Can Anyone Read the Bible?

[George Little]

This article in Newsweek recently made me think. http://www.newsweek.com/id/185850

Do we really believe that a person can read the Bible for themselves without a Bible degree etc. and find the truth? Is the truth in scripture able to be clearly understood by a honest seeker?

Can such a person read Luke and Acts and understand gospel and then obey it?

I know the Ethiopian eunuch said that he needed help understanding Isaiah 53 and needed Phillip to interpret it for him. But that was a veiled prophecy. And I do know that Peter said some of the things Paul wrote were hard to understand but those only referred to a small number of things.

I also know that there is a divinely ordained role for the teacher in the kingdom, but I hope we never get to the point like Christian traditions of the past (and a few in the present) who think that they have to interpret everything for the people because the "common" person could not possibly understand scripture.

[George Little]

Tony. Thanks for the link to your blog. I love it.

The message of God is characterized as meat sometimes and milk at others. There are parts that can be easily digested (understood at a basic level) and parts that you have to chew on (study deeply, contextualize, wrestle with) in order to digest them. My observation of our my heritage is that we often made this distinction and I think it has a good basis in scripture.

However, I think we have inadvertently send a message to our people (at least I have) that you really can't understand the scripture unless you have a degree in Bible, or can read in the original languages of scripture or at least have an above average intelligence. As a preacher I can make the discovery of truth an overly intellectual (or academic) exercise rather than an loving appeal by our Father to come into a complete family relationship with Jesus.

I am not anti-intellectual but I do wonder if we don't elevate formal education too much when we (or at least our churches) demand that our preachers have doctorates etc. and think that that will guarantee a healthy Christ focused pulpit. Don't get me wrong. We need well educated proclaimers. However I don't think we do ourselves any favors when we present the path to understanding the Word of God as such a drawn out and intellectual pursuit.

I am enjoying this discussion. Thanks for all your input. I appreciate the obvious love that each of you have for the Lord and for the proclamation of His Son.

[Danny Bratcher]

This is a really good discussion. I have not been able to read the article that you are basing your discussion on, but I too believe that people need to be taught! Just as Weldon stated, it would not be impossible to learn the Bible without a teacher because we as baptized Christians have received the same Holy Spirit that the Apostles and Paul received, and He is our Guide and our Intercessor, but it is always much easier to have a "Philip" shed some light on what we are reading!

The Scriptures can still be a challenge to us all because of the depth of God's Words. I do not know a person today that completely understands the Bible. I attended Sunset International Bible Institute before coming to Brazil, and I found it amazing to hear the instructors who have dedicated their lives to God's Word, and have been teaching and training men at Sunset since the school began, talk about something new that they had just uncovered while reading their Bible, something they had read many times before, and maybe at one time even studied in depth.

So if the teachers are still learning, where does that put the average Christian or even more so, the average non-Christian who has taken an interest in learning from God's Word? One of the biggest problems that I see with a self-taught reader of the Bible is their interpretation. That has been a problem for 2000 years! Just look around at all the different churches.

Also, I noticed in this discussion that the focus is mainly on the New Testament. What about the Old Testament? Just try reading and understanding the Old Testament without a teacher, and then making the connection to the New Testament! Many read about Jesus, His ministry, life, and death, but do they really understand why He had to come? Why was the Eunich reading Isaiah 53 when he probably had heard of Jesus' life and death?

There will always be questions about what we read in the Bible, and it is alway great to have people like yourselves who discuss these topics and challenge our knowledge. In fact, these discussions are a teaching tool to us all who are Christians. So if we have questions, how much more so the self-taught individual?

[James Nored]

David, you have made a very good and honest assessment, I believe! There is indeed a cultural gap due to being 2000 years removed from the time of Christ (and much, much longer, for much of the Old Testament). I would say that there are definitely passages that would easily be misunderstood without this "higher learning"--which is primarily to inform one about these cultural diffferences, rather than being only there for super smart people. The primary lessons of Scripture, however, I think are usually apparent without this higher learning, at least for Christians.

As to what a person would conclude on their own, that is a great question. I would say that the basic story of Jesus' life, death, burial, and resurrection would be understood by most--though without a human vessel to share this, I doubt many people would believe on their own. As to salvation, our fellowship sees this as plain in regards to baptism and its purpose. However, if Christ-followers from various denominations see this differently, why would this be clear to someone without any teacher? The fact is, those who grew up in our fellowship grew up with a particular way of reading Scripture. I do not think that our way of reading is automatically and universally apparent, or that those who read it differently do so out of a desire to disregard God (which some in our fellowship accuse others of).

As to fasting, since most American Christians do not fast, this is probably evidence that there is a cultural gap that might prevent those without teaching from practicing. We have a strong emphasis upon elders and deacons, and yet there are passasges that speak of the strong role of evangelists like Timothy, who appointed elders, a separate listing of pastors in Eph. 4., and a much different description of worship in 1 Cor. 14 than we usually practice. As to a cappella music, since there are no a cappella radio stations, and this is not at all a part of North American culture, I serioualy doubt most people would come to this conclusion--particularly if they read the Old Testament.

I am not seeking to argue for or against these things, I simply think that we are much more optimistic about what a person would conclude on their own.

What do you think of these thoughts? This is a great discussion!

[David Duncan]

I have spent years thinking about this question and wish my conclusions were more solid! On one hand, the audience that heard the Scriptures live from the mouths of Jesus and the apostles were primarily peasants and slaves. They were able to comprehend and live out what they learned.

On the other hand, while we can understand Scripture today, we are far removed from the culture, language, and nuances of the first century world. Higher education helps individuals understand those elements which puts Scripture more into the perspective of the original audiences.

I often ponder what I would get from reading the New Testament if I had never heard a word of Scripture or contextualization before and came to the U.S. as an immigrant .From the New Testament, I definitely think I would understand Jesus was God's son who was executed, buried and resurrected. I think I would easily understand my response to be baptized into his death, burial, and resurrection for forgiveness of sins and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. I could figure out to meet on the first day of the week and even to take the Lord's Supper. I think I would have an understand of evangelism, fasting, elders, deacons, and even some instruction on worship. Just based on what I would see around me, would acappela music and an every week contribution quickly come to mind unless someone was instructing me?

[Tony Whittaker]

Just a related thought - I blogged recently about a research study on how adults become Christians. There were several key factors: that a life problem often started people off on their spiritual journey, that it took over 2 years average, and that the biggest factor by far (more than reading the bible, tracts, videos, etc) was a relationship with a Christian. The posting is about 5 down on this page:
http://www.internetevangelismday.com/blog/

Blessings

Tony

[James Nored]

Weldon, it's great to hear from you! Thanks for joining in.

Yes, begats are a bit foreign to modern culture. As you say, it might be hard for someone to stick with reading through seemingly strange sections of Scripture. On the other hand, a real live person who has experienced the power of the gospel may help them to do this.

People play a role not only in "teaching" (explaining things and making them more clear), but in testifying to the truth of what is written. We are the living embodiment of the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Humbling, isn't it?

[Weldon C. Kennedy]

I agree with the basic premise that a teacher is needed to help people learn from the scriptures. It is hard to imagine that someone could start reading the begats in Matthew and stay with it long enough to grasp the plan of salvation. In Acts 8: 28 - 30, the man from Ethiopia was reading from Isaiah and Philip asked him, "Do you understand what you are reading" The Ethiopian answered, "How can I unless someone will guide me." It would not be impossible to learn about salvation with a teacher, but it becomes much more diffictult and much more unlikely.

[James Nored]

Thanks, Greg for your thoughs, including the great biblical references. Balance is often what is called for, and probably is true here as well, as you indicate.

I once heard someone say that usually when someone goes off and thinks of something that no one else has ever thought of before, we have a name for what this usually is - heresy. And arrogance is probably in there too. This is one of the reasons why I am skeptical of interpretations that originated only in the last century or two. These are likely culturally biased.

On the other hand, it is possible that we at times may have forgotten interpretations that have a long history in the church across the ages.

[Greg Ziegler]

Good discussion guys. I appreciate your corporate thoughts. Reminds me of Prov 27:17 --iron sharpening iron. It strikes me that there is a balance to be sought here, as in most things. I will not choose to be slave to another man's interpretation. On the other hand, to disregard the corporate mind of the church likely betrays arrogance which is unbecoming a disciple. When Ezra read the Word (Torah?) to the people, there were men who mingled among them (the people) to give the meaning. And Paul "reasoned" with Jews (twice referenced in Ac 17, and twice more in Ac 18)...about Jesus and the Scriptures. Seems that logic and deduction were involved...not just reading. It strikes me that it is a mistake to over-complicate the gospel. But there are just as many dangers in over-simplification. I am thankful for men who have dedicated their lives to helping others understand...especially when they are humble enough to realize, as James said earlier, that those "seekers" they are trying to help may be vessels through which the Holy Spirit himself provides instruction to the instructor.

[James Nored]

George, great thoughts. I too reject the idea that only "learned" people can understand Scriptures. Certainly, there is much that can be understood without advanced degrees. The central teachings of Jesus of loving God and one's neighbor are abundantly clear.

Like you, I seek to be open to the insights of seekers. They may see things that I have overlooked. Their perspectives are always interesting, and often helpful.