" that is spoke of in Philippians 1:25. Does this not conflict? I mean of course Christian theology believes in redemption, but does it not also teach progression, in one sense at least?
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you... Language is an interested thing because it gets invested with all sorts of connotations, etc. When I was talking about "progress" just now I wasn't talking about, say, change over time, increase, sequence of events, or something of that nature. I was talking about "progress" as defined by "progressive" movements. (Which is obviously not to vindicate "liberal" or "conservative" or "traditionalist" movements at all.) The basic breakdown is this... Things like grace and redemption come from outside help in the middle of hopeless failure. Progress (as understood by at least the last 500 years of Western philosophy), on the other hand, is where we advance ourselves by exemplifying the right virtues, usually "reason" or "justice" or "tolerance" or some such.
Sanctification -- redemption -- is the work of the Creator in Paul's letter to the Philippians (1.6, 2.13, etc.). Progress, on the other hand, is the work of the created order itself.
Think about how "the future" is/was portrayed in a West that believed in "progress." "Futureland" has lots of cool technology that we developed to create some sort of utopia where troubles are all gone. In the other thread I mentioned Star Trek, where humanity uses reason and tolerance and justice to conquer the "final frontier" -- this is the eschatology of "progress." And where outside help does come in Star Trek it is just a little bit of help from the Vulcans, whom we almost immediately surpass. (And, similarly, who represent reason above all else.)
Contrast this with the heroes of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Sauron progresses further and further, using his technology and perfectly-reasoned plan to conquer. But when evil is defeated it is by outside intervention of some sort, whether it's Gandalf, Rohan, Ents, or (ultimately) Frodo's destruction of the Ring.
Originally Posted by acrossthesirion Interesting, though I'm not sure I completely understand you. Could you elaborate? What does the Church interpreting Scripture look like? Sorry that there were some glaring typos in that paragraph. (Though it looks like you managed to read it without a problem.) I originally wrote one sentence and then went back and edited it as another sentence... without tying up the loose ends.
So, what does it mean that it is the Church, not the lone individual, that interprets Scripture? Unfortunately, that question can't be answered concisely, and to some extent the answer comes in trajectory. But I will say a few things.
First of all, it means that the proper interpreter of Scripture is not just "some dude who's really smart" who picks up a Bible. And this negative claim is the major part of what I'm saying, because the idea that "reason" is the key to good use of the Bible is so widely accepted that it is an unconscious guide, meaning that we don't even realize there could be some alternative. Let me say that again: "Reason" is not the key to good Bible-reading. It might be a really significant tool in uncovering the author's intent, the grammar in historical context and so on, but it's not the key to good Bible-reading. Else we just set up an intellectual hierarchy where the smartest people read the Bible and hand down the results to the ignorant masses. (If this doesn't sound like Enlightenment snobbery yet then I need to state it even more emphatically.)
The other component of what I'm saying is to offer an alternative: the Church. And of course there are a million contrasts here with the reason-driven individual. For instance, the Church's constitution is Gospel, not reason; the Church is corporate, not individual; and the Church grows and changes through time, not living in the timeless world of "reason." But to some extent this alternative is more of a trajectory for further reflection than a fully-defined answer.
I'm saying that what we do on Sunday mornings is a fundamental component of the proper use of the Bible. I'm saying that praying the Psalms is a fundamental part of using them correctly. I'm saying that baptism and communion are fundamental parts of the proper use of the Bible. I'm saying that Sunday school and soup kitchens and eating in each others' houses are fundamental parts of good Bible-reading. I'm saying that being a community that has existed since it was founded by God in Christ and has been growing and living and loving since that time is a fundamental part of reading the Bible.
None of these are really understood to be all that important if the key to good Bible-reading is the intellect -- they're only useful insofar as they provide the intellect with extra sense data to draw from, on that view. But I'm saying that the proper use of the Bible is in and by the Church. This means that, whether we're talking about the reinvent-the-wheel-ers who brought us dispensationalism or the critical academicians who have PhDs and plenty of free time on Sundays, the Church at her dumbest and worst understands and uses the Bible better.
I would mention also the importance of the typological meaning of Scripture. Biblical texts are (re-)constructing an entire world, such that themes and symbols have theological meaning that connects textually. For instance, Paul mentions that Jesus is the "new," "second," or "last" Adam (1 Cor 15; Rom 5). Add to this is the fact that Jesus is the sum and substance of all of God's Gospel, hence of the whole Bible, and clearly we should be looking for Jesus all over the Bible. To the Church, Jesus and the Jesus narrative are the summary and focal point of all history, which means that using the Bible in context of the Church turns out to have the advantage of pointing toward typology from the start.
Originally Posted by acrossthesirion I think I get what you're saying here (correct me if I'm wrong). Progressive is just a Western idea projected back on to the Bible as if it were a concern of authors. But in reality it is just a concern of the reader. And, more importantly, a concern of the reader that strongly contradicts the purpose and center of the Scriptures, Gospel, and Church. It is an anti-Christianity that is trying to co-opt the Christian Scriptures.
Answer:
Originally Posted by acrossthesirion When each of us reads the Bible we don't do it in a vacuum. We bring our own assumptions and social contexts to a text that was written in a time different (with it's own assumptions etc...).[/cliche Bible 101 class] My question is how do we limit our own eisegesis? But, on the other side of the coin, how do interpret in a way that is relevant to our time? Even if we were able to objectively read the text and bring out only what the author intended, how do we know what is intended for us? Is it all, or part? What parts?

This is particularly directed at both the Old and New Testaments. Many Christians, whether on purpose or not, don't believe the Old Testament civil laws apply (unless restated in the New Testament). There is some push from more liberal Christians that things like divorce and homosexuality were looked down on in the authors time, so that's why they are outlawed/discouraged. Do we take what the text says, or the "trajectory" of the text. If the Bible was "progressive" in some sense, do we continue to be "progressive." Is there a stopping point, along this progressive path, something too far? Is it possible to take all of the Bible at face value now? But more importantly is it right? Is that what the authors intended?

I have a further question for those who would seek to in effect loose some of the "baggage" of the authors social context. Who decides what is meant for us? How do we avoid some kind of existential, every-man-for-himself style of interpretation where each reader pulls out what he/she wants to?
I'd like to specifically address the OT and the laws found there.

When looking at the OT laws I would suggest that we stop looking at them as if they all fall into one of three categories. I was always taught that the Jewish laws were either: moral, civic or ceremonial. The problem with that is that many of them are not clearly in one category or the other.

In my hermeneutics class it was suggested that the laws need to be considered in regards to their narrative AND covenental contexts. The OT laws fall into a narrative regarding The Jewish people. They are also tied into the old covenant. They need to be viewed in that way first, then viewed in light of the way Jesus interpreted them. He is the final say-so in regards to that.
Answer:
Originally Posted by Chrysostom ...
Woah, John! That was awesome! You just worded that much, much better than I have been able to...
Could I quote you on that?
In Christ
-- Nathan
Answer:
Originally Posted by PartTimeLurker Woah, John! That was awesome! You just worded that much, much better than I have been able to...
Could I quote you on that?
In Christ
-- Nathan Uh, sure.
Oh, crap!! I never sent you that thing, did I?????
Answer:
Originally Posted by Chrysostom Oh, crap!! I never sent you that thing, did I?????
Uh, no.
But I wasn't going to harp...
Take your time, seriously. And if it costs tons to send it, I'll wire you the money or something... (Do people still "wire" money? Or was that just in the age of the telegraph and the gramaphone?)
-- Nate
Answer:
Originally Posted by PartTimeLurker Uh, no.
But I wasn't going to harp...
Take your time, seriously. And if it costs tons to send it, I'll wire you the money or something... (Do people still "wire" money? Or was that just in the age of the telegraph and the gramaphone?)
-- Nate people wire money all the time, it's the only way to send money that is guranteed and fitting for large sums. I deal with wires on a regular basis.
Answer:
I will need a large sum. Probably seven or eight figures.