Biblical Interpretation
Leighton Tebay has an excellent post on biblical interpretation. Here is part of its beginning...
The real truth is what we get taught in Sunday school is often very narrow, very shallow and I would say dishonest. We sacrifice our intellectual integrity when we consistently offer one simple interpretation of scripture while ignoring all other valid ones. Some may answer back with “well then you can make scripture say anything you want”. This is often true; people do this all the time. However I don’t believe you be honest and not go deeper with the text.
Meanwhile, over at Signposts, Dan talked about an article about the Uniting Church in Australia and goes in the same direction. Here's part of what she said..
It frustrates me when the advocates of a particular position say or imply that to hold any other position does not take the bible seriously. This makes a mockery of the complexity of Biblical understanding and study. It also means that anyone who tries to introduce into the discussion an examination of the Biblical basis for this belief or that belief is immediately accused of cultural relativism and of bending the Bible to their own viewpoint. If this is the standard, then you can say that you are taking the bible seriously when you support slavery, capital punishment, polygamy and racism, as all are clearly supported by the bible. If you don't want to do that, then at least admit that two people who take the bible seriously can still disagree about what it says.
Last week I posted here from my journaling about accepting the Gentiles into the church in Acts. We discussed this section in our study/trainin on evangelism this morning. And it fits into what Leighton and Dan posted about biblical interpretation.
The acceptance of the Gentiles was preceded by one of the most revolutionary actions in the still young church. Peter went to Cornelius's house and ate supper. We don't know if pork or shellfish were on the menu, but simply being there and eating food prepared in non-Kosher ways was enough. Imagine Peter's incredible tension. He had this dream, this vision, that allows him to eat everything.
BUT, the Bible says, very, very clearly that if you do what Peter is doing you will be expelled from the People of God! You have broken the law of God!
As the denominational officials from Jerusalem came to find out what was happening, they came quoting scripture. The Bible says.... Peter, what you have done is sin.
Looking back from 2000 years later we know that the dream was from God. Peter knew because he dream was affirmed by what Cornelius also knew. The community had to learn. The community had to discover that the Word of God is alive and active. They came and discovered that the Gentiles were in the Spirit. Here is how Luke tells it:
15“As I (Peter) began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?”18When they (the officials from Jerusalem) heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.”
Bottom line - the law of God was changed. They knew it by the fruits of the Spirit's arrival on the Gentiles.
Now, I learned a few things in the discussion this morning.
... First, there are people who don't realize that the "Jewish Law" that is often referred to is all from the Bible. One person said that Peter was just moving beyond "man-made laws." That person didn't know that the Kosher laws are in scripture. (This is part of the issue of Biblical interpretation- people don't know the Bible as deeply as they could.)
... Second, to Peter and the early Christians, to break the Jewish Law was the same as saying that the Bible doesn't hold true anymore. Paul had to dance around that issue, and left it somewhat undecided as far as Jewish Christians were concerned. He, in essence, said that those laws were not meant for the non-Jews. (I know that's over-simplifying, but that was the effect.)
... Third, to take this to its logical conclusion, would get me into a deep debate from which there is no escape. What if we see someone who we believe to be a sinner (Gentile) who has been given the Spirit and exhibits the fruits and power of the Spirit? Would we say- that can't happen. They're still a sinner? Or would we at least stop and consider that God is moving in ways far beyond the scope of my poor human understanding. I know I am not giving an example here. I think I am still afraid to go that far.
... Fourth, I need to evangelize, share the story of Jesus and the promise of His power and hope, without regard to issues of the sinfulness of the person I am talking to. I am not there to be a judge, jury, or the one to decide they are to be excluded. I am to share the Good News. Focus on Jesus. Share Jesus as my personal experience, strength, and hope.
If God would then bring them in, just as they are, and give them the Spirit, who am I to say that God can't, won't, or shouldn't? I am still working on this but thanks to LT and Dan, I have at least made some movement.

