The Bible was not written to us.

[BGF]

I've heard several variations of this statement recently and I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around it.

"The Bible (or various portions of it) was not written to us, but is for us."

It seems like a simple statement, but the hermenuetical assumptions behind it are dizzying! As one who tends to over think (and is easily distracted by rabbit trails), I could use some focus. Perhaps it is my aversion to oversimplification, but I'm bothered by this. Can anybody tell my why? Feel free to tell me to get over it and get a life.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Brett (welcome to PB!),

Two Scriptures immediately come to mind; first where Jesus says in John 17:20-21, "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one". This includes all to whom the gospel comes. Of course Jesus spoke to those around Him, but as those who would bear witness to all the ends of the earth. And then there is Isaiah 45:22,

Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth:
for I am God, and there is none else.​

Here the LORD is talking to the prophet, but intends as by him to all humankind. I could multiply passages where this is the case, as in Acts 1:8,

But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you:
and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea,
and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.​

He speaks to His prophets and apostles, whom He means to be the carriers of His words to us; thus He is – by means of His messengers – speaking to each of us directly.

I hope this is helpful.

 

[SolamVeritatem]

Brett,

Two things:

First, I don't know that I would ever tell you to get over it or get a life. Of course, I won't say that I am not capable of saying that or that I have never said that to someone. However, that's just not something I am apt to carry in my proverbial tool bag, because as one who was not raised in the Reformed faith, I too have had (and still sometimes have) many pressing questions.

Secondly, I say amen to Steve's response and humbly venture to add just a bit more in hopes that it might be helpful. Two passages that come to mind for me are from John's gospel and his epistle, respectfully:

"Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:30-31, ESV)

"I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life." (1 John 5:13, ESV)

Depending on how you interpret verses like these, it's very possible that both statements could be true. This is not evident in every case, but I would venture to say that some who make the statement you refer to are making an attempt to make sure believers understand the covenantal and redemptive purpose of the scriptures as a whole, and to guard from private interpretation and personal poetic licenses with regard to the text.

Not sure how helpful this is, but it's just my $.02

Grace and peace to you as you continue to study His word...

In Him,

Craig

 

[chuckd]

I've heard several variations of this statement recently and I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around it.

"The Bible (or various portions of it) was not written to us, but is for us."

It seems like a simple statement, but the hermenuetical assumptions behind it are dizzying! As one who tends to over think (and is easily distracted by rabbit trails), I could use some focus. Perhaps it is my aversion to oversimplification, but I'm bothered by this. Can anybody tell my why? Feel free to tell me to get over it and get a life.

I'm not even sure I understand the difference. If I received a letter and said "look what Dad wrote to me", and the person corrected me "no, he wrote that for you", I would make a mental note to not invite that person to my next party.

 

[GulfCoast Presbyterian]

I would presume what those who use this statement are trying to say is something along the lines of "We were not the express and intended recipients of the letter to Philemon, but we can learn and profit from God's wisdom contained in the letter, study it, and apply it to our own situations." Or, we were not the express recipients of the letters to Timothy, but since they are scripture, and "[a]ll Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God[a] may be complete, equipped for every good work" we can say that these words were written "for us." This would fit with what Paul says in Romans 15:4 (and 1 Cor 10:11) that scripture composed in the past was written to instruct us.

There may also be an element in this usage of "A (bible) text cannot mean what it never could have meant to its original authors or hearers." Gordon Fee and Doug Stuart: How to Read the Bible for All its Worth. For instance, I hear "prosperity gospel" heretics brandishing about Jeremiah 29:11 frequently, thus birthing the overused internet meme "So Jeremiah 29:11 is all about you? Tell us about your time in the Babylonian exile." Which is not entirely a correct analogy, but I think it illustrates the common usage.

I hope that helps, and did not make matters worse.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

There are two sides of error in hermeneutics. Some liberals treat the Bible as "their" dusty relic, which is to say they think it is FOR them to use to find whatever they please. That's not what we mean. Some conservatives treat the Bible as if they were its pristine recipients in the 21st century.

I believe the original statement is a reckoning with the reality that the Bible is *both* a temporally situated text, written in time by a human scribe in his own lifetime (bearing all the natural limitations of time, place, and culture) unto a particular audience; *and* it is a divinely inspired text, expressing the mind of God through Holy Spirit's agency, and is applicable to many generations.

God's covenant people have a unity--formal, informal, and existential. Thus, the Word of God is for them in a way that is superior to the sharing of other literature out of the past. It is for them more akin to the way the 18th century USConstitution is for a 21st century people in solidarity with the 18th century fathers to whom it was written.

But interpreting a legal text is different from interpreting a literary text (even if the literary contains some legal portions). We err in biblical interpretation if we assume, for instance, that pieces of Mosaic legislation are directed to us today simply because we affirm solidarity with the Israelites of old.

If Scripture is written TO us (according to this way of thinking) without taking account of the temporal/geographical/cultural divide and the contrasting redemptive-historical situations of them and us, then we should be seeking reduplication of that way of life and religion. Why not think like the Judaizers?

This, by the way, is the method of most Mslms toward their holy book. Islm struggles to rationalize its faith outside its original setting and its hadithic interpretation. Frankly, it is easier to impose 8th century ways on everyone.

But if Scripture is written FOR us, then we make the appropriate adjustments in how we read the text as applicable to our situation. We respect the duty we have to interpret any passage in light of its original context, both literary and social.

Thus, for example we will read Paul's letter to the 1st century Corinthians, who were members of the inaugural generation of NT believers, as accommodating their cornucopia of extraordinary spiritual gifts; and not as if it implicitly identifies a modern NT church as only that one including "tongues" in its repertoire. Mark (above) also makes an excellent note about common abuses of texts like Jer.29:11.

Understood this way (which is how I believe it was intended), the phrase "not written to us, but written for us" is a good one. "Written for our instruction," Rom.15:4; 1Cor.10:11.

 

[Jack K]

Yet we must not forget that as we read the Bible, God speaks to us through it. He speaks to us today, and he speaks to us personally. So while we must always keep in mind the important distinction Bruce wrote of when we interpret the text, and avoid private interpretations or interpretations which fail to take into account the original hearers, there also is a sense in which the idea that the Bible is merely written for us is not enough. It is the Word of God. It is no dead document. It speaks with power and present urgency from God himself, and to the hearts of his people.

So long as that's understood, though, the line you cite is probably fine. It does acknowledge a distinction that also important.

 

[Eoghan]

I am intrigued to know the exact nature of the problem. For myself the problem has always been with the Old Testament. This was/is essentially "Jewish" and for that reason some see it as less relevant to Christians. This was not the case for the Apostle Paul who is probably the gretaest OT scholar the3 Church has ever had, combine that with his authority as an Apostle with unique access to the Holy Spirit and we need to pay him heed. In 1 Corinthians 10 Paul speaks of the Exodus as taking place as examples for us. This takes the OT experiences and clearly states their original purpose was for us (as well as them).

 

[BGF]

I've heard several variations of this statement recently and I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around it.

"The Bible (or various portions of it) was not written to us, but is for us."

It seems like a simple statement, but the hermenuetical assumptions behind it are dizzying! As one who tends to over think (and is easily distracted by rabbit trails), I could use some focus. Perhaps it is my aversion to oversimplification, but I'm bothered by this. Can anybody tell my why? Feel free to tell me to get over it and get a life.

I'm not even sure I understand the difference. If I received a letter and said "look what Dad wrote to me", and the person corrected me "no, he wrote that for you", I would make a mental note to not invite that person to my next party.

I think that's what is bothering me. This pithy saying does no justice to the rich doctrines concerning Scripture. All of the replies on this thread have been useful, succinct explanations of the (probable) intent behind this phrase. I see no need to try to encapsulate it all in the distinction between two prepositions.

 

[BGF]

Thank you all for your very helpful responses. I suppose I just can't see how the phrase squares with the notion of the Spirit's authorship of the whole Bible and it's intended recipient, the Church.

 

[whirlingmerc]

It sounds like a distinction without a difference.

 

[GulfCoast Presbyterian]

There are lots of folks I have met that think we should be celebrating the Jewish feasts/festivals of the OT who have grasped neither the distinction nor the difference (nor significant parts of the NT).

 

[joytotheworld]

Jack K said 'It is the Word of God. It is no dead document. It speaks with power and present urgency from God himself, and to the hearts of his people.' After a lifetime of fervency to
other teaching that gave me the canonicity and how I could find answers in it.....I finally heard my husband's teaching on The Doctrine of the Bible. It is not just the written word of God...it is God's Word written....and now I seek truth through all of it and we are finally in a church that teaches it all expositorily!! What a relevation.