(A) 6 August

Previously, we considered the wholesome interpretation of the Bible with reference to correcting the two shortcomings in the church – Ignorance and Error – hence the need to correct as well as to present the truth by which the church must adhere to and live.
Unscriptural ideas in our theology are like germs in our system – they tend only to weaken and destroy life, and their effect is always damaging.

Allow me to share what I have gleaned over many years regarding a basic guide to interpreting the Bible.
A written text is simply a collection of letters or symbols; the symbols can vary – they can be English or Greek letters, Japanese symbols or Egyptian hieroglyphics.
Meaning however is a product of reasoning and thought. It is something only people can do. Whereas a text can convey meaning, it cannot produce meaning, because it cannot think. Only the authors and readers of texts can think. Thus, whereas a text can convey meaning, the production of meaning can only come from either the author or the reader.

For instance, when reading a Pauline text, the primary goal is not to experience or reduplicate Paul’s mental and emotional experiences when he wrote. Rather, the goal is to understand what Paul ‘meant’ when he consciously sought to communicate to his readers by what he wrote. The goal of interpretation is not to relive Paul’s emotional and mental state, but to understand what he meant by the written text he gave us. The intentional fallacy appears to confuse the meaning of a text with the experiences of the writer as he wrote. We have access to what Paul wished to convey by his words; we do not have access to his mental acts.
For the Christian, an additional factor comes into play. Our belief that the Bible is inspired introduces a component of divine enabling into the situation. If in the writing of Scripture the authors were “moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21), then it would appear that the authors of the BIble were given a divine competence in writing. This competence enabled them to express adequately the revelatory matters they wanted to communicate in their writing.

The difference between the time and thought world of an ancient author and the modern reader are very real. However the common humanity we share with the authors of the past and the fact that we both have been created in the image of God facilitate bridging the gap of time.

We must distinguish between understanding what the author means by his words and understanding the subject matter he is discussing. An atheist can understand what the psalmist is talking about the joy of being forgiven by the Lord and the personal agony that preceded this (as in Psalm 32:1-4a). On the other hand, an atheist cannot understand the experience, the subject matter, of which the psalmist is speaking. He or she may seek to explain that subject matter via Freudian psychology because of not being able to accept the divine element involved in it.

What a biblical author willed by his text is anchored in history. It was composed in the past, and being part of the past, what the author willed to communicate back then can never change. What a text meant when it was written, it will always mean. It can no more change than any other event of the past can change, because its meaning is forever anchored in past history. Yet what the author such as Paul consciously willed to say has implications of which he was not necessarily aware. These implications are also part of the meaning of the text. For instance, when Paul wrote in Ephesians 5:18, “Do not get drunk on wine,” he was consciously thinking that the Ephesian Christians should not become intoxicated with the mixture of water and wine ( a mixture of two parts water to one part wine that they called ‘wine’). This saying, however, has implications that go beyond what Paul was consciously thinking.
Paul gave a principle or pattern of meaning that has implications about not becoming drunk with beer, whiskey, rum, vodka, or champagne. Paul’s text has implications that go beyond his own particular conscious meaning at the time. These implications do not conflict with his original meaning. On the contrary, they are included in that pattern of meaning he willed to communicate. It is true that they go beyond his conscious thinking when he wrote, but they are included in the principle Paul wished to communicate in this verse. Thus, what an author of Scripture stated in the past frequently has implications with respect to things of which he was not aware or did not even exist at the time the text was written.
We shall, God willing, go on to other aspects of a helpful and basic guide in interpreting the Bible in subsequent sharings.

(B) 6 August

No book of the Bible claims God as its immediate author! Christians, of course, believe that behind the books of the BIble stands the living God, who has inspired His servants in the writing of these works. But the Scriptures were written by men, not God. As a result, to understand the meaning of the Biblical texts we must understand what their human authors consciously willed to convey by their texts. The divine meaning of the biblical texts is the conscious willed meaning of God’s inspired prophets and apostles. To understand the divine meaning of Scripture, then, is to understand the conscious meaning of God’s inspired servants who wrote them. It is in, not behind or beyond, the meaning the author wished to share that we find the meaning God wished to share in the Scriptures!

The term “subconsciousness” must not be confused with what is referred to as the “unconscious” meaning of the text. “Unconscious” meanings, or implications, are indeed unknown to the author, but they fall within his conscious, willed pattern of meaning. The “subconscious” meaning sought in a mythical approach, however, has nothing to do with what the author consciously wished to convey. In fact, it is usually quite opposite to the author’s willed meaning. Texts interpreted as subconscious meaning can lead to serious errors as well as distorted or wrong doctrines that can ‘hurt’ God’s church and people seriously.

On the opposite extreme are those who argue that the Bible must be interpreted literally at all times. This, too, is an error, for it loses sight of the fact that the biblical writers used various literary forms in their works such as proverbs, poetry, hyperbole, and parables (shared previously). They never intended that their readers should interpret such passages literally. They intended for them to be interpreted according to the literary rules associated with such forms (genres). For instance, we have noted that the parable is a fictitious account by the author to convey a definite meaning with great impact. We cannot analyse the parable like we do for a narrative which is historical. The parable of the prodigal son, for instance, provides an illustration, shared previously; the same applies to proverbs, psalms etc. More, the Lord willing, will be shared on the basic guide of interpretation.

(C) 7 August

An author will abide by the “norms of language” in order to ensure shareability, and use words and grammar in a way familiar to the audience. If he uses a word in an unfamiliar way, a good author will explain this in some way to the reader (Cf. how the author of Hebrews explains what he means in 5:141 by “mature”; how John explains what Jesus meant in 2:19-20 by “temple” in 2:21.

Within the norms of language, however, words possess a range of possible meanings. When an author uses certain words, the context he gives to them narrows down the possible meanings to just one – i.e. the specific meaning found in the statement itself. Through the specific context an author provides his verbal symbols – the sentence in which these symbols occur, the paragraph in which they are found, the chapter in which he places them – he reveals the specific meaning of his words.

A text, however, can communicate a great deal more. A text can open up to the reader vast areas of information. By reading a text a reader may learn all sorts of historical, sociological, cultural, and geographical information.
For instance, we can read the Gospel of Mark to learn about the history of Jesus, about the shape and form of the Jesus traditions. We can read the book of Joshua ro learn about the geography of Palestine or second millenium military strategy. We can study the book of Psalms to learn about the ancient Hebrew poetry or Israelite worship.
All the above is both possible and frequently worthwhile, but when this is done, we should always be aware of the fact that this is not the study of the text’s meaning’
The meaning of those texts is what the authors of Mark, Joshua, and the Psalms willed to teach their readers by recounting this history, these traditions, this geography, this poetic form.
As a result, when investigating an account such as Jesus calming the storm (Mark 4:35-41), we must be careful to focus our attention on the meaning of the account rather than on its various subject matters. The purpose of the account is not to help the reader acquire information concerning the topography of the Sea of Galilee (a lake surrounded by a ring of high hills) and how this makes it prone to sudden, violent storms (4:37). Nor is it primarily about the lack of faith on the part of the disciples (4:40) or the shape and size of boats on the Sea of Galilee in the first century (4:37). On the contrary, Mark has revealed in the opening verse of his Gospel that this work is about “Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” This account, therefore, should be interpreted in light of this. The meaning that Mark sought to convey is also clear from the account itself. The account reaches its culmination in the concluding statement, “Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!”
The meaning of this account, what Mark sought to convey, is therefore that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of God. He is the Lord and even nature itself is subject to his voice!

A text does not have different meanings; however, a text has different “significances” for different readers. Take Acts 1:8: “and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth”. Acts 1:8 have a single meaning – Jesus wanted to see the message of the gospel spread throughout the entire world. Yet the value of various implications, the significance of Jesus’ words, will no doubt vary a great deal for each reader. For one believer, it involves teaching in a theological seminary; for another, it involves going overseas to a foreign land to work among an unreached people; for some, it may involve working in their local churches.
There is one meaning to a text, that meaning consciously willed by the author, but the particular way that meaning affects the reader, its significance, will be quite different.
It would be wrong to insist that all must go overseas as missionaries if we were to properly respond to Acts 1:8; otherwise we will be guilty of being indifferent, or even disobedient to God’s call. There have been “casualties” when young believers, who are hardly ready, responded emotionally to such a call for the wrong reason and ended up, coming home, ‘spiritually damaged’.

Hence we see the need to interpret the Bible correctly and wholesomely. But mark this: when the Spirit uses God’s people to preach and teach the Bible with His power and enabling, the result can be positively tremendous!
Great preaching and sound teaching can be as powerful and attractive today as they have always been in the history of the Church!

(D) 8 August

We have stated previously that meaning is a product of reasoning and thought.
However, reason should not be viewed as an independent authority for our knowledge of God’s truth. Reason’s part is to act as the servant of the written Word, seeking in dependence on the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture scripturally, to correlate its teaching and to discern its application to all parts of life. We may not look to reason to tell us whether Scripture is right in what it says; reason is not in any case competent to pass such a judgment. Instead, we must look to the Scriptures to tell us whether reason is right in what it thinks on the subject with which Scripture deals.
Our reason is limited and finite; God is infinite and His knowledge and wisdom are far beyond us – hence when reason reaches its limit – what is beyond us in our understanding is often termed “a mystery”.

it is also true that the ground for believing a thing is not that the church says it. The proper ground for believing a thing is that God says it in His written Word, and a readiness to take God’s Word and accept what He asserts in the Bible is thus fundamental to faith. We are not saying that church tradition is unimportant; on the contrary, it yields much valuable help in understanding what Scripture teaches.
The history of the church’s labour to understand the BIble forms a commentary on the BIble which we cannot despise or ignore without dishonouring the Holy
Spirit. Tradition may not be lightly dismissed, but neither may it be made a separate authority apart from Scripture.

The Role of the Spirit in Interpretation

The Spirit helps the reader understand the pattern of meaning that the author willed and convinces the reader as to the truth of that teaching (1 Cor. 2:14).
Paul wrote that apart from the Spirit, a person cannot “understand” the meaning of biblical texts. Without the Spirit these texts are simply foolish riddles. What Paul is saying is not that unbelievers cannot arrive at a correct mental grasp of the things of the Spirit. They can and do, but they attribute to this understanding of the author’s meaning a negative significance. They reject it as “foolishness”. The Spirit brings to the believers a blessed assurance of the truthfulness of the biblical teachings, but he cannot be manipulated to cover for laziness in the study of the Word of God.

The Spirit operates in and through our thinking, our decision making and our affections. His blessing on the Bible we read and study, and on the instruction we receive, persuades us of the truth of Christianity. He shows us how God’s promises and demands bear on our lives. The persuasion at conscious level is powerful. The heart-changing action that produces Christian commitment is almighty.
As Christians, conscious of the darkness of our own minds, we must pray for light and the personal experience of the Spirit’s inner witness to the meaning of the Scripture we read and study, and of the Spirit’s power to use it as a source of instruction, hope, and strength.

(E) 8 August
THE GREAT TRADITION OF CHRISTIAN THINKING AND THE BIBLE

Whenever the Christian faith has been found, there has been a close association with the written Word of God, with books, education and learning. Studying and interpreting the Bible became natural for members of the early Christian community. The Christian intellectual tradition has its roots in the interpretation of Holy Scriptures; however, this has been ‘disrupted’ and ‘corrupted’ over the years in Church history. The seven great ecumenical councils of the church (325-7870 took place during turbulent times. As the church expanded and matured, it also faced new and greater challenges concerning the church’s beliefs.

How should the Trinity be believed and proclaimed? If Jesus Christ is fully God, how can he simultaneously be fully human? If Jesus Christ is one person, how do we understand his two natures and two wills? What is meant by the phrase “the Holy Spirit, the lifegiver”?

The Chrisrtian intellectual tradition during those times was challenged, expanded, and strengthened, particularly through the work of great Christians and theologians like Anselm, Bernard of Clairvaux, and others.
We will recall that we shared that interpretation of the Bible and ascertaining the meaning of texts require thinking and reason. We also noted that the tradition of the church contributes greatly and positively to establishing the accuracy of the truth and teachings of Scripture – that is where the great tradition of Christian thinking came into play.
However, we also emphasized that reason and tradition do not constitute the final authority in the interpretation of the Scripture and the Bible; we highlighted the central and main role of the Holy Spirit in establishing this authority. The Holy Spirit also ensured the contribution of great and godly Christian thinkers in preserving the accuracy of the teachings and theology of the Church from the Bible over the many years of church history.

Why is this so important? We cannot know ourselves without knowing that we are at once finite and fallen creatures of God. Nor can we know God, without knowing ourselves as persons, made in His image, as objects of His judgment and love.
Scripture’s story is not part of some larger narrative; it is itself the larger narrative of which all other true narratives are part. So do not, when reading and studying the Scripture, try to figure out how what you are reading and studying fit into some larger story; for there is no larger story.
This is true whether we are talking about biology, political science, or aesthetics. Disconnected from the biblical story, such disciplines can tell us how things work but not what they are for; how to choose a human baby, but not whether this should be done; how to construct an atomic bomb but not whether it should be used; how to build a maximum security prison but not how to treat the prisoner. Without some teleology, there is no flourishing and no future for the human community.

This way of reading the Bible has important implications for the various disciplines. Against Marcion the church decided to retain the Old Testament as Christian Scripture and rejected the division of creation and redemption. In doing so, it validated the principle that no object in nature, and no event in history, is an isolated, opaque fact closed in on itself. Each is, rather, a translucent window into a whole pattern of human experience. This means that we must approach the world with a profound respect for the numinous character that it possesses – not because it is some kind of earth goddess but by virtue of its having been created by the triune God.
In its struggle with Arius, the church affirmed the central axim of the Christian faith, summarised by John in the prologue of his Gospel. “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). The church has always had to insist on the reality of the incarnation against Docetists, Neoplatonists, and deists of all kinds, against the kind of God described as “a dreaming, dark, dumb Thing that turns the handle of this idle show.” This hideous caricature is widely accepted in today’s world and is at the root of much contemporary atheism.
Against all of this the church echoes the language of Scripture and declares that Jesus Christ was truly born, truly lived, truly died, and truly rose – resounding like a gong through the debates of the early church.

Finally, from the struggle with Pelagius, we learn the practice of humility before the mystery of the holy. This is an occupational hazard for all of us who stand with one foot in ecclesia (the church), and the other in schola (the academic). We may be Augustinians (and reformers) in our theology, but we are all socialized to be Pelagians in our profession, to exaggerate the importance of personal effort and personal worthiness (to the eclipse of “grace”). We drill this into our children and students from kindergarden on. As Administrators who recommend colleagues for promotion and tenure in our institutions, and as trustees who vote on such recommendations and other contexts, we know all too well the institutional constraints that reinforce this kind of academic Pelagianism from which none of us is exempt.
We forget that there is another way of knowing wisdom. And this often comes to us as an unexpected insight. In such moments cognition becomes recognition, and we know that this is not achievement but gift. This is the kind of knowledge that generates humility before the mystery of the holy.
The important thing is to stand before God with intellect in the heart, and to go one standing before Him increasingly day and night, until the end of life – this is the summons to humility (if we truly appreciate grace and our unworthiness as the finite before the infinite almighty transcendent God).

Brethren, let us appreciate the many who have gone before us, who fought and even died, to preserve the doctrines, theology, accuracy and reliability of Scripture and the Word of God for us and future generations. Let us not take lightly the need to be faithful in our interpretation of Scripture and theology (often preserved in the Creeds for God’s people and the church).

(F) 9 August

Renaissance and Reformation

Martin Luther (1483-1546), the great Reformer, started his career as a biblical interpreter by employing the allegorical method but later abandoned it. While Luther is widely recognised as the father of the Reformation, in reality, he, in many ways, carried forward the work of Peter Waldo (1140-1218), John Wycliffe (1330-1384), Jon Hus (1373-1415), Girolamo Savonarola (1452-1498), and even Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536).
All of these prioritised the Scriptures in bold ways, but it was Erasmus, even more so than Luther, through the influence of John Coler (1466-1519), who rediscovered the priority of the historical sense of biblical interpretation. Erasmus exemplified the finest in Renaissance scholarship, which emphasised the priority of the original s sources. The ultimate source to which Erasmus turned was the Greek New Testament.
As significant and innovative as was the work of Erasmus, the pivotal and shaping figures of the Reformation were Martin Luther (1483-1546) and John Calvin (1509-1564). Luther gave new focus to the Christian intellectual tradition with his use of a Christological method of biblical interpretation, which shaped his engagement with church, culture, and society. Martin Luther broke the stronghold of fanciful interpretation with his commitment to sola scriptura, which stressed not only the primacy of Scripture but also the historical sense of Scripture as the true and only sense that provides a sound framework for thinking Christianly about God and His world.
Luther insisted that the Bible itself is its own best interpreter. These commitments rested on the foundation of a complete trust in the Bible’s truthfulness and authority. Believing that the God of truth had spoken in Scripture, Luther likewise believed that humans must stand under the authority of the Bible. Scripture provided the framework for seeing all of life and for understanding all human thinking, because, for Luther, the Bible is the very Word of God itself.
Luther demanded that the human intellect adjust itself to the teachings of Holy Scripture; reason can certainly be used to discern truth and explore intellectual pursuits, but it cannot be used to judge the truth and value of Scripture. All Christian thinking must be brought in line with the Bible rather than the other way around.

It was John Calvin however who, in a sense, “out-Luthered” Luther to shape aspects of the Christian intellectual tradition that have developed since the sixteenth century.
John Calvin was the finest interpreter of Scripture and the most precise Christian thinker of this period. Even a rival like Jacob Arminius claimed that Calvin’s work was incomparable, saying, “He stands above others, above most, indeed, above all.” At the age of only 26, in 1536, Calvin published the first edition of his Institutes of the Christian Religion. The final edition, revised in 1559, was nearly three times the size of the original. Calvin stressed education, providing a catechetical system that has been carried all over the world. Calvin’s theology influenced large sectors of Europe, Old and New England. He wrote commentaries on almost every book of the Bible.
Above all, Calvin appealed to the witness of the Holy Spirit as a guide for understanding both God’s natural and special revelation. Maintaining that the testimony of the Holy Spirit was more important than all reason, Calvin insisted that it was the inward testimony of the Spirit that connected a person’s heart and mind to the Word of God. Noting that the human minds were tainted by sin and the impact of the fall, Calvin consistently appealed to the illumination of the Spirit above human judgment.
Calvin, along with Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), and other Reformation and Post-Reformation thinkers, contended that the Scripture must be believed, rightly interpreted, applied, and experienced to truly and redemptively advance the Christian intellectual tradition.

Christians today need to remember the Reformation which brings back and refocuses the following significant values:
A renewed emphasis on faith and reason, along with serious interpretation of Scripture, but also the shared commitments to the divine nature and authority of God’s written Word, to the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, to a heartfelt confession regarding the holy Trinity, to the uniqueness of the gospel message and the enabling work of God’s Holy Spirit, to salvation by grace through faith, to the church universal, to the hope of the coming kingdom, and to the sacredness of life and family.

It is not enough to be a nominal Christian of one type or another, or to pay lip service to the religious mission of an institution or Christian organisation in some vague sense. It is not enough to be nice and humane and concerned for those in need. By themselves, such traits, however admirable, will do nothing to pass on the faith intact to the next generation.
Our understanding of the great tradition of Christian thinking is shaped by foundational theological commitments. In addition it is formed by a conviction that faith and reason are mutually illuminating in an uncompromising commitment to truth. Our calling then is to think deeply and clearly about matters of ultimate concern, to love the Lord our God with all our mind, heart, soul, and strength; and also to invite others to join us in this journey together as a community of faith.
The Christian faith influences not only how we act but also what we believe, how we think, how we write, how we teach, how we lead, how we govern, and how we treat one another and love one another. It centres on our relationship with the Triune God, our calling as a Church, our responsibility to the world, and our eternal hope that would culminate in the new heaven and new earth.

(G) 10 August

THE FAITH ONCE FOR ALL DELIVERED TO THE SAINTS

The sharings on ‘INTERPRETING THE BIBLE’, ‘THE GREAT TRADITION OF CHRISTIAN THINKING’ through the ages – all these are finally to contend and to preserve the FAITH once for all delivered to the saints and the Church. It concerns us as Christians today; it concerns the Church of the living God; it concerns passing on to the next generations the FAITH that we confess as believers.

Notice in the sharing on JUDE: ” Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints “(Jude 3).
As shared previously, Jude was writing at a time of great crisis in the life of the early church – a crisis that came both from without and within.
Today, in some and similar ways, the church is also facing a crisis, from without and from within.

The word ‘entrusted’ or ‘delivered’ in Jude is the word for handling on, handing down, from one generation to another. We may think of it like a relay race; one person passing on the baton to another runner, and he carries it to the finishing line.
Those who have been charged with preaching and teaching the Word of God must be careful that in our efforts to pass on the faith, we do not betray it. Hene the need for Creeds in the history of the church. The Creeds in our confession of faith are like guardrails. When travelling on dangerous roads, we need guardrails in place so that we can stay on the road. The road is Jesus Christ (John 14:6). But we need guardrails as we are tempted this way and that in the history of the church, guardrails on the road guided by the light that is the Holy Scriptures.
The “faith” Jude referred to is the essential content of the Christian kerygma, the Christian message – the proclamation of Jesus Christ as Lord of lords and King of kings, the way, the truth, and the life.
The “faith” is what it is we have to say and tell the world about what God has once and for all done in Jesus Christ. It is similar to what Paul said, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the “faith” (2 Tim. 4:7). Again, in 1 Corin. 16:13. Paul writes to the saints at Corinth and encourages them to stand firm in the “faith”.
The “faith” used here is what came to be summarised and passed on to successive generations of Christians as the Apostles’ Creed, the rule of faith, and later the Nicene Creed of the early church.

The faith of the church can be expressed in many ways but those expressions must be grounded in the Trinitarian and Christological consensus of the early church. What does it mean to be a confessing Christian? It means that we worship and adore the one and only true and living God, who has forever known himself as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We further believe that the triune God of love and holiness became incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Man of the four canonical Gospels. We confess that Jesus Christ is the one and only Lord of heaven and earth. Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, light from light, true God from true God. This one, we confess, who is the Lord of the church, was miraculously conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the blessed virgin Mary; he lived a sinless life, died a sacrificial and substitutionary death on the cross, was buried, is risen and ascended; and he is coming again as the king and judge of all who are, ever were, or ever shall be.

There is an objective content, a deposit of faith given by God as a part of the divine revelation of himself in Jesus Christ and in the Holy Scriptures. Assent to this content ls absolutely necessary, but it is not sufficient.
But there is another word for ‘faith’ in Latin, fiducia, and the equivalent word in English is fiductiary – this word has to do with holding something in trust for someone else. It involves a personal commitment we make ourselves, and this is the word to describe saving, believing faith; personal trust, letting loose of ourselves. It means letting loose of yourself, let go yourself, stop depending on yourself, and throw yourself wildly into the arms of Jesus Christ. This is saving faith, fiducial faith; that is when the “faith” becomes “my faith”
As long as the faith remains detached, divorced, distant, als long as the faith is simply a system of doctrine codified as systematic theology, as long as the faith is kept at arm’s length, then we are like Nicodemus who came to Jesus by night and say to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him” (John 3:2). Jesus said to him, “You must be born again – born from above, born anew.” This is the message the faithful followers have proclaimed to this world.
We have looked at “The Faith” and “My Faith”. We have also looked at “The Church’s Faith” But take note that the Faith we have been considering is affirmed in “Sola Scriptura” – God’s Word and Scripture. Hence contending for the Faith and preserving the Faith involve correct and proper interpretation of Scriptures as well as keeping to the great tradition of Christian thinking in the history of the Church, expressed in the Creeds.
At the ‘Diet of Speyer”, in line with “Sola Scriptura”, the following was declared:

“We are determined by God’s grace and aid to abide by God’s Word alone, the holy Gospel contained in the biblical books of the Old Testament and New Testaments. The Word alone should be preached and nothing that is contrary to it. It is the only Truth. It is the sure rule of all Christian doctrine and conduct. it can never fail or deceive us. Who so builds and abides on the foundation shall stand against all the gates of hell, while all merely human editions and vanities set up against it must fall before the presence of God.”
The heritage of the Fathers and the Reformers must be proclaimed in our own time; this is what contending for the faith involves: – ‘justification by faith alone’; no one can be made righteous before God through the piling up of merits, the intercession of saints, or human works of any kind. Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone. The Reformers see themselves in doctrinal continuity with the early church when they set forth the principle of the Reformation.

The world is constantly trying to convince itself that we are all pretty good, that we are all saying the same things, that evil is not an endemic and systemic part of us, and that if we are nice, everything will be all right. Certainly there is no merit in being un-nioce! But to hide the disagreements, idolatries, greed, injustice, God-defying arrogance, materialistic hedonism, unbelief, and just plain malice of the world is worse than naive – it is blind. Christians will look at the rawness of history and the prevalence of evil people who become worse and worse, and they will hold few illusions. This is an essential element of faithful living in the last days.

(H) 10 August

MORE ON THE HOLY SPIRIT AND BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

Throughout the whole entire process of interpreting the Bible, the Holy Spirit is intimately involved; He was involved at the very beginning as the cause of the inscripturation of the biblical materials; it was through divine inspiration that the biblical authors wrote the Scriptures; He was involved in the recognition of which books were inspired and to be included in the New Testament (the canon); and He is also involved at the end of the interpretive process, as the believer seeks to apply the biblical teaching to his or her life.

The terms “infallible” and more recently “inerrant” are often used to describe the reliability of the Bible. The former term focuses on the doctrinal reliability of the Bible; the latter on its factual reliability. But these terms are essentially meaningless apart from an explanation of “what” is infallible and inerrant.

There are many explanations given to the meaning of these two terms. But what is helpful is to note the following:
The Christian claim that the Bible is infallible or inerrant means in essence that “what the authors of Scripture willed to convey by their words,” their proposition or pattern of meaning, is true with regard to what they willed to convey. The term “infallibility” means that what the authors willed to convey with regard to matters of faith (doctrine) and practice (ethics) are true and will never lead us astray. The term “inerrant” means that what the authors willed to convey with regard to matters of fact (history, geography, science, etc.) are also true and will never lead us astray. What is determinative at all times, however, involves what the author, led by the Spirit, sought to convey by his text.

An illustration here is found in Isaiah 11:12 where the prophet states that God “will gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth (RSV). What does this statement by the prophet mean? If Isaiah meant to teach geography in this verse, then the verse is errant, not inerrant, because it would contain an error of geography, for we know that the earth is round and has no “corners”. However, if Isaiah did not will to teach geography, but wanted rather to teach the future regathering of God’s people from throughout the world, then his statement can be infallible and inerrant.

The Holy Spirit worked with and through the personality of the human authors. As a result Christian theologians have seldom argued in favour of a dictation form of inspiration by the Spirit. Such explicit statements as Luke 1:1-4 also argue against such a view.
The Spirit helps the reader understand the pattern of meaning that the author willed and convinces the reader as to the truth of that teaching. The unbelieving world can understand what the biblical text means, but it rejects what it understands as foolishness. Similarly, God understands the wisdom of this world, but rejects it as foolishness. In both instances there is a correct mental grasp of what it means (understanding) followed by a rejection of its value (significance). A Christian apologetic and defense of the faith to unbelievers is based on the assumption that they are capable of understanding the teachings of Scripture i.e. they can understand the gospel message but they reject their value and significance, and deem them as foolishness.

There is nothing in Scripture that tells us that the regenerating work of the Spirit transforms the mental abilities of people; rather what it does affect is our value systems, the significance we attribute to meaning of biblical texts. But the Spirit provides for the believer illumination of the Scripture – this He does not provide for the unbeliever.

To pray that the Spirit would help us recognise the truth of the text (its significance) or to show which of the implications apply particularly to us and our situation (divine guidance) is both highly appropriate and devout. For what does it profit a study of the Bible, if we understand its meaning perfectly, but never submit to its teaching and obey its implications for our lives!

(I) 12 August

FROM CREATION TO THE CROSS: NEEDFUL TO UNDERSTAND IN INTERPRETATION

As we study the Gospels, we need to appreciate the progressive revelation and relationship in the Old Testament with the New (beginning in the Gospels) i.e. the Gospels do not stand apart from what has gone before in the OT.
Often, we look at the OT as containing some interesting stories and some meaningful psalms and proverbs, but also a lot of history along with a complex set of laws.

Actually, the OT is going somewhere: It is heading toward a goal – hope and promise are prominent. It is not just a bunch of static laws and dry history – it is about an ideal creation that God initiated, but humanity has staggered and stumbled, but God has not given up on His plan or people. He will bring in the kingdom of peace, love, and justice under a final King (the son of David; the Messiah) and the Gospels record this beginning and inauguration of the kingdom of God with the arrival of the Messiah and his mission.

God’s plan of reversal and redemption of fallen humanity is progressive. The Abrahamic Covenant assures us that through Abraham’s descendants, ultimate blessing will come on the world. The Mosaic Covenant initiates that nation through whom world redemption would come and gives her just laws so that she might live as a light of God’s blessing in the midst of the nations. The Davidic Covenant specifies the tribe and line through which the ultimate King, the Messiah, would come (remember the Genealogies).
The New Covenant of Jeremiah tells how God will enable His people to respond positively. The promises have become more specific and the outline of fulfilment is filled in as we go.
The Old Testament is not a finished book – it looks forward to fulfilment. Christians believe that fulfilment started with Jesus of Nazareth and that the New Testament and its Gospel is the capstone of completion for the Old Testament -this is where we are as we study the Gospels.

The New Testament brings some surprises, however. In the Gospel records of Jesus’ life there is no rise of this Son of David to an earthly throne and kingdom, no overthrow of the Gentile rulers, and no intervention by God for the final deliverance of Jerusalem. How does the New Testament relate the life of Jesus to these hopes and expectations?
One of the unpredictable items facing the Jewish believer during Jesus’ lifetime was the Bible’s silence concerning the fact that Messiah would twice, not just once. The OT told of both a suffering Messiah (Isa. 53; Zech. 13:7) and a victorious and reigning Messiah (Isa. 9;11). The idea that Messiah would deliver them from Gentile rule and establish the kingdom dominated Jewish thinking in the New Testament period.

From the divine standpoint, however, the greatest problem was the human need to solve the sin problem. Messiah needed to achieve spiritual redemption for humanity before physical redemption could be meaningful and lasting. From here in our study of the Gospels, we will then understand why Jesus had to go to the Cross and why He would be rejected and persecuted by the Jewish establishment.

(J) 16 August

JESUS’ VIEW OF SCRIPTURES
As we study the Gospels we see Jesus claiming that he had authority to heal, to drive off demons, to make one alive, and to judge – and these are activities of God. When challenged, he said he had testimony enough to substantiate his claims, neither self-testimony, nor human testimony, but divine. And this divine testimony was borne to him partly through the mighty works which the Father had given him to do, but especially through the written word of Scripture.

What was Jesus’ view of the Scriptures? The testimony of the Bible is the testimony of God. And the chief reason why the Christian believes in the divine origin of the Bible is that Jesus himself taught it, and he taught it consistently.

Jesus adopted towards the Scriptures of the Old Testament an attitude of reverent assent and submission, and he maintained this position throughout his life and ministry, including the post-resurrection period.

According to John, he said, “scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35), and according to Matthew “not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished” (Matt. 5:18). He accepted the statements of Scripture without question or reservation, believing them to be true. He predicted with confidence his rejection by his own people, his sufferings, death and resurrection, because thus is was written. He obeyed the requirements and applied the principles of Scripture in his everyday life. He voluntarily accepted a position of humble subordination to what Scrlpture said.

The word “it stands written, or it is written”) was enough to settle any issue for him (eg. Matt. 4:4,7,10). He understood his mission in the light of the Old Testament prophecy, recognising and declaring himself to be both Daniel’s Son of man and Isaiah’s suffering Servant of the Lord. At least from the age of 12 he felt the compulsion of Scripture upon his soul, an inner constraint to fulfil the role which Scripture portrayed for him. Thus, “Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s House?”
He began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected….. , and be killed, and after three days rise again.” “The Son of man goes as it is written of him.” “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written of the Son of man by the prophets will be accomplished.” (Luke 2:49, Mark 8:31; 14:21;Luke 18:31).
When Peter tried to avert his arrest in the garden, Jesus rebuked him: “Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and He will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so? (Matt. 26:53,54).

Further, what he himself believed and practised with regard to the authority of Scripture he expected others to believe and practise also. His great complaint against the Jews was, “Have you not read?” Ignorance of Scriptures had caused the Sadducees to err, and disregard for Scripture the Pharisees; while to some of his own disciples after the resurrection he had to say: “O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” Then, Luke adds, “beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:25-27; cf vv. 44-47).

Here we have more than sufficient ‘evidence’ to affirm the divine testimony borne to Jesus through the written word of Scripture; more than that, we see clearly and without any doubt that Jesus himself believed in the divine origin of Scripture – he himself taught it consistently throughout his life and ministry and also in the post-resurrection period. He knew that Scripture had to be fulfilled and he was careful to ensure it in his own life and ministry, even accepting his impending death on the cross, his sufferings and rejection by his own people, and always conscious that he could have asked his father to deliver him from this plight, but however, he constantly maintained the stand “Not my will but thy will be done” before his Father.

If we claim to be followers and disciples of Christ, dare we stray away from the convictions and teachings of our Lord and Master? If the Scriptures tell us that we need to deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow Him, shall we rationalise and insist that this is not for every follower of the Lord? Should we complain, grumble, when God allows circumstances to help us understand that suffering is part of God’s process to make us like Christ – do we allow frustration and disappointment in our career, relationships here on earth, our health, our self-esteem, our ambition etc. to ‘blur us’ from seeing the light in Scripture and particularly, in Romans 8:18-129? This call to Christlikeness in suffering unjustly may well become increasingly relevant as persecution increases in many cultures today, and in the light of the teaching of the book of Revelation.
Will our view of Scriptures be compromised during such times of opposition or will we follow our Master and understand that Scriptures have to be fulfilled.

The grass withers, the flowers fade, but the Word of God abides forever! Do we believe this? If we do, then why are we hesitant in investing our time in understanding and appreciating the Bible God has preserved for us and the church all these years in church history? Why do we believe the lies of the evil one who seeks to convince us of the irrelevance of the Bible and who constantly says, “Did God say?”