James Wibberding

I am doing a sermon series right now that approaches the book of Revelation as a collection of character studies. I think this is an interpretive angle that would reduce confusion for lots of people. It works pretty simply: The first time a character is featured, a visual description is given. Later in the story, key fragments of those descriptions are repeated to associate an apparently new character with the one who has already appeared. This takes much of the mystery out of what is happening as the story unfolds. Also helpful is understanding that the center of the story is chapter 12, where all three of the main characters appear: Christ (royal child), Satan (dragon), and the Church (woman). If anyone would like to test the theory, the featured descriptions of the main characters appear as follows:

Christ: Revelation 1:9-19

Satan: Revelation 12:3-12

Church: Revelation 7:2-16

In a previous post, I suggested that appropriate Bible study let’s Scripture set the agenda. Let me explain what I mean. Much of Bible study is done to establish doctrine, which means that we look for specific answers when we open our Bible’s. This may be church doctrine or a personally relevant biblical doctrine. This, however, can blind us to the real biblical themes and cause us to see only what we choose to see. It can lock us in to our preconceived framework of truths and leave us without large pieces of the puzzle that will change the picture entirely. We should, instead, sit at the foot of Scripture and let God tell us what matters most to him. There may be times when we need to study specific topics but this study will be fruitful only if we have first let Scripture set the agenda and build the framework for our understanding.

One reason Christians splinter into so many denominations is that Christians don’t know how to study the Bible. When we sit down at the Word of God, strange behaviors take over. Instead of taking in the whole message and letting it guide our thoughts, we look for key statements that we can string together to support views we already hold. It is the only source of vital information I know of that people resist being informed by.

I think I have room to speak, because I am describing my own behaviors in a not too distant time. I would have never thought to take a collection of isolated statements from the morning newspaper and construct the day’s events as I thought they should be. So, why such behavior with God’s Word?

Before you claim innocence, consider this: Do you read the Bible with a study-guide or a concordance? Or do you look for the story as it unfolds before you? Broad reading is the only way to receive the message as it comes. After the big message has been received, filling in the details with a more directed study (i.e. concordances and study guides) is appropriate. But, I am convinced that the bread and butter of Bible study is broad reading.

I tuned in to the Republican presidential debate on 11/28/07, where candidates were asked whether they believe in every word of the Bible. The question made candidates obviously uncomfortable, and I don’t blame them. Unless you define what it means to believe the Bible, a yes or no answer may commit you to something you don’t actually believe. The incident reminds us that you and I need to know what we mean by it.

The candidates had various perspectives. Rudolph Giuliani said he believes the Bible but doesn’t think it should all be taken literally. His example was Jonah, whose fish story, Giuliani says, is an allegory that didn’t really happen but is there to teach a larger lesson. Mitt Romney affirmed his belief in every word of Scripture, with the caution that he might interpret it differently than you do. Mike Huckabee, who has a degree in theology, answered wisely in saying that Scripture is a revelation from an infinite God and can’t be fully understood yet deserves our belief. He added that some biblical issues are complex but we need to get serious about the clear ones first (like love and concern for fellow humans).

What do you mean when you say you believe in the Bible? Another source I have been reading answers that question for you. It is a book by Richard Dawkins, called The God Delusion. As the title suggests, he looks askance on religion. To ridicule the Christian faith, he sketches a picture of the Old Testament God as a petty, emotionally unstable tyrant, ready to snuff you out at the slightest misstep. He then attaches that view, and his perception of what literal interpretation means, to us Christians in order to dismiss Christianity as dangerous and absurd.

Does literal mean reading each verse or aspect in isolation and drawing conclusions? Dawkins does so, and the result is awful (but he is right that many Christians use the same philosophy of interpretation). Or, does literal mean reading broadly to understand what picture the pieces really make? I don’t know what Dawkins or Giuliani or Romney mean by literal but I do know which approach shows the most respect for Scripture as divine revelation. It is the one that seeks most to know what God actually means to say (broad reading to understand the big picture).

Perhaps Dawkins can teach us something. Maybe the common literalistic approach to Scripture will indeed lead us down a path toward divinely endorsed genocide and the stoning of gays and Sabbath-breakers. Perhaps the same Bible study methods we use to prove good doctrine could be used to prove devilish doctrine.

Two principles can help us out of danger. First, let the Bible interpret itself through broad reading. Second, always be sure Scripture sets the agenda.

One of my chief ambitions in life is teaching people how to study the Bible. That may seem strange, or like something for those new to the faith but I believe the need is common. To some, it seems like a strange notion. After all, what is so complex about it? You read the Bible and accept what it says. Right?

In truth, we learn without realizing it and never ask whether the method is right or not. We learn by seeing it done. Further complicating the issue is that most Adventists (I can’t speak for those from other backgrounds who might be reading this) learn their Bible study methods through evangelists, who have to summarize and simplify and resort to quoting the texts that seem to speak most clearly (whether they mean what they’re said to mean or not).

One result is that people can string a few texts together to make a compelling point but they don’t know why another person’s similar but opposing string is wrong (besides their preference for their own string). Another result is a lack of confidence or success in studying the Bible without a prepackaged study guide.

I write from the inside. All I have written here once described me. I don’t mean to project my own experience on everyone else but I do know many people who have had the same experience. When I finally learned to study for myself, the exciting world of God’s truth opened up to me. I don’t have all the answers but, in the next few posts, I will share some of those I do have.

I just picked up a new translation called the English Standard Version. It is new enough that I have not yet seen literature to oppose it. But it will come. And I know what it will say. Regardless of the translation, it always says the same things. And it always makes exhaustive efforts to show how this new version changes the “true text” of the King James Version (starting with the assumption that the KJV is always correct). It always incites fear that this new translation is part of the New Age or similarly sinister conspiracy.

At first I was compelled by these arguments, then I learned Greek and Hebrew and began to compare translations more intelligently. I found that the King James Version doesn’t always reflect the original text most accurately. I found that the chief examples given for how the new translations undermine important doctrines (like the Sabbath or the divinity of Christ) are usually cases where the new translation is truer to the Greek or Hebrew.

Should these differences challenge us? Yes. If we are really after the truth of God, and not just trying to defend the way we always thought about it, we should be grateful for the new windows into God’s truth that these translations open.

When a new translation of Scripture hits the bookstore shelves, the Christian world should get excited about this fresh look at God’s truth. We should read with eager anticipation of new insights that escaped us before. Instead, most Christians hold fearfully to a translation made 400 years ago when English words had different meanings and a consistent translation method had not been developed.

I don’t have to wonder whose plan this was.