Example Number 1: Acts 4:32-37 – Communal Living: The Normative Principle
One danger to Bible interpreters is a failure to recognize the difference between a prescriptive passage of Scripture and a descriptive passage of Scripture. A prescriptive passage teaches a doctrine directly that is to be applied to the Christian Church universally. These direct teaching transcend culture, customs, and time. Descriptive passages are different. Descriptive passages are passages which merely describe what took place, and thus illustrating eternal principles for the reader’s application.
I would argue that if an interpreter were to use Acts 4:32-37 as an endorsement of a type of communal living as being normative for the Christian church then he is misinterpreting the passage. His error is most likely that he has interpreted a descriptive passage as a prescriptive passage.
Acts 4:32-37 is a descriptive passage of Scripture. It is not a prescriptive passage. That is, it describes a historical occasion, and in doing so it illustrates timeless truths for the Church; it does not directly set forth a doctrine for the Church’s universal housing situation. Christians can live outside of community and not be in sin. If the passage is not prescribing communal living as the norm then what does it in fact teach?
We must ask ourselves, “What is Luke’s intended meaning of this text? Why did he put in there?” Once we establish this we will see the point which is being emphasized. Clearly, Luke recorded this event to show us the self-sacrificial love displayed by these early Christians. They met needs of others even at the extremity of their own personal expense. They went to radical measures to display the love of Christ, and thus, bringing glory to Jesus’ name. The emphasis here is on the type of love being displayed by these early Christians as opposed to their living situation.
This principle is described elsewhere in Scripture:
“This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. This is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence.” (1 John 3:16-19)
Concerning our passage in Acts, the rule to be followed is a simple one. Determine if a passage is specifically teaching a universal doctrine or if it is illustrating the application of a greater truth relevant to various situations.
Determining the nature of a passage is vital because it directly affects the way the teaching of the passage is applied. Passages that prescribe something must be adhered to by all believers, but passages that instead describe something must be appropriated in a different way. In differentiating between these two ways of interpreting we can accurately apply all of Scripture’s teachings in the correctly.
The correct interpretation of Acts 4:32-37 is that this account illustrates a mighty description of how the love of Christ was displayed in His early followers. This type of love should be replicated through various expressions of the church universally. Any interpretation that fails to recognize this greater truth and merely sets forth a doctrine on how Christian’s must live in communities as a normative practice is not only wrong, but is superficial at best.
Example Number 2: Liberated; Yet Still Under Law – Addressing the interpretation that Christians are still to adhere to the Old Testament ceremonial laws.
Concerning the Christian’s relationship to the Old Testament laws one helpful principle of interpretation to keep in mind is called, “The Progress of Revelation”. This principle shows that, “God did not reveal His entire revelation in Genesis 1. The revelation was progressively unfolded over a period of some 1,600 years through the writings of about 44 different authors” (Gibbs, 2004, p.111).
Understanding that God gave His revelation in progressive stages is vital to the way a Christian applies the Old Testament law(s) to himself; especially the ceremonial laws. Confusion at this point will result in the misinterpretation we are addressing.
There were three categories of laws given to Israel under the Old Covenant. Each category had a specific class of regulations with specific intended applications. First, there were civil laws. These were specifically for the nation of Israel as they pertained to their national ethics. Second, there were moral laws. Moral laws are eternal truths (principles) for the people of God. Lastly, there were the ceremonial laws. These laws concerned the religious rituals involved with the priesthood.
In order to apply the ceremonial laws correctly the Christian must follow the progressive unfolding of revelation from the Old Testament to the New Testament. In doing so, he will find that these rituals were copies and shadows of the heavenly things (Hebrews 8:5). And having established a new covenant God has made the old obsolete (Hebrews 8:13).
The correct way for a Christian to interpret the ceremonial laws is to recognize that they were designed to foreshadow Christ. Christians need not uphold these rituals today, because the point of them was to indicate the coming of Jesus. Once we see these as foreshadowing Jesus and having their fulfillment in Jesus then their purpose is successful.
Example Number 3: Galatians 5:1 – A Response to Holy Spirit-Lead Antinomianism
Galatians 5:1 – Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.
The Holy Spirit never leads us in disobedience to the word of God. This interpretation of Galatians 5:1 completely fails to recognize the apostle’s intention and his point. To arrive at this conclusion/interpretation is to remove the verse from its immediate context and its wider flow of thought. Finally Scripture interprets Scripture. This bogus interpretation would obviously contradict many clear teachings listed all throughout Scripture.
To avoid misunderstanding Paul’s interpretation of “liberty” in Galatians 5:1 we must understand the “Law of Context”. The Law of Context states that a verse cannot mean something in isolation that it does not mean in its immediate context and natural flow of thought (Gibbs, 2004). The immediate context of Galatians 5:1 is verses 4:21-5:15. Therefore the definition of “liberty” in 5:1 should remain consistent with immediate context in (Gal. 4:21-5:12) and the wider flow of thought (Gal. 2:1-5:26).
The liberty described here is a liberty to walk in holiness and righteousness. This freedom is based on faith in Christ and not justification through merit. This is Paul’s whole point and emphasis throughout the letter. Because Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us, we as Gentiles are reconciled to God on the basis of faith in His substitutionary death. We no longer need to be entangled with a guilty conscience, nor should we attempt to justify ourselves through perfect obedience to the Law of God.
Being justified by faith, we are no longer children of bondage subjugated by the Law of God and its terrors. On the contrary, we are free to walk according to the Spirit, having been cleansed of an evil conscience, and rendered alive to God in Christ. Through faith in Jesus, Christians are now free to uphold the law; not make it void.[1] The correct interpretation of this passage will lead believers to holiness and not licentious.
Example Number 4: John 6:53 – Christian Cannibalism and the Early Church
John 6:53 – Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you”.
Christ did not institute cannibalism as a right in the early church because of His words in John 6:53. This is not only heretical but it is blasphemous since He spoke of His own flesh. This disgraceful interpretation comes by applying a literal interpretation where it is absurd to do so. To avoid this, the interpreter must recognize a figure of speech when it is being used so that the correct application of the command can be made.
Jesus’ words about eating His flesh and drinking His blood were metaphoric. They were a continuation of His previous teaching which was also metaphoric.[2] This metaphoric language is seen all throughout these three paragraphs, and it is interpreted by Christ Himself as such.
The interpretive key is verse 6:63. Here Jesus interprets His own words as “spiritual” and not literal: “The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life”. This removes the interpreter’s liberty to apply these words in any other form than that which was intended and identified by Christ Himself.
The correct way to interpret this passage is to recognize that Jesus was not promoting cannibalism but was stating that a union-based relationship with Christ is the only way to obtain eternal life. The “eating His flesh and drinking His blood” was metaphoric of partaking of the benefits of His substitutionary death through faith. Only by union with Christ through faith can one ever obtain salvation and eternal life. This was Christ’s point.
Identifying the figure of speech being used does not diminish Christ’s message at all. Rather it clarifies His intent so as to provoke a right response from the reader.
Jesus spoke in this manner intentionally. His words were designed to offend the mind of the flesh.[3] He intended on offending people because He knew that many did not truly believe.[4] His intention was to polarize the crowd, exposing those who were fraudulent from those who were sincere.[5] This would be manifest by their response to His words.
The same words, however, also gave “life” to the spirits of those who believed.[6] Those who responded according to the flesh would leave.[7] Those who had been, “drawn by the Father” and “taught by God” would not leave, but confess that, “[He] is the Christ, the Son of the living God”.
Reference List
Gibbs, Carl, B., 2004, Principles of Biblical Interpretation: An Independent-Study Textbook, Global University
Holy Bible, 1973, Holy Bible: New International Version, International Bible Society
Holy Bible, 1994, Holy Bible: New King James Version, Thomas Nelson Publishers
Filed under: Hermeneutics - (Rules for Interpreting the Bible)
Hello,
Ugh, I liked! So clear and positively.