INSPIRATION AND IILUMINATION

By

Morena Arthur Maphutsi

012-0718 SAO

A Project

Submitted to the Faculty

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

BIB2043

Principles of Biblical Interpretation, 3rd edition

PN 03.01.12

Global University

September, 2016
Morena Maphutsi, 0120718SAO BIB2043 Biblical Interpretation, PN 03.01.12
2
INSPIRATION AND ILLUMINATION

1. A response to the interpretation of Acts 4:32-36 as an endorsement of a type of

communal living as being normative for the Christian church?

The book of Acts is primarily focused on capturing the birth of the church at Pentecost

and the Gospel movement as administered by the Holy Spirit through the Apostles. It is widely

accepted by scholars that the author is Luke who dedicated his letters (Acts and Luke) to his

beloved Theophilus. The book highlights how the story of Jesus connects with the Old

Testament, and the expansion of the church through the power and presence of the Holy Spirit

making it what it is today.

a) Which of the rule of interpretation was broken, ignored, or violated?

In Acts 4:32-36 believers sold their possessions and would bring the profits to the temple

so that they may be allocated to the different needs of the church community. There is no

indication, however, that this is what Luke intended to portray as a doctrinal position of the

church in general. Fee (2003) states, “Unless Scripture explicitly tells us we must do something,

what is only narrated or described does not function as a normative [i.e. obligatory] way- unless

it can be demonstrated on other grounds that the author intended it to function in this way.”

(124).

This is the only portion of the Bible where believers sold their possessions and owned

nothing for themselves, and as selfless as that was, it was not a pragmatic illustration of how

everyone who comes to Christ must sell their positions and give the proceeds to the church.

Again, it can be argued that this illustration of the early church was not comprehensively detailed

so as to properly adopt (i.e. which possessions to sell and which ones not to; does this include
Morena Maphutsi, 0120718SAO BIB2043 Biblical Interpretation, PN 03.01.12
3
clothes and families etc.?). What can be noted is how united the early church was in charity, they

loved Christ with all their possessions, and loved one another as Christ loved them.

b) Which rule of interpretation should be followed?

As noted above, Luke’s intention was not to present a doctrinal and/or instructional

conduct for the Christian community (as popularly accepted), but to narrate on the events of the

early church, especially in the presence of the Holy Spirit in the ministries of the Apostles Peter

and Paul. Therefore it is with this regard that, “no verse or phrase can mean something in

isolation that it doesn’t mean in its wider context” (Gibbs 2004, 99).

One can notice how the immediate context (chapter 5:1-11) after this portion then

introduces Ananias and his wife Sapphira who sold their property and lied about their proceeds

that they were struck and died. All these events are consistent with the presence of the Holy

Spirit in the initiation of the church and the unity that was among the brethren. This unity of the

brethren had been illustrated in John 13 when Jesus Christ himself washed His disciple’s feet and

told them to love one another in the same manner, later stressed by the Apostle Paul in his

1Corinthians letter and his Philippians Epistle.

c) What interpretation of the passage would be more biblically accurate?

Because of the obvious interest of Luke’s interest in the work of the Holy Spirit in the

book of Acts, it is exegetically reasonable to conclude that in this passage, the Holy Spirit had

brought the unity which reflects that of the Divine Trinity (John 17:21). The Apostles were bold

to testify as was promised that they will receive the power of the Spirit to be witnesses (Acts

1:8). Also, to show that the work and presence of the Holy Spirit had prevailed so strongly that

even lies were punished. Notably, because of the Holy Spirit’s presence, Christians became a
Morena Maphutsi, 0120718SAO BIB2043 Biblical Interpretation, PN 03.01.12
4
family, sacrificing for one another and also being illuminated to whom the servants of the most

High God’s servants were such that they would present their possessions at their feet.

2. A response to the belief that Christians are still obligated to adhere to Old

Testament rules regarding sacrifices, clothing, and diet?

2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV): “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable

for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” In this verse, the

Apostle Paul generalizes all canon of Scripture, and affirms that the Bible is given by God

himself, including the Old Testament. However, Scripture must be studied and understood within

its own context and meaning for proper interpretation. The Old Testament means the “old

covenant” between God and men (Israel), and the New Testament means the new relationship

which came through Jesus Christ.

a) Which rule of interpretation was broken, ignored, or violated?

The rule states that each passage must be interpreted in harmony with all other

passages. The rules found in the Pentateuch, referred to as the Law, are not binding to the New

Testament Christians (Rom 10:4). As was the ancient custom between a suzerain and a

dependent vassal, so it was between Yahweh and His subjects, Israel. They had just been rescued

from hundreds of years of Egyptian slavery. Stuart (2004) notes, “At the same time they needed

direction as to how they were to be God’s people- both in their relationship with each other and

their relationship to God- so that they would shed the ways and culture of Egypt and not adopt

the ways and culture of the Canaanites whose land they were to possess” (168).

It is a misinterpretation to regard the obligations of the Old Testament as compulsory to

the New Testament Christian in the sense that the contexts of the two are different. Christians do

not have a temple where they can fulfill other ceremonial Laws, and most importantly, the
Morena Maphutsi, 0120718SAO BIB2043 Biblical Interpretation, PN 03.01.12
5
church is not Israel. To impose some of these Laws on Christians today would be an injustice to

the stipulations of the Law itself, because one cannot fulfill those stipulations which seem

conducive to their environment and neglect the rest. James 2:10 (NIV) states: “For whoever

keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.”

b) Which rule of Interpretation Should be followed?

Sacrificial Laws, diet, and clothing are Laws found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

Houdmann (under “Types of Fabric”) asserts, “The rule against wearing different types of fabric

was not a moral law.” One can notice how in Leviticus 11 Yahweh repeatedly emphasized that

certain food were unclean to “them” (Israelites). Therefore, the appropriate rule for studying

such casuistic Laws states “An interpretation of a passage should always conform to the

environment of the author.”

It is important to note that the Law was given when the Israelites were on their way to

Canaan, and some of these Laws were conditioned to preserve their physical and spiritual health.

Yahweh as the suzerain, refrained his subjects from foods which were likely to carry diseases in

the extreme climate of the deserts and/or Canaan, and those that were unreasonably expensive,

associated with pagan religions. Because the Law is a covenant, the attire, foods, and sacrifices

served as an expression of loyalty to Yahweh, which the Israelites didn’t keep (Hebrews 8:9).

These were the conditions that prompted Yahweh to give Israel casuistic Laws, although the

moral Laws are apodictic.

Sacrificial Laws were performed by the priests who were Levites. Today we do not have

the Levites in the church, and also, Hebrews 10:11-14 teaches that Jesus (the High Priest) offered

himself as the last sacrifice which is able to wash away sins. To still demand clothing, sacrifices,
Morena Maphutsi, 0120718SAO BIB2043 Biblical Interpretation, PN 03.01.12
6
and diet Laws would be to undermine the New Testament (covenant) which Jesus inaugurated

through His death and resurrection.

c) What interpretation of the passage would be more biblically accurate?

Gibbs (2004) states: “Any interpretation of a solitary passage must be consistent with the

teaching of the entirety of Scripture- the Bible cannot contradict itself” (118). It is of utmost

importance not to stress passages or sections of Scripture with total disregard for the counterpart

passages of the same subject in other portions of the Bible. Notably, the Law was didactic- that is

to teach Israel the nature of their God. To apply this knowledge taught by the Law which is the

Torah (in Hebrew), meaning instruction and/or commands, is to supplement one’s understanding

of the New Testament.

Williams (2003) affirms: “The ten commandments are not true law as societies think of

law… They express statements of policy and principle for their relationship to him [Yahweh]”

(268). This Decalogue policy is carried over in the relationship between God and the church.

What Israel had to eat, wear, and sacrifice was all God’s instruction on holiness and love which

is what God still demands from his dependents today. Although it is not the primary reason for

the Law, it was also meant to make them aware that they could not satisfy the Lord’s statutes-

and that they needed a Saviour to mediate on their behalf.

3. A response to (or rebuttal of) the belief, based on an interpretation of Galatians

5:1, that Christians may ignore New Testament commands as long as they feel that they are

being led by the Holy Spirit?

Hebrews 5:1 (NIV): “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do

not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.” Indeed Christ has set Christians free
Morena Maphutsi, 0120718SAO BIB2043 Biblical Interpretation, PN 03.01.12
7
for freedom, because the world is contaminated by sin which evidently binds people’s

perceptions and distracts the purpose in which their Creator intended for them.

a) Which of the rule of interpretation was broken, ignored, or violated?

The rule states “Always interpret a passage in harmony with the context.” By assuming

that the Apostle Paul was refuting the New Testament commands with this one portion of

Scripture seems unlikely, and tremendously erroneous. Also, to assume that the Holy Spirit is

responsible for the contradiction towards what the New Testament teaches is extremely bias.

Fee (2004) notes, “We simply cannot stress enough the importance of learning to THINK

PARAGRAPHS, and not just as natural units of thought but as the absolutely necessary key to

understanding the argument in the various epistles” (67). This is how the error was conceived, by

neglecting the context of the text. One man said that for a Christian to be truly liberated is to

have a position with Jesus Christ, and to have that position is to have that responsibility as well.

b) Which rule of interpretation should be followed?

One passage will often explain another passage. The rule of context proves to be

immaculant in such instances as Galatians 5:1. One may notice how the preceding paragraph

(4:28-31) addresses the issue of Hagar and Ismael as slaves in contrast to that of Sarah and Isaac.

This is how the Apostle Paul beautifully put the comparison of freedom by Christ and the

bondage of sin which prompted the Law to be given.

It is also interesting that in the succeeding verses (13-26) elaborate more on what the

author intended to portray. Notice how the writer elaborates on his message, “You, my brothers

were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature, rather serve one

another in love” (Galatians 5:13 NIV), just before noting down the fruit of the Spirit. In verses

16-18 he makes a strong point that the Holy Spirit will not gratify the sinful nature. Being led by
Morena Maphutsi, 0120718SAO BIB2043 Biblical Interpretation, PN 03.01.12
8
the Spirit means that a Christian is not enslaved to the Law. Since it is the Holy Spirit the author

of all Scripture, what He illuminates will always be consistent with what He inspired His

subjects to write.

c) What interpretation of the passage would be more biblically accurate?

Utley (2012 under “Word and Phrase study”) asserts: “The noun “freedom” is fronted

and the verb form of the same root is used (“freed,” aorist active indicative) to emphasize the

concept!” This means that freedom according to the biblical doctrine is a concept of people

returning to their intended position in creation- God’s companions. The Holy Spirit a plays a

prominent role in the distribution and administration of this freedom toward mankind.

Considering the Epistle’s central message, the preceding and succeeding verses to

Galatians 5:1, one may notice the context of freedom from the Law and sin which the Apostle

Paul refers to, instead of stipulations to New Testament commands. McClelland (2012) affirms,

“Paul’s advocacy of this new reality struck at the very heart of established Judaism’s exclusivity.

Paul portrays the Mosaic law (and its traditional interpretations) as the guardian against human

immorality” (1331).

4. A defense that the early Christians might have given to pagans in Rome who

mistakenly thought that Christ had instituted cannibalism as rite in the early church

because of his words in John 6:53?

John 6:53 (NIV): “Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth. Unless you eat the flesh of the

Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” This is one of the Scriptures that are

not easily understood at first glance. However, there are fundamental truths which Jesus was

teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum (v. 59), despite the presumably unethical and shallow
Morena Maphutsi, 0120718SAO BIB2043 Biblical Interpretation, PN 03.01.12
9
appearance of this statement. Applying proper exegesis and hermeneutics, a Christian may

appreciate this lesson that the Master was teaching.

a) Which rule of interpretation was broken, ignored, or violated?

Roman Catholics of the early church had difficulty understanding this dichotomy of

manna and Jesus. Although in the true sense, these two aspects of God’s Grace are not

opprobrious to each other, but coherently fulfill the great plan of Salvation. Manna was physical

bread, “Of course, he is speaking spiritually here, not physically, following the tradition of Isaiah

49:10 and 55:1-2. Jesus had used similar language with the woman at the well of Samaria”

(Wilson under “Jesus, the Bread of Life).

The rule that was neglected by the Romans is, a passage must be interpreted in harmony

with any idioms it contains. This difficulty occurs because of the rule which states the simplest,

most obvious meaning of any passage is usually the correct one. Jesus was a metaphorical

teacher, referring to himself as the door and as the vine. It is the emphasis on the Greek word

trogo in verse 54, which means to gnaw on (like carnivores when they kill) which causes such

difficulties in understanding Christ’s words, which meant He had to be brutalized. Burge (2012)

asserts: “If symbolism is still at work (as it likely is), the symbols inevitably suggest the Lord’s

Supper. It is not the sacrament that gives life; rather, salvation is found in the sacrifice behind it

and the faith that it evokes (6:35, 40, and 47).”

b) Which rule of interpretation should be followed?

The harmonious interpretation of Scriptures can be respected with this one rule, observe

the proper balance of Scriptural truth. Context is very important as one studies Scriptures,

without it, the Bible may tend to project obscure messages. In the succeeding verses (v. 63),

Jesus says the flesh counts for nothing, and the words He spoke are spirit and life. Neither
Morena Maphutsi, 0120718SAO BIB2043 Biblical Interpretation, PN 03.01.12
10
cannibalism nor sacrament holds firm to what the master was teaching. Although sacrament is an

expression of what He was talking about in the same way that professing faith is an expression of

possessing faith.

By reading through the entire chapter one can notice that Jesus was indeed responding to

the question of the sign which was given to the Israelites for sustenance, manna, which prompted

Him to portray himself as the true bread that came down to save humanity from eternal

condemnation (v32-35). John 6:51 (NIV): “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If

anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the

life of the world”. Notice how this bread is actually a ransom for the life of the world, not a meal

to those who hunger but a trade in for eternal life.

c) What interpretation of the passage would be more biblically accurate?

Only John refers to Jesus as the Lamb of God, the only acceptable sacrifice for atonement

(John 1:29). It is logical to see how John would be interested in including this portion in his

narrative, to express the agony that Jesus was fully aware of that He had to endure. The rule

states, all passages on any given subject must be studied. Staples (under “Not Metaphorically

speaking”) asserts: “Moreover, the expression to eat flesh and drink blood already carried

symbolic meaning both in the Hebrew Old Testament and in the Greek New Testament… for

persecuting or assaulting someone.”

Therefore, we have an illustration of Jesus expressing the brutality He must endure

physically in order to redeem that which is spiritually dead. John 6:53 can be paraphrased: “If

you do not sacrifice me and accept my atonement, then you have no life in you.” At the center of

the Christian faith is the death of Christ and His resurrection, without them, there is no
Morena Maphutsi, 0120718SAO BIB2043 Biblical Interpretation, PN 03.01.12
11
Christianity. Rules of interpretation are essential because the Bible tells one complete message of

God’s grace, and that message should be adhered to with all diligence. AMEN!
Morena Maphutsi, 0120718SAO BIB2043 Biblical Interpretation, PN 03.01.12
12

REFERENCE LIST

Fee, Gordon D. and Douglas Stuart. 2003. How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth. Grand
Rapids: MI: Zondervan.

Gibbs, Carl B. 2004. Principles of Biblical Interpretation. 1st ed. Springfield, MO: Global
University.

McClelland, Scott E, and Gary M. Burge. 2012. The Baker Illustrated Bible Commentary. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group.

Michael, Houdmann. Why does the bible speak against wearing clothing made of different types
Of fabric? Got questions. Ministries.org. http://www.gotquestions.org/different-types-of-
fabric.html (Accessed 10 September 2016).

Staples, Tim. What Catholics believe about John 6? Catholic Answers Magazine.
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-catholics-belive-about-john-6.
(Accessed 15 September 2016).

Williams, William C. 2003.They Spoke from God: A Survey of the Old Testament. Gospel
Publishing House. Springfield, Missouri.

Wilson, Ralph F. 8. Eating His Flesh, Drinking His Blood (John 6:53-57).
http://www.jesuswalk.com/lords-supper/8_john6.htm. (Accessed 14 September 2016).

Utley, Bob. 27 November 2012. Galatians 5. (Accessed 13 September 2016).