Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
A question of appropriate Bible application
I noodled with an essay I titled “In defense of conspiracy theory.” I thought to find biblical grounds in Deuteronomy for a mandate to look for fire when you saw smoke: “If you hear in one of your cities . . . then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently” (13:12-14; see also 17:4).
A friend objected that the Deuteronomy passage has to do with “searching out whether someone is encouraging God’s people to worship other gods. . . . The passages don’t tell us what other kinds of rumors are worth our time investigating.”
This is a very interesting point. Just what is our permitted use of the Old Testament? We know from the New Testament that the Old has continuing authority and validity for our lives in some way or other (Luke 24:25-27,44; 1 Corinthians 10:6,11). Perhaps the most sweeping of all is from 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”
As they say, the devil is in the details. Is it overreaching to see in these Deuteronomy passages permission to chase down rumors other than the exact rumor cited in the passage—namely, the rumor that an inhabitant in the land is trying to persuade people to worship other gods? If the application of this passage must be to this exact situation only, then it has a very narrow application indeed! Then in what sense is “all Scripture . . . profitable for teaching,” since we live in different times and circumstances from the original audience of these words?
If we can be content for the moment that the Deuteronomy passage has some general applicability to us, then what of the conspiracy question? What is the threshold of evidence needed for checking out a rumor or story? Well, it is pretty low. “If you hear . . .”
The question of what is “worth our time” is a whole other kettle of fish and beyond the scope of this rant. I wish I could just settle what the Old Testament is good for.
To hear commentaries by Andrée Seu, click here.
back to top14 Comments to “A question of appropriate Bible application”
The question of correct application comes after understanding a passage in it’s historical and textual context.
First wrestle with what the author meant by it, then ask yourself how to apply it. NOT the other way around.
It’s hard enough to get this point across to non-believers (as if they’d never heard of such a thing when reading any form of writing) without Christians failing to see it….
Report comment to moderator
MAKE IT MAN said it right. It’s not “what this passage means to me”. It’s what this passage means. Period. In it’s original context. And then, because Scripture is the word of God, it transcends time and culture to speak to us today.
“since we live in different times and circumstances,”
Do we, Andree? Is not idolatry just as prevalent now as then? Oh, the objects of our affections change in appearance and sophistication, but we have our idols just the same.
Report comment to moderator
maybe right now our idols are economic well-being or “freedom” to worship.
Report comment to moderator
In consideration of the 2 Tim 3:16 verse, it’s interesting to note (and adds to the strength of your “wondering” about the OT) that at the time that verse was written the only Scripture WAS the Old Testament.
Report comment to moderator
First wrestle with what the author meant by it, then ask yourself how to apply it. NOT the other way around.
If the NT authors had done this, they wouldn’t have cited OT passages as prophecies about Jesus.
Report comment to moderator
The Bible claims that the writers were not writing from only their own abilities but under the direction of the Holy Spirit of God. So, NT writers referred to the OT in a different way than any of us ever could.
Make It Man described the way we should approach all of the Bible.
It is not rocket science but it does take a heart open to God and earnest work.
Report comment to moderator
“If the NT authors had done this, they wouldn’t have cited OT passages as prophecies about Jesus.”
Oh well. We can say this becaue, of course the NT Authors didn’t know Jesus, or the OT better than we do…
You have to consider the genre also, Spin. It’s part of that little thing called… Um… “context” that was mentioned in post #1.
If I don’t miss my guess the NT authors quoted prophetical books in reference to Jesus. Funny thing about that…
Report comment to moderator
I find plenty of profit in the OT passage even if I limit it to its immediate context. The point being made here is so important that it justifies itself without need of morethan one implication or application. Idolatry is enemy number one. So much so, that even the rumor that it may have a toehold must be chased down. It gets the “where there’s smoke there’s fire” standard. What other rumor might we investigate, which upon confirmation would be dealt with by the prescribed smiting and burning? Most everything else gets the “caught in the act” or “two or three witnesses” standard, with a more limited response.
And I don’t think it’s saying “what does it mean to me” to apply this thinking to my own heart. We aren’t authorized to set up another theocracy nationally, but so much of the economy of OT Israel as a nation parallels what goes on in the heart of a believer (or even a church if we’re careful in how we apply it) under the New Covenant. There are hints, even shouts, of idolatry in my own heart. I should chase them down with a vengance–and smite that city (in my heart) with the edge of the sword (of the Spirit.) The Word of God takes me to the Cross again to receive grace.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza, the NT authors applied OT prophecies to Jesus because they fit. They took Jesus at His word that the Scriptures (what we call the OT) testified of Him, John 5:39.
Report comment to moderator
John Frame has written and taught extensively on this issue. In short he advocates a “tri-perspectival” approach that takes in to consideration 1) the law 2) the situation and 3) the person.
Biblical interpretation falls under #1, determining what the “law” is, which Frame holds to be of highest importance. He goes on to show that the law, once understood, must be applied correctly to a situation (i.e. how does smoking out idolaters in the OT correspond to this situation) by a person (i.e. how must I change to fulfill the command).
iTunes has a free series of seminary lectures by Frame on Christian Ethics that fleshes out the approach in detail, it is several hours worth but highly recommended.
Report comment to moderator
The appropriate way to read the Old Testament is as the musings of desert nomads. Matters of science are addressed with the prevailing theories of the Bronze Age. There is more attention given to guidelines on how to properly sacrifice animals than how to properly prepare food. There is nothing about infectious disease, electricity, or civil rights, among other things that would have been extremely useful for the ancient Israelites. Reading the Old Testament as a product of the creator of the universe is a very puzzling experience indeed. It makes much more sense when it is recognized as the collective wisdom of one group of people, roughly 4000 years ago.
Report comment to moderator
Except for the pervasive..”Thus said the LORD.”
Report comment to moderator
gwf81, I don’t know what your background or motivation is in approaching the text, but if you have read the OT and come away with that conclusion you have really missed out. I do agree that there is not much detail about electricity there, but I don’t think that is a liability!
Report comment to moderator
Message #11 is about right.
We are trying to understand issues of modern times with “musings of desert nomads. Matters of science are addressed with the prevailing theories of the Bronze Age.”
“Reading the Old Testament as a product of the creator of the universe is a very puzzling experience indeed. It makes much more sense when it is recognized as the collective wisdom of one group of people, roughly 4000 years ago.”
I do believe that the theory of evolution does provide some explanation of how we evolved. However, we stopped evolving mostly, and just as we have physical parts (such as our appendix) that serve no useful purpose for our current life, we have psychological traits (such as our willingness to respond to myths as if they are obvious truths) which don’t help us out in our curent time.
When we were a small group of intelligent apes with a brief life span, our hugely overdeveloped sex drive which takes over our bodies as teenagers was a survival trait. We continue to breed like crazed weasels (and dress it up with religious trappings, as if lust were not enough motivation) even though we have hugely overpopulated the earth like cockroaches and starlings and rats.
Probably wisdom has never had much survival value so evolution never much selected for it. Foolishness (like homosexuality) doesn’t make much evolutionary sense, but “mother nature” never bred it out of us.
By 2100 civilization will be done. The rats and the cockroaches and the starlings will say, “Pity about the humans, but at least there’s more room for us. Pass me that bone, please.”
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!