Category: Bible: Interpretation

Q. Is it correct to say that whenever God speaks in the Old Testament, such as “Thus says the LORD,” it is usually the Father speaking, but on some occasions it may be the Son or the Holy Spirit? Or is it more correct to say it is always the Father speaking? Or is there a better way to view this?

I think the general theological principle involved here is that the members of the Trinity, even though they are distinct persons, do things together. We see this, for example, in the creation account at the beginning of the Bible. It says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (likely referring to God the Father). But this account then relates how the Father created by speaking, which would be the cooperative activity of Jesus, the Word. As the gospel of John says, “In the beginning was the Word … all things were created by him.” And in that account we also see the activity of the Holy Spirit: “the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters,” surveying the dark, formless world and no doubt planning how to bring order and light to it. So all three persons of the Trinity were involved together in the first divine action that the Bible relates, and I think that continues to be the case as the Bible progresses.

Even when the second person of the Trinity comes to earth and takes on human form, we continue to see this type of co-operation. Jesus said after one of his great healing miracles, “The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does, the Son also does.”

I would apply this same principle to the instances of divine speech in the Old Testament. I think they are further examples of co-operation on the part of the Trinity. Interestingly, the book of Hebrews attributes to the Holy Spirit an oracle in Jeremiah that is originally spoken by “the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel,” who says of himself in that same oracle, “I am Israel’s father.” Hebrews says:

The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:

“This is the covenant I will make with them
    after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
    and I will write them on their minds.”

Then he adds:

“Their sins and lawless acts
    I will remember no more.”

But, as I noted, when God speaks these words in Jeremiah, the identification we have of him seems to be that of the Father. But this is not inconsistent with the principle of co-operation among the persons of the Trinity.

Hope this is helpful!

Q. Since it says Boaz was a family member of Ruth’s husband, would he have attended their wedding? I thought in Jewish culture the weddings were huge things, would they have met previous to when the Bible story started?

If Mahlon had married Ruth in Bethlehem, I think Boaz would most likely have been present, as a close relative of his mother. But Mahlon met and married Ruth in Moab, and I don’t think that extended family members would have traveled there for the wedding. However, I am not an expert in the ancient culture, and if others know more I hope they will comment.

Q. In his second epistle, Peter refers to Lot as a righteous man, and he ranks him alongside Noah. But it is recorded in Genesis that Lot offered his daughters to the wicked men of Sodom (though fortunately they were spared that fate). What has Peter overlooked, or what was his insight, that inspired him to credit Lot with righteousness at par with Noah?

The similarity that Peter sees between Noah and Lot is that God rescued each of them when he sent general punishment on the places where they were living. Peter writes that God “brought the flood on the ancient world” and “condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes,” but he “protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness,” and he “rescued Lot, a righteous man.” Peter’s overall conclusion from this is that “the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment.” The implication for his readers is that they should stay faithful during the trials they’re experiencing at the hands of the unrighteous, who will receive God’s justice in the end.

But for Peter to make this argument, Lot has to have been “righteous” at least by comparison with those around him—though not necessarily to the same standard as Noah, who was “a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, who walked faithfully with God.” Peter observes that Lot was “tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard.” So he didn’t approve of the wrong things that the others around him were doing, and he didn’t join in with them. On that basis Peter considers him to have been righteous.

However, when we put Peter’s observations into conversation with other parts of Scripture that talk about Lot, especially the account in Genesis, we get a further lesson, beyond the one about God preserving faithful people through trials. We see what a perilous position it puts us in if we continue to live right in the midst of people who are doing things that are so bad that they torment our souls. Like Lot, we may end up absorbing some of the beliefs and practices of those people without realizing it. I think this is the explanation for why Lot offered his daughters to the mob: Everything he saw and heard around him had “normalized” exposing people to abuse in that way. One take-home is that we need to be very careful about the various media—songs, Internet programming, movies,  television shows, etc.—that we let into our lives. They can normalize things that are contrary to God’s ways and destructive to ourselves and those around us.

So to complement what Peter says here, we should also stress the warning that Paul gives in his second epistle to the Corinthians: “What do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?  … Therefore, ‘Come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.'”

We need to be in the world to have an influence on the world. But if we start to become of the world, then we need to think more carefully about boundaries and safeguards for our hearts and minds. How close is too close? One good question to ask is, “In what direction is the influence flowing?” While Lot seems to have been trying to safeguard his mind (he reflected on what he saw around him, and he was horrified), he also seems to have been influenced by his surroundings to such an extent that he no longer even protected his family from the worst kinds of abuse.

Q. I have always believed that Abraham and Ephron played out a typical bargaining/price haggling over Sarah’s burial cave—something that happened all the time in the ancient world:
“Please, take it for free.”
“Oh, I couldn’t possibly.”
It seems that they did a little dance until they agreed on a price. I haven’t found anything written to corroborate or refute my idea. Do you have a thought?

I agree with your understanding of this passage. It actually gives us a fascinating window into the practices of the ancient world.

Abraham starts by humbly and diplomatically describing himself to the Hittites as “a foreigner and stranger among you” who needs to buy a burial cave. The Hittites call him in response, just as diplomatically, “a mighty prince among us,” and they tell him that he can ask any of them to sell him a cave.

Abraham then asks the community to speak with Ephron on his behalf (the rules of the game seem to dictate that he cannot speak to Ephron directly at this point), and Ephron, who is listening, says he will give Abraham the cave.

Abraham knows that this is actually further diplomatic language, and he responds by asking Ephron please to accept the price of the cave from him. That is Ephron’s signal, apparently, to name a price, but to do so without specifically asking for it: “The land is worth four hundred shekels of silver, but what is that between you and me?” This seems to be a fair price, since there is no further negotiation; Abraham weighs out the shekels with the other Hittites watching to certify the transaction.

Sometimes people from other cultures can appreciate this kind of ancient diplomacy more naturally than people can who have been raised in contemporary American culture. I was once leading a Bible study on Judges and we were discussing the passage in which a man named Othniel captures a city and wins Aksah, the daughter of the clan leader Caleb, as his bride. However, the couple then found that their land lacked water, and it was Aksah who approached Caleb to ask for some further land that had springs on it. Someone in the study asked why Othniel hadn’t done this himself, and another person in the study, who was from another culture, answered, “He didn’t have the standing to approach Caleb.” Contemporary American culture might see Othniel as a hero who had achieved status through his exploits, but apparently in his culture he was still the son-in-law who needed to show due deference to the clan leader. But the leader’s daughter could approach him.

Q. Was Herod the Great considered to be a Jew?

Herod was a Jew by religion and partly by descent. His father was Idumaean and his mother was Nabataean, both groups considered to be Arab, but his paternal grandmother was ethnically Jewish. Herod’s ancestors had converted to Judaism and were observant Jews, and Herod was raised as a Jew.

Q. In my studies, I’ve been troubled by the fact that the Old Testament rarely references Satan. When it does, it is vague at best and usually refers to him in some other form. Also, I understand that there are numerous references to “the satan,” which is actually just a way of identifying an accuser. Some agents of God are even referred to that way in the Hebrew. This all makes me feel like Satan is a creation of the New Testament and that the serpent in the garden, or the antagonist in the book of Job, were just generic characters.

Your question is similar to the one that I answer in this post: How can an evil being like Satan be allowed in God’s holy presence, in the book of Job? In that post, I observe about the character whom the narrator of the book of Job calls “the adversary” or “the accuser”:

“While this character is similar to the devil or Satan described in the New Testament, the portrait isn’t drawn as fully in the book of Job. The book doesn’t account for where he came from or how he became opposed to God. It does portray him as a crafty and malicious player within the complex moral web of the universe, but not necessarily as a consummately evil being who could never be allowed into the presence of a holy God.”

There is actually much debate about whether “the adversary” in the book of Job is indeed an “agent of God,” to use your expression, that is, someone who helps God with the moral government of the universe, something like the “devil’s advocate” (that is, the devil’s lawyer) who, in a saint’s trial, makes sure that all the deeds of the candidate for sainthood are fully considered and assessed, but who is not actually opposed to the candidacy. Many interpreters hold instead that “the adversary” is trying to harm Job because he genuinely believes that Job lives in a righteous way simply to receive blessings from God—this character is not capable of believing that people would obey God out of pure devotion. Personally I see the character more in that way, as sinister and malevolent, not working for God’s best interests.

So already in the book of Job, the portrait of Satan is being fleshed out. But I think this is actually one of those teachings that develops over the course of the whole Bible and finds its fullest expression in the New Testament. I think this is the nature of God’s revelation in the Bible: It is progressive; we have to follow the trajectory of a doctrine through all the pages of Scripture to appreciate it fully. I don’t think we can expect every doctrine to be fully articulated on every page right from the start.

Indeed, the New Testament itself indicates how its understanding of Satan expresses a doctrine that has developed throughout Scripture. In the book of Revelation, Satan is symbolized by a dragon, and Revelation explains that the dragon is “that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan.” So Satan is not a creation of the New Testament, but the fullest understanding of this figure who is diametrically opposed to God is found in the New Testament, which nevertheless helps us trace its own understanding back through the pages of Scripture.

Q. I recently saw two pastors arguing over whether the “cool of the day” in Genesis 3:8 was in the morning or the evening. I was so baffled by this that I did an unscientific Twitter poll and got almost a perfect 50/50 split. Fascinated, I did a Google search and got thousands of results for just this ONE simple topic. The Bible tells us not to lean on our own understanding, but it would seem that this is exactly what every single one of us is doing. So my question is, how do we know we’re not leaning on our own understanding? Unfortunately, I believe it to be an impossible question to answer, because five people can look at the exact same verse and come up with five very different meanings and every single one of them will argue that their interpretation is correct or even inspired. Still, I’d like for you to offer your thoughts on the issue and how you think we can be sure that we’re not leaning on our own understanding.

There seems to be an assumption behind your question, that if we are actually not leaning on our own understanding, but instead allowing the Holy Spirit to guide us into the truth as we seek to appreciate God’s word, then we will agree on what the Bible says and what it means. I think this assumption is basically correct, with a few caveats.

First, there are some things that truly are open to interpretation, so we should not expect that people will necessarily agree about those things. To use your example, many interpreters try to understand the phrase “the cool of the day,” literally  “the breeze of the day,” in Genesis 3:8 by appeal to the use of the same phrase in Song of Songs 2:17 and 4:6, where there is a parallel line that might help explain its meaning: “until the cool of the day, when the shadows flee.” But does that mean when the shadows of the night flee with the rising sun, or when the shadows of the day flee with the setting sun? The problem remains: Is this the morning or the evening? In the end, it is a matter about which interpreters of good will who are all well informed can legitimately differ. The literary and linguistic data available to us are simply not sufficient to make a definitive determination. So we should not expect all interpreters to agree. However, we should expect all interpreters to be humble and charitable towards one another and acknowledge that their own understanding cannot be definitive.

This leads to a second caveat: If we want to understand the Bible correctly, we need to read it and reflect on it in the correct spirit. The Bible itself says, “A natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to such a person, who is not able to understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” In using the phrase “natural person,” the Bible is ultimately describing such a person’s attitude and source of confidence—where that person is “coming from,” to use the popular expression. This attitude is the opposite of humility and reliance on God, which are the attitudes described in the passage you alluded to in Proverbs 3:5–7: “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will direct your paths. Do not be wise in your own eyes.” So one obstacle to understanding what the Bible says and means, evidenced in not agreeing about what it says and means, is simple pride. All of us should examine ourselves constantly and be horrified if we discover that pride is driving even the smallest part of our interpretation of a given passage.

Finally, I would say that, paradoxically, the very approach that led you to despair of people agreeing about the Bible actually is the way in which informed, humble, charitable interpreters ultimately will agree about what it says and means: considering what others say. People sometimes complain, “I just don’t get anything out of the Bible when I sit down to read it by myself.” My pastoral response is, “That’s because you’re sitting down to read the Bible by yourself.” We are not meant to understand the Bible alone, in isolation, by ourselves. We are meant to understand it in community. Admittedly there is a place for private reading as a devotional practice, but our Bible engagement must be more than that. We need the community to help us understand what we will not be able to understand on our own. So, looking around on the Internet, even doing a Twitter poll, are some good steps in that direction. But I would also strongly encourage participating in a regular group Bible study (composed of humble, open people) and being part of a church that has a commitment to sound preaching from the Scriptures with humility and deference to other views.

I think that if you cultivate humility and a reliance on the Holy Spirit in your own Bible engagement, and if you seek to learn from teachers and preachers who cultivate these same attitudes while diligently studying the Scriptures with all of the tools and training at their disposal, while you will not find that all questions are resolved by unanimous agreement within the entire church, I think you will find that many of your questions about the Bible are resolved to your satisfaction.

Q. Did the disciples have access to the scrolls in the temples after Jesus died?

I think you may be asking about this to know how the disciples were able to preach about Jesus from the Scriptures after his resurrection and how the New Testament authors knew how to appeal to the Scriptures when explaining the work of Jesus in light of the plan of God.

I also think that by “temples” you may mean the synagogues. There was only one temple in New Testament times, the temple in Jerusalem. But there were synagogues in cities throughout Judea and Galilee and in many other parts of the Roman Empire. And while most individuals in these days did not own copies of the Scriptures, since those were hand-copied, rare, and expensive, these synagogues seem to have had their own scrolls of the biblical books.

For example, Luke tells us in his gospel how Jesus went to the synagogue in Nazareth and “stood up to read” and “the synagogue assistant gave him the scroll of the prophet Isaiah.” Standing up was a sign that Jesus wanted to speak to the people gathered in the synagogue, and presumably the assistant brought Jesus the Isaiah scroll at his request, since Jesus then read a passage from Isaiah and spoke about it.

To give another example, Luke tells us in the book of Acts that Paul and Barnabas went to the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch one Sabbath day. There was a “reading from the Law and the Prophets,” and the synagogue leader then invited Paul and Barnabas to speak. In this case “the Law and the Prophets” likely means the Hebrew Scriptures. In other words, there was probably one reading from somewhere in the Scriptures, rather than two readings, one from the Law and one from the Prophets. Many interpreters believe that when Paul spoke on that occasion, he referred to the passage that had been read, but since Paul quoted five different passages, it is unclear which one this actually was. It is interesting to note, however, that Paul also referred generally to “the words of the prophets that are read every Sabbath.” Here “prophets” probably also means “Scriptures,” so Paul’s comment shows once again that people in New Testament times could hear the Scriptures regularly in the synagogues.

And it seems that it was also possible for people to consult the copies of the Scriptures that the synagogues owned. When Paul and Silas shared about Jesus with the people in the synagogue in Berea, Luke tells us, the people there “examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” So it seems that outside of the regular meetings in which the Scriptures were read publicly, people could also consult the Scriptures privately. It was also possible to study the Scriptures with a rabbi, who may have owned his own copies. Paul told the people in Jerusalem, “I studied under Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the law of our ancestors.”

So the New Testament itself shows us that the disciples and New Testament authors would have had access to the Scriptures by several means, and so they would have been able to learn what they said and reflect on their meaning in order to proclaim the person and work Jesus in light of God’s preceding redemptive work.