Study Companion
Ask
Browse
Listen
＋
Install
←
Back
Podcast
How Our Theology Influences Our Interpretation
Open original on relationalconcepts.org ↗
Your browser does not support audio.
↺ Start from beginning
0% listened
Transcript
0:00
Hi, I'm Dave DeWitt, and today I'd like to talk about how our theology influences our
0:08
interpretation. Although the question has been around for 2,000 years, it's recently
0:14
received renewed interest in the 21st century. The issue is crucial since it determines how
0:20
we understand the Bible. Definitions, as I'm using them here, theology is a study of the
0:26
nature of God and subjects related to the nature of God. Interpretation is understanding
0:31
the meaning of a written text. There are basically four views about the relationship between
0:38
theology and interpretation. Number one, the theology of the church community should govern
0:45
our interpretation. Number two, our theology and our interpretation should be a two-way
0:51
street, each improving the other. Number three, our interpretation should be governed
0:58
by the New Testament with a focus on Jesus. And four, our interpretation should always
1:05
be the author's intended meaning, a one-way, not a two-way street. I'm going to present
1:12
each position briefly, but I will be defending position number four. So number one, the theology
1:19
of the church community should govern our interpretation. Although this idea has been
1:24
around since the early church councils generated creeds, canons, and catechisms, it has taken
1:32
a new form of late, which is becoming increasingly popular in the 21st century. It's called the
1:39
TIS, Theological Interpretation of Scripture. TIS uses the theology of the church community
1:49
to bring meaning to the text of Scripture. Now, in reality, I suspect this is just a
1:56
way to give credence to the interpretations that favor the LGBTQ community. But historically,
2:04
this was originally done through the theological development of the church councils, and especially
2:10
through the creeds, canons, and catechisms developed from the first seven church councils.
2:18
Except for the influence of sub-predominant bishops and teachers like Augustine, Athanasius,
2:24
and Aquinas, most Christians through the Middle Ages received their understanding of the Bible
2:31
from creeds, canons, and catechisms read by priests and bishops and repeated by the congregation.
2:39
The Bible was not available to most Christians before the invention of the printing press
2:44
in 1436. So it's easy to understand why the early church would understand the church theology
2:53
and govern interpretation. Unlike the creeds, with the TIS meaning changes with the church
3:03
community, so it can change from one church community to another. The idea is that the
3:11
church community knows more than the individual. So the individual believer should take one
3:18
meaning determined by the community to the Bible to determine its meaning. The problem
3:27
is the TIS view puts meaning in the hands of an imperfect community. It's one thing
3:35
for a church, mission, organization, or denomination to develop a creed or a doctrinal statement
3:41
about what they believe. It's quite another to use that to interpret the Bible. This would
3:47
mean the Bible can only say what's already been determined by the community. Another
3:54
problem with the TIS approach is that the theological interpretation changes as the
4:00
view of the Christian community changes. For example, if the community changes its theology
4:06
from saying LGBTQ lifestyle is unacceptable to saying it's acceptable, then that new
4:16
understanding is then used in interpreting the scripture. The second view, it says our
4:24
theology and our interpretation should be a two-way street, each improving the other.
4:31
This position says, since we have a theology, it's unavoidable. The best process is a
4:39
two-way street between our theology and our interpretation. As Christians, we come to
4:45
the Bible with a theology. Our theology stands until we encounter a biblical observation
4:51
that challenges it. As we consider the new discovery from the Bible, we then change or
4:58
tweak or improve our theology. Then we bring an improved theology back to the Bible to
5:05
further impact our literal, grammatical, historical understanding. Now, theoretically, this is
5:12
a good idea. The problem is almost no one changes their theology based on their interpretation.
5:18
Almost everyone takes their theology to the Bible, but they do not consider the possibility
5:24
that their theology needs to be changed, tweaked, or improved. It's true that this has happened
5:31
a few times historically, as with the Reformation of Martin Luther, the covenant theology of
5:37
John Calvin, and the development of dispensationalism with J.N. Darby, but individuals changing
5:45
their theology are rare. We can sympathize with this idea because it's certainly true
5:52
that humans are spiritual beings and we take our theology with us unavoidably. This view
5:59
is also far superior to the TIS view because it recognizes the need to keep learning from
6:07
the Bible rather than acquiescing to the views of the Christian community. Continued learning
6:14
is essential. Although it's unclear who originated it, many conservative pastors have repeated
6:21
the saying, if it's new, it's not true, and if it's true, it's not new. If that's the
6:27
case, then how do we understand Peter's command to grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord
6:33
and Savior Jesus Christ in 2 Peter 3.18? The two-way street approach does nothing to keep
6:40
Christians from bringing their extreme views to their interpretation. For example, those
6:47
who eliminate the sovereignty of God, those who eliminate free will, those who believe
6:54
there are new modern-day apostles, those who believe we're not saved unless we speak
7:00
in tongues, those who believe homosexuality is acceptable, those who believe in a prosperity
7:08
gospel, a social gospel, or a cultural gospel, are not likely to change their theology after
7:15
they bring it to their interpretation. But this two-way street view is also true of mainline
7:24
denominations. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Charismatics, Reformed Churches, Baptist Churches,
7:31
and Independent Bible Churches all find the theology they already believe in the Bible.
7:39
The view also presents us with no way to combat the divergent views of the cults. To say we should
7:46
change our theology based on our interpretation does not offer a way to actually do that.
7:54
Since our theology impacts our interpretation, ultimately, the meaning of the text of Scripture
8:00
will be shoehorned into our theology. So the two-way street rarely happens. Ultimately,
8:09
the two-way approach usually means our theology governs our interpretation.
8:15
The number three approach is our interpretation should be governed by the New Testament with
8:21
a focus on Jesus. The Christian Study Library states the position this way, an interpretation
8:28
that does not point to him as Jesus Christ and his redemptive work is lacking in precision
8:36
and is at best incomplete. This view rightly points out that the Holy Spirit is the author
8:43
of the Bible, and the revelation of Jesus in the Bible is the focus of the work of the
8:49
Holy Spirit. For example, Jesus said you search the Scriptures because you think that in them
8:56
you have eternal life. It is these that testify about me. Scripture from Genesis to Revelation
9:04
refers to Jesus. Even if the human author did not know that he was writing about Jesus,
9:11
he often was. The foundation of this Jesus-focused view is that the Bible was written for the
9:18
salvation of man. Jesus came to seek and to save that which was lost. This is a view in
9:27
most Reformed and Covenant theology that understands the Bible as redemptive history,
9:33
beginning with the fall in the Garden of Eden and continuing until the second coming of Christ.
9:38
It's the covenant of grace. The problem is the Bible does not say everything is about salvation,
9:45
or that biblical history is redemptive history. The Bible is not centered in man at all. The
9:53
Bible was written for the glory of God, not the salvation of man. Human salvation is valuable
10:00
because it brings glory to God. Psalm 19.1, the heavens are telling of the glory of God,
10:06
and the expanse is declaring the work of his hand. Romans 3.23, for all have sinned and come
10:14
short of the glory of God. 1 Corinthians 10.31, whether then you eat or drink or whatever you do,
10:21
all to the glory of God. Philippians 2.11, every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord to the
10:28
glory of God the Father. If our focus is on Jesus, what about the focus on God the Father? Ignoring
10:37
the author's intended meaning of God in the Old Testament and reading Jesus into it can ignore the
10:44
character of God the Father taught in the Old Testament. For example, ignoring the fear of God,
10:50
the justice of God, and the jealousy of God. Isaiah 53.5 says, but he was pierced through for
10:58
our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities. The chastising for our well-being
11:04
fell upon him, and by his scourging we're healed. Here it seems that the text itself, that is Isaiah
11:12
53, has in mind the suffering of a future Messiah, who Isaiah called the arm of the Lord in verse 1.
11:21
One who is pierced through for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities. In that case,
11:28
our interpretation, not a theology brought to the text, determines that it's a reference to Jesus.
11:34
View number four. Our interpretation should always be the author's intended meaning. A one-way,
11:43
not a two-way street. I hold to this view of interpretation because we know beyond any doubt
11:50
that this is how every communication from any author is understood. Whether we read a newspaper
11:56
or a novel, a magazine, a text, an email, or a letter from a friend, everybody reads with the
12:03
question, what is the author's intended meaning? Sometimes it's called literal, grammatical,
12:10
historical. Sometimes it's called plain, ordinary, normal, regular. Sometimes it's called taking it
12:18
at face value. Whatever it's called, the point is we look to authorial intent for the meaning of any
12:26
text. If some progressive teacher tells his class they should take their own meaning to the text,
12:35
the students should ask the teacher if they should do that with the teacher's assignments
12:40
and exams. The Bible is the only literature I know of where people try to conjure up some
12:48
other way of understanding it. Nobody attempts to study Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Shakespeare,
12:54
Dickens, Milton, Voltaire, Tolstoy, or any author allegorically. Nobody attempts to interpret
13:02
anything else with a TIS view or a two-way street view or by reading writings back into earlier ones.
13:09
For example, to interpret Plato's discussion of democracy in the Republic, it would not be
13:17
legitimate to take what we know about democracy and use it to understand Plato. We could use
13:24
what we learned from Plato in discussing democracy, but not use our understanding of
13:30
democracy to interpret Plato. Everybody who intends to understand any written text always
13:38
without exception asks the foundational question, what's the author's intended meaning? There is no
13:44
logical reason to interpret the Bible in any other way. I've been asked, why should I interpret a
13:53
passage using less than I know? We should develop a theology from everything we know and teach from
14:03
everything we know, but we should not bring everything we know to interpret a passage.
14:09
Interpretation must be confined to the author because, number one, this is the only way to
14:18
guard against imposing false doctrines on a passage. Number two, if we impose a theological
14:25
concept from one biblical author, we're denying the input of the author we're studying. And three,
14:34
each passage has something to add to our theology, and that can easily be missed if we simply impose
14:42
our existing theology on the passage. As I mentioned, we all have our tendency to bring
14:49
our theology to the text of Scripture. There's no miraculous tool to absolutely prevent us from
14:56
doing that. But now we have an objective way to help ourselves to keep from warping the Scripture
15:03
into saying what we already believe. We can force ourselves to doggedly, persistently, continually
15:10
ask nothing more and nothing less than what the author intend to say. The author's intended
15:18
meaning must govern our application. The principles of application are beyond the scope of this
15:24
podcast. I shall here only mention application in its relationship to interpretation. Once we
15:33
determine what an author intended to say, we can then ask how we should apply that to our lives.
15:42
But it's a common mistake to read a text of Scripture and jump from observation to
15:47
application without interpretation. Here's an example. Jeremiah 29 11 says,
15:54
For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare, not for calamity,
16:01
to give you a future and a hope. It's common to say this is God's indicating He has plans for our
16:09
future and hope for us believers today. But what's the author's intended meaning?
16:16
Jeremiah had no knowledge of the church age, so he cannot possibly be referring to God's
16:21
future for us. Jeremiah is talking about Israel as a nation. The previous verse says,
16:28
For thus says the Lord, when 70 years have been completed for Babylon, I'll visit you and fulfill
16:36
my good word to you and bring you back to this place. In this passage, God is telling Jeremiah
16:45
that the southern kingdom of Israel will be taken captive in Babylon, where they'll be held for 70
16:52
years. But after that, He'll return them to the land which He's given to them because
16:59
He has a future planned for the nation Israel. In conclusion, observation, interpretation,
17:07
and application are essential for studying any text of Scripture. The interpretation part of
17:14
that process should only ask the question, what's the author's intended meaning?
17:20
Other significant questions like the context and the kind of literature or the progress of
17:26
revelation can all be answered by asking the author's intended meaning. That meaning can
17:32
only be determined by looking at the text itself, not the text of some other author,
17:40
and not our theology brought to the text. The only all-inclusive question for interpretation is,
17:47
what is the author's intended meaning? Thank you for listening. A longer paper on the subject
17:53
with footnotes for the quotes are available on our website relationalconcepts.org.
