When you read the Bible, how do you avoid coming to the wrong conclusions about how it applies to your life? Some people think that the narrative of Jesus feeding the five thousand is mostly about someone sharing their food and that we need to share our food. Some people think that the narrative about David and Goliath is a moral lesson to conquer our difficulties. I'm not saying that biblical teaching has nothing to do with our lives. There are many commands in the Bible. There is plenty of teaching in the Bible describing what kind of character qualities a believer should have. A lot people read the Bible and draw the wrong application from it.
Reading the Bible
- Thread starter Toasty
- Start date
- Status
It depends on how you view the Bible. If people look at it as a manual of how to behave, and only as that, then that is all they will see. But the Bible is filled with God describing who He is and what He has done. Even the two stories you mention are about that.
Well, for the examples you provided (i.e., Jesus feeding the multitude and David and Goliath), a remedy would be to concern oneself foremost with the intended meaning of the author. The conclusions you gave are the result of the interpretation of someone who has either no clue or no concern (or both) of 1) the cohesive and closely-interweaved story of Scripture and 2) the reality of the intended meaning of the author (i.e., what is the author [not the reader] trying to say?). This is the typical hermeneutic of evangelicalism broadly, I would say—purely reader-response.
gordo
Puritan Board Freshman
Right now I honestly try not to get personal 'interpretations' from the Bible. I did that in the past and things went badly for me. Now I just look for Christ in the scriptures and God's mercy to his undeserving people. It's all there and it's all I need lately. When in doubt I rely on godly people who have come before me and left their interpretations.
"The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man." WSC Ans #3
What is the "Feeding of 5000" intended to do? Is it intended to explain a duty? What sort of argument is required to demonstrate that conclusion? A great deal of jumping to conclusions, if you ask me.
Suppose someone points to Mk.6:37, "You give them something to eat," and says: There it is, Jesus said.... On the one hand, this is a very selective sort of appropriation, because the situation in the Gospel is at best only loosely analogous to most present moment conditions. Furthermore, if Jesus commands one thing (in a given passage), and this is viewed as a general command, why not the remaining commands in the same passage?
Should the participants sit in the same sized groups? Surely they MUST sit at least, since he "gave command" they should all sit, and that on green grass. As soon as we start excusing elements of the story as "unnecessary" for full cooperation, the whole jig is up. It is evident the first appropriation of command was based upon assuming a continuity of convenience, the feeling one should respond in action... somehow.
The Feeding of 5000 is part of a Gospel, the main purpose of which is to prompt us to faith in the Savior. "What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?" Jesus answered and said unto them, "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent," Jn.6:28-29. The purpose of this miraculous feeding was to teach the disciples and everyone present to commit to Jesus as Lord and Christ; their physical needs were secondary (but would be supplied by him as needed). The disciples were obtuse, Mk.8:16-21; and so were the people, Jn.6:26.
It is important that the text of Scripture be used in accord with its design. That design does not include lots of specific direction for what to do in the myriad contexts of our individual lives. The actual commands of Scripture are many, but also narrowable to ten commandments, or even to "love," an extremely general proposal. The revealed will of God is most specific in matters worshipful, and otherwise quite general as it applies to every conceivable course of life, and being pleasing to God. Superimposing our own experiences on reports in the Gospels or in OT history in order to come up with "the right response" is actually a terrific failure of imagination.
The idea that the Feeding of 5000 commands Christians to share their food or feed the hungry is an absurd conclusion. Those people were not hungry in the way the starving are famished. This text doesn't even work well as a passage enjoining hospitality, which happens to be a much closer analogy to the situation. Consider what Mark himself writes concerning the design of the miracle, and the disciple's failure to "get the message:"
Jesus walking on the water is tied directly to feeding the multitude. There's NOTHING about "sharing food" in the latter, therefore proof that such is not the point.
What is the "Feeding of 5000" intended to do? Is it intended to explain a duty? What sort of argument is required to demonstrate that conclusion? A great deal of jumping to conclusions, if you ask me.
Suppose someone points to Mk.6:37, "You give them something to eat," and says: There it is, Jesus said.... On the one hand, this is a very selective sort of appropriation, because the situation in the Gospel is at best only loosely analogous to most present moment conditions. Furthermore, if Jesus commands one thing (in a given passage), and this is viewed as a general command, why not the remaining commands in the same passage?
Should the participants sit in the same sized groups? Surely they MUST sit at least, since he "gave command" they should all sit, and that on green grass. As soon as we start excusing elements of the story as "unnecessary" for full cooperation, the whole jig is up. It is evident the first appropriation of command was based upon assuming a continuity of convenience, the feeling one should respond in action... somehow.
The Feeding of 5000 is part of a Gospel, the main purpose of which is to prompt us to faith in the Savior. "What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?" Jesus answered and said unto them, "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent," Jn.6:28-29. The purpose of this miraculous feeding was to teach the disciples and everyone present to commit to Jesus as Lord and Christ; their physical needs were secondary (but would be supplied by him as needed). The disciples were obtuse, Mk.8:16-21; and so were the people, Jn.6:26.
It is important that the text of Scripture be used in accord with its design. That design does not include lots of specific direction for what to do in the myriad contexts of our individual lives. The actual commands of Scripture are many, but also narrowable to ten commandments, or even to "love," an extremely general proposal. The revealed will of God is most specific in matters worshipful, and otherwise quite general as it applies to every conceivable course of life, and being pleasing to God. Superimposing our own experiences on reports in the Gospels or in OT history in order to come up with "the right response" is actually a terrific failure of imagination.
The idea that the Feeding of 5000 commands Christians to share their food or feed the hungry is an absurd conclusion. Those people were not hungry in the way the starving are famished. This text doesn't even work well as a passage enjoining hospitality, which happens to be a much closer analogy to the situation. Consider what Mark himself writes concerning the design of the miracle, and the disciple's failure to "get the message:"
Mar 6:51-52 "And he went up unto them into the ship; and the wind ceased: and they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure, and wondered. For they considered not the miracle of the loaves: for their heart was hardened."
Jesus walking on the water is tied directly to feeding the multitude. There's NOTHING about "sharing food" in the latter, therefore proof that such is not the point.
johnny
Puritan Board Sophomore
Firstly, I have a good belly laugh at myself and the crazy conclusions my carnal mind can come up with.
I mostly question my first impressions on passages before doing a bit of research. Puritanboard helps shape my thinking as does good reading material, and of course I am always in the Ministers ear, to ask questions and garner knowledge.
What has been wonderful about my experience with the Reformed faith is how it has shaped the way I think and I often surprise myself with correct conclusions (thats always a high five moment) but mostly I work from the principal of "I better just check this out first" before I make pronouncements.
- Status
