Four Important Assumptions I Have Adopted
In recent months I have been reading some of the commentaries by some of the earliest commentators (the second through fourth centuries), and I continue to be impressed by the quality of their work. They consistently show a detailed knowledge of the biblical text.
When I compare them to modern day interpreters, I can get a bit depressed. Too much of what I read today reflects an insatiable appetite for novelty, often at the expense of validity. Some scholars are obsessed with grabbing any new piece of evidence or striking theoretical insight that promises a fresh approach to the Bible. On top of that, there is hermeneutical suspicion: Scripture is suspect in all areas unless it can be proved otherwise. In other words, we cannot trust the Bible with regard to historicity or even an underlying theological unity. And there is an obscene arrogance: modern biblical scholars often ignore all interpreters of the Bible except other modern biblical scholars.
Why is this the case? Because the modern scholars have rejected four major assumptions that the ancients (and that I and others) hold.
The Living Voice of Scripture
1. The Bible taught lessons directly to readers in their own day.
The Confidence that Scripture Comes from God
2. The Bible is essentially a divinely given text; it is trustworthy and true in all that it affirms. The ancients wanted to live in accordance with God’s will, and they saw the ancient books to be divine authorized for that purpose.
The Reliability of Scripture
3. The Bible has no contradictions or mistakes.
The To-be-Discovered Meaning of Scripture
4. There are meanings that must be ferreted out by all sorts of interpretive strategies. For example, because of Jesus there must be a massive rereading of the Old Testament.
Such assumptions reject the notion that Scripture can only be understood in the context of its own time . . . that Scripture contradicts itself (as well as our current understanding, including modern science) . . . that Scripture is primarily if not exclusively a human work . . .
Perhaps some of us spend more time learning about the Bible rather than learning from the Bible.
I try to read the Bible as an "insider," as one who bases his study on the above four assumptions. I believe the Bible has the power to make us insiders. An "outsider" reads it proudly and fails to come within the understanding distance of Scripture because too many lack humility and therefore miss words of grace and truth. I seek to open the Bible and understand it as it was understood by those who first proclaimed it. The atmosphere in which I study Scripture and the atmosphere I try to create when teaching in a seminary classroom or in a Sunday School classroom is the atmosphere where the Breath of God can be felt and nudge me along further in my desire to be obedient in my service to God.
Related posts:
Bob,
Right on. As a church leader under Satan’s attack, one way he manifests his attacks on us is through “good” church people who use (abuse) scripture as a proof-text to prove one correct rather than a God-breathed text calling one to obey its precepts. Instead of asking, how can the Bible prove my position to be right, we should be asking how can the Bible re-align my life to the will of God through active obedience and not my own will and desires? I appreciate the “insider”, “outsider” image. It is exactly what our church leaders are experiencing right now. You have captured it well. Thanks!
Dr. Lowery,
I agree fully with your assumptions. I think that they are the basis for being able to study the Bible and actually making solid conclusions. In reading this and reflecting on the meat and potatoesof your book, I find that one thing I need to focus my studies on in order to understand Revelation (and the New Testament in general) is the Old Testament. Many of the “end times gurus” use scriptures in Daniel as a basis for their “charts.” I count myself luck not to have been taught about the end times through the lenses of Daniel 9. Now my job as a Bible student is to understand the context of the book of Daniel in order to understand what Daniel meant to communicate to the people of his day. Only then can I understand what it means for me (us) today.
I suppose that the Old Testament allusions throughout the book of Revelation dictate that I should familiarize myself with the Old Testament (which I am making my way through currently) before truly embarking on the task of interpreting Revelation. One thing I realized while reading your book was that it was not merely a book about how to read Revelation, but a book about how to read the Bible. It used Revelation as the sample material! I appreciate your book, and look forward to your commentary.