The Spirit's Role In Helping Us Understand Scripture
Over the past few days, I have been reading J.P. Moreland’s book, Love Your God With All Your Mind. It is a good book; deeply challenging. Moreland says many of the same things Nancy Pearecy did several years later in the much-lauded Total Truth. Like Pearcey, Moreland is concerned with the intellectual environment within Evangelicalism, and increasingly worried about the presence of the sacred/secular dichotomy that exists within the church as much as without.
While several of Moreland’s points have stood out to me, there is one that I thought would make for interesting discussion. In a chapter in which he seeks to sketch a biblical portrait of the life of the mind, he discusses the importance of biblical revelation in developing a Christian mind. He challenges Christians to consider how the Holy Spirit helps us understand the Bible. What he believes on this issue is significantly different than what the average Evangelical believes and practices. Here is what he says:
Because of the Bible’s nature, serious study is needed to grasp what it says. Of course, the Scripture contains easily grasped portions that are fairly straightforward. But some of it is very difficult, intellectually speaking. In fact, Peter once said that some of Paul’s writings were intellectually challenging, hard to understand, and easily distorted by untaught (that is, uneducated in Christian theology) and unstable people (2 Peter 3:16). Anyone who has tried to grasp the theological depths of Romans or Ephesians will say “Amen!” to that. The more a person develops the mind and the understanding of hermeneutics (the science of interpreting the Scriptures), the more he or she will be able to understand the meaning and significance of the Scriptures.Unfortunately, many today apparently think that hard intellectual work is not needed to understand God’s propositional revelation to us. Instead, they believe that the Holy Spirit will simply make known the meaning of a text if implored to do so. Tragically, this represents a misunderstanding of the Spirit’s role in understanding the Scriptures. In my view, the Spirit does not help the believer understand the meaning of Scripture. Rather, He speaks to the believer’s soul, convicting, comforting, opening up applications of His truth through His promptings.
Moreland goes on to say that there are three passages used to justify this idea that the Spirit helps us understand the meaning of a scriptural text: 1 Corinthians 2:14-15, John 14:26, and 1 John 2:27. He spends a paragraph or two on each of these passages in order to show that they do not teach that the Spirit actually helps us bypass the difficult work of discovering what a passage means.
“I fear,” he says, “that our inaccurate emphasis on the Holy Spirit’s role in understanding Scripture has become an easy shortcut to the hard work of building a personal library of study tools and using them. As Gallup poll after Gallup poll has shown, the result of our inaccurate emphasis on Spirit, along with our intellectual laziness, is that modern Christians are largely illiterate about the content of their own religion and feel inadequate because of it.”
And here, in brief, is Moreland’s solution. “We need local churches dedicated to the task of training believers to think theologically and biblically. We must develop intelligent Christians; that is, Christians who have the mental training to see issues clearly, make important distinctions carefully, and weigh various factors appropriately. If we are not planning to see this happen, then at the end of the day, what we are really saying is that a deep understanding of the Scripture, creeds, and theology of Christianity just doesn’t matter that much.”
While I doubt that many readers of this site would argue with Moreland’s proposed solution (increased intellectual training within the church) I do wonder how many would disagree with his understanding of the Spirit’s role in helping us understand the Bible. And so I appeal to you. Do you believe that the Spirit’s primary role in helping us understand Scripture is making known to us the meaning of a text? Or is it, as Moreland says, primarily in helping us apply what we have learned through diligent study of the Scripture, aided by the resources available to us? Or should we take a middle ground, suggesting that the Spirit is inexorably involved in both of these activities?
Comments (26) »
1. Wayne Leman
March 11, 2006
2:01 PM
Tim, I think the answer to your concluding question must be “all of the above.” We are made in the image of God, which includes an amazing brain which God wants us to use to study the Bible carefully. But the Spirit assists us in understanding things. Sometimes the Spirit helps us understand things we might not otherwise have understood, given our limited experiences and training. And I think that the Spirit especially is active in helping us apply what we have learned to our own lives. He is the Spirit of Truth that Jesus talked about to his disciples.
Thanks for the post.
2. Anne in Ft. Worth
March 11, 2006
2:40 PM
Did Moreland address a pair of even more salient verses, which are:
John 16:13 “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.”
Luke 24:27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them all the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.
IOW, I think Wayne has the right of it…this is not an either/or situation at all.
3. kyle
March 11, 2006
3:15 PM
Hey, thanks for taking of the registration requirements for commenting.
I think that Moreland is probably right that, generally speaking, the Holy Spirit is not interested in being a personal “cheat sheet” whereby a you can read the scriptures and “get it” without any serious intellectual effort. I think He does occasionally do just that, but such an event would basically be an example of the charismatic gifts in action. Where you stand on the Holy Spirit revealing information and arguments to you turns on where you stand on spiritual gifts. However, even if the Holy Spirit does supernaturally reveal the meaning of the text, that doesn’t help at all when it comes to explaining it to others. Either, you need the rigorous intellectual work of exegesis still, once it comes to explaining to others, or the Holy Spirit has to do that same supernatural-information encounter for each person whenever that teaching is expounded.
Translation: sure the Holy Spirit can do that, but it creates as many problems as it solves.
I think the most important thing to consider is the work of the Holy Spirit in dealing with the noetic effects of sin. Part of the Sin nature is that people just don’t want to know the truth. People can have all the intellectual capacity they need to interpret the Bible correctly, but without the intervention of the Holy Spirit, the mind will just slip past the truth in its effort to avoid it. Since that part of the sin nature doesn’t seem to go away very easily, application could well be the least part in the Holy Spirit’s work.
4. Chris Taylor
March 11, 2006
4:37 PM
Balance (which is different from fence riding). Both (which is different from non-commital).
C
5. david
March 11, 2006
5:54 PM
Unless the Holy Spirit teaches us, we will not learn spiritual truth (1Corinthians 2).
However, there is no reason to expect the Holy Spirit to give us understanding without effort on our part. That’s why we are exhorted to “study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2Timothy 2:15). God doesn’t ever bypass our intellect. We are to “be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Romans 12).
6. Brian Jones
March 11, 2006
6:23 PM
Moreland is right on the money, and to say any less violates a key tenet of the Reformation: the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture. The Scriptures are not written in heavenly languages which only the Spirit can disclose; they were written in common human languages using common terminology. Like any book, anyone using the normal tools of language can understand the message of the Bible.
Kyle is correct that the role of the Spirit is to overcome the noetic effect of sin. Although anyone of reasonable intelligence who tries to understand the Bible can understand it using the normal tools of language, the message of Scripture—that we are utterly lost and sinful and can only be redeemed by a supernatural, gracious act of God—is offensive to every one of us. The Spirit helps us not to understand this truth, but to accept it.
So, in the passage that David cited in 1 Cor. 2 (specifically v. 14), the meaning is that the natural (or literally a-spritual) man cannot welcome the things of God because they are discerned to be true only by a supernatual work of the Spirit.
Anne cited John 16:13, but that promise is the Apostles and their associates who were guided by the Spirit under divine inspiration. The Spirit guided them into truth so that we now have an inerrant, infallible canon.
This is a topic of some debate, to be sure. Millard Erickson and Daniel Fuller debated this in journal articles many years ago and scholars are still divided. But, IMO, the exegetical and theological data on this is clear. The Spirit’s role is to convince us of the truth of Scripture, not to disclose the meaning of Scripture. The latter position would mean an ongoing act of divine revelation happens everytime the Bible is read/studied. We would all become contiunationists everytime we open the text. And, I guess we’d have to hold to Grudem’s hypothesis about fallibility in this ongoing revelation since even godly men differ in certain aspects of interpretation. Also, this idea of the Spirit’s helping us understand Scripture is constantly used to justify every incorrect interpretation of Scripture. It makes the lives of us pastors a lot more difficult because we try to persuade people using the normal tools of language, yet they cling to their special interpretation disclosed by the Spirit to them, and them only.
7. Anne Ivy
March 11, 2006
7:42 PM
Whoa, Nellie! Maybe we’re talking past each other to a degree. I’m certainly not (nor, I daresay, is anyone else here) arguing in favor of “special revelation” by the Holy Spirit, as if Scripture says different things to different people.
But the natural man’s mind is darkened regarding what Scripture means, requiring the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps this illumination is what Morehead refers to as application?
8. Francisco
March 11, 2006
8:52 PM
Once I visited a church where the preacher was doing a topical preaching (on Halloween). There was a part when he wanted to point out a verse but he couldn’t remember the reference so he started saying: “It’s coming to me…it’s coming…wait” I guess he did not bring notes or an outline at least. I knew where the verse was but I didn’t want to say anything as he kept saying “It’s coming…” After a few minutes, he realized he wasn’t going to get it so he -as far as I remember- said what he recalled out of it -not an accurate quote. I don’t know if that seems to you like a sad example on the fixation some preachers have for bypassing their bible study -needed to prepare the sermon- by invoking ilumination from the Holy Spirit.
9. don
March 11, 2006
10:02 PM
If we have clear teaching on how ancient people understood writings directed at them, I think a lot of silliness would vanish. There is more research available today than ever before, that can help ensure that pastors as well as laypeople approach the Bible with some decent tools. As so many of these are now on CD-ROM, there’s no excuse for most people — at least most pastors — using them.
What I find frightening is the lack of understanding of two things: 1) how the early Church understood Scriptures that were clearly addressed to them and their worldview, and 2) how the early Church interpreted Scripture and the revelation of Jesus through councils and creeds that responded to real-life heresies.
I’ve read two books over the years that explained Jesus’ use of parables, in light of the expectations of His actual audience (Dominic Crossan’s The Dark Interval, and Praying the Parables by Joyce Huggett). Both books helped me a great deal by correcting my wrong assumptions about what Jesus intended His audience to understand from these deceptively simple stories.
All that said, we desperately need the Holy Spirit to make the Bible’s message come alive in our spirits, and actually transform us into the image of Christ, from glory to glory. There are really two Bibles: one that anyone can understand, by comprehending the black marks on the white page; and one that only the spiritually regenerated can understand, as the Spirit reveals the hidden manna — rhema, not logos — to our own hungry spirits. And if we belong to a congregation that worships the wrong trinity — Father, Son and Holy Bible — we can make the Spirit’s joyous task much more difficult.
10. Chris Alexion
March 11, 2006
10:07 PM
I’d never thought of the question exactly in Moreland’s terms before, but I’d have to say he’s basically on target, with one qualification. Our understanding of Scripture does come through intellectual effort and careful exegesis; we just need to remember that none of this would be possible apart from grace. If, as Moses told the Israelites, the Lord is the one “who giveth thee power to get wealth,” then surely we can’t garner much intellectual treasure apart from him. I’m sure Moreland would quickly agree.
Brian’s comment also reminded me of a related point. Too often we hear pseudo-pious comments about the “inadequecy of human language.” But we should tread carefully here. Human language is itself a divine gift; blaming our noetic problems on words and propositions leads us dangerously close to jabbering against the One who gave us them.
Anyway, thanks for the thought-provoking post.
11. Brian Jones
March 11, 2006
10:17 PM
Anne, I realize that you, and most who hold to the “Spirit helps us understand Scripture” position do not see this role of the Spirit as revelation.
However, that is what it amounts to if you think through the implications of the position.
Now, the most eloquent defenders of the “Holy Spirit as Teacher” position will say that the HS does not disclose anything new, He simply shows the believer what is already there in a “fuller sense” (that is a technical phrase, sometimes written as sensus plenior).
But this breaks down quickly. When you ask such a person to show you a text and explain what the Spirit has taught you about it, one of three things happens. (a) They import a meaning that is foreign to the text (this is the “special revelation” thing I protested against eariler). (b) They give you the plain meaning of the text (refuting their own position, because the meaning is available via normal interpretation). Or (c) they give you some application of the text that the Spirit supposedly taught them. Now, if the Spirit is merely applying the text, that is quite a bit different than saying that He is teaching what it means. Application is not the same as meaning; it is the implication of the meaning, and can be different for each person; meaning is always the same for each person.
Meaning is derived from what the author said. We interpret what God wrote through the human author by explaining what the human author intended to convey. The technical phrase here is “authorial intent.”
Authorial intent is the basis of interpretation, whether we’re talking about Scripture or Shakespeare or any other written or spoken communication. God has, by common grace, given every rational person the tools for interpretation. If those tools are sufficient for all communication except Scripture, then (a) inspiration was an incomplete act and (b) what the Spirit teaches now MUST be seen as special revelation, because He is teaching us something from the text that is different from what the original author intended. What else could it be, if not special revelation?
12. r10b
March 11, 2006
10:25 PM
The Spirit’s role in our understanding of Scripture is the more interesting, and the more academic, question. I do not mean to divert the direction of the post in a way specifically excluded by Tim, but…
As for Moreland’s proposed solution we may all agree, however, in my experience in modern evangelicalism, few local churches would be willing to bump established sermon and study group topics (rejuvinating your marriage, finding quiet in a chaotic world, spotting the devils in the bushes, etc.) in order to incorporate the in-depth study required to significantly ween the congregation off the milk. Better we should slap a coat of good intentions and enthusiasm (or guilt) over our limited understanding and get out there and do some God-serving work than waste precious time learning.
Now back to the topic at hand…
13. SovereignGoodness
March 12, 2006
12:14 AM
I think it depends on what Moreland means as application of Scripture. If he includes the ability of the believer to understand the Bible is truth and that what the author is communicating is true than yes, I can buy what is selling. I think a non-Christian can reasonably understand a passage when instructed intellectually- they just won’t believe it is actually true. That is the sticking point- not that we understand what the author is saying, but that we understand that his words are binding and authoritative. I also wonder about the differing degrees of intellectual ability and understanding that God grants to His people, and the role which the Holy Spirit plays in the process…
14. matthew
March 12, 2006
9:37 AM
Tim-
This is a thought-provoking post and one that I need to think about. But, I wanted to point out something about David’s use of 2 Tim. 2:15- none of the other modern translations use the word “study.” I have been told that this is archaic English, maybe good usage in KJV times— where “study” meant ‘try hard.’
NASB says “be diligent.” ESV says “do your best.”
Now, perhaps scripture teaches that we must study, but (IMO) it is not taught in 2 Tim. 2:15.
15. Anne Ivy
March 12, 2006
11:24 AM
Coming from an Episcopalian and Roman Catholic background, I used to believe this passage from John 6 in the literal and physical sense:
“So Jesus said to them, ” I assure you: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life in yourselves. Anyone who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day, because My flesh is real food and My blood is real drink. The one who eats My flesh and drinks My blood lives in Me, and I in him.”
Also, of course, this one from Matt. 26: As they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take and eat it; this is My body.”
Now, you wrote: “When you ask such a person to show you a text and explain what the Spirit has taught you about it, one of three things happens. (a) They import a meaning that is foreign to the text (this is the “special revelation” thing I protested against eariler). (b) They give you the plain meaning of the text (refuting their own position, because the meaning is available via normal interpretation). Or (c) they give you some application of the text that the Spirit supposedly taught them.”
Presumably I’m included in the class “such a person.” ;^)
When I was RC, especially, I marveled that anyone could be dumb enough to discount the clear, plain words of Scripture so as to deny transubstantiation. I mean, what else does Christ have to SAY?
Once I truly was regenerated by the Holy Spirit, however, I realized how this was a mistaken, though understandable, error.
When I discarded the obvious meaning of those passages, would you say I was then “import[ing] a meaning that is foreign to the text”; “giv[ing]… the plain meaning of the text, thereby refuting [my] own position, because the meaning is available via normal interpretation”; or “giv[ing] …some application of the text that the Spirit supposedly taught [me]”?
16. Brian Jones
March 13, 2006
12:02 AM
Anne, John 6:53-54, which you quoted, is an excellent text for this discussion.
The RC interpretation is literal in a very wooden sense. However, the normal rules interpretation include interpreting figures of speech figuratively. How do we know Jesus is speaking in a figure of speech and not in a woodenly literal way? Two ways.
First, the immediate context: John 6:53 comes in the context of the feeding of the 5000 (6:1ff). The crowd began eagerly following Jesus after this miracle, but their motives where impure. Jesus confronts their motives in v. 26 when he says, “I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill.” He continues in verse 35, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.” In this verse the phrase “comes to me” is paralleled with “believes in me.” It is obvious that Jesus is speaking not of his physical body or of physical eating; rather, Jesus is using a figure of speech to say that only faith in him matters because only he can satisfy. This figurative use of “bread” is carried forward into the next paragraphs where Jesus extends it by talking about his “flesh and blood.” But even then Jesus helps us not to misunderstand because he tells us in verse 51, “This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world” a reference to his crucifixion.
Second, the wider context of John tells us that Jesus frequently speaks in figures of speech; for instance, in John 4 he talks about “living water” which the woman at the well initially mistakes for literal water. Later in John, Jesus calls himself “the gate” (10:7, 9) and “the light of the world” (8:12).
So, while it is admittedly a bit confusing at first because Jesus is so adamant that you have to eat his flesh and drink his blood, a careful study of the context can bring you to the correct interpretation—a metaphorical one. Normal laws of language use and interpret metaphors; context is key to this interpetation. Therefore, it does not take a special disclosure by the Spirit to understand this passage. But, it does take a ministry of the spirit to believe it.
Now, to answer your question directly, the Catholic interpretation comes from (a) of the three approaches I mentioned. It does “import a meaning foreign to the text.” It does this by incorrectly cross-referencing to Matt 26, which you cited. It ignores the context there where Jesus again is using the bread and the wine as metaphors.
17. JoAnne
March 13, 2006
7:54 AM
I am someone who wanted to be a Biblical ‘intellectual’. I spent 32 yrs. seriously indoctrinating myself with excellent, Biblical teaching. I have Lexicons, Dictionaries, Commentaries…you name it. (And I still love them) But I have found, for me, that while reading and meditating on a Scripture, that seemingly out of nowhere, the verses will have application to ME, that a fresh insight will come into my thinking, that a deeper understanding of the text will come to mind. I have to believe that is the Holy Spirit’s ‘teaching’ ministry.
I hope I won’t be misunderstood. But since I was there, I think there is a lot of intellectual elitism among our teachers and professors who believe that without them, the Holy Spirit is handicapped in instructing God’s people. While I was looking for the Hebrew meaning of words, taking Bible courses in Theology, studying the different ‘theories’ of Genesis 1:1,2….etc….. A precious saint, (much more spiritual and mature than I), was happily applying the basic essentials of Scripture that she had merely read each morning. While I was convinced that I would become more “Godly” if I understood doctrine, she was reading, believing and applying the plain-sense of her Bible.
18. kyle
March 13, 2006
8:19 AM
It’s interesting to note that, during the first three centuries, it was very common for people to preach, um… prophetically. That is, They would take a text and, on no particular authority other than the Holy Spirit speaking through them, add volumes of meaning which absolutely could not be acquired from a thorough exegesis of the text.
Come to think of it, I used to do the same on all my English papers in college. The difference was that I considered my own ideas to have equal authority with the text I was working with. Neither I nor the book I was writing about had any claim to be speaking for God.
However, to make the same kind of intuitive leap in scripture, you have to be able to make that same kind of “equal authority” claim, i.e. that the same Holy Spirit who gave the text is giving you an interpretation. In a lot of ears, that sounds like a particularly weak claim, and so a lot of times what might make a perfectly good “prophetic” message (to be judged as prophecy by the leadership of the church) gets repackaged as genuine exegesis - and bad exegesis at that.
We had a classic example a few weeks ago: a guy spoke at our church who was a fellow seminary student with me at Gordon Conwell. He’s had all the Greek, and all the classes in NT interpretation. Yet he gave this message on John 21 - where Jesus appeared at the side of the lake and told the disciples where to fish, and Peter jumped out and swam. He gave every little detail a very specific meaning, which he claimed was deliberately placed by John for his interpretation: the shoreline was the crossing into heaven, the fish were the people of the world we were called to bring in, etc. It was pretty good stuff, but none of it could be gotten from the text.
Two thoughts: First, this kind of thing happens all the time, in my experience, and it seems to me that the more gracious thing to do would be to say, I’m glad God gave you that brother, but it’s not exactly in the text. Secondly, I would point out that there are huge swaths of scripture that, unless we allow some leeway for a “spiritual” interpretation, have absolutely no meaning for Christians. For instance, on what basis can we say that Song of Solomon is not simply an ancient semi-erotic opera? There is no textual reason to make Solomon into Jesus and the Shulamite into the church or the individual Christian. It can’t be done without some kind of arbitrary decision on the part of the exegete. So why don’t we throw that one out?
19. 4Given
March 13, 2006
8:41 AM
WOW, Fransico… that is almost embarrassing.
“Do you believe that the Spirit’s primary role in helping us understand Scripture is making known to us the meaning of a text?”… as a woman, I fear the thought of this being the “primary” role of the HS… WHy? Because I believe “illumination” comes from diligent study of the scriptures, interpreting scripture upon scripture. It is not a mystical experience apart from intense labouring over His Word, pleading for His wisdom and guidance in the process… coupled with a necessary fear of taking His HOLY WORD out of context to fit my mood or mold.
20. Francisco
March 13, 2006
11:27 AM
4Given,
Grace and Peace to you,
Help me understand what you mean by “embarrasing”. Do you refer to the preacher or preaching I heared to? or do you refer to my comment at the end? As for your fear that the primary role of the Spirit is to “make known to us the meaning of the text” I didn’t say otherwise. In fact I believe that we should always be on guard of importing a foreign meaning to Scripture and letting others do so. We believers are called to discernment. My comment at the end was: “I don’t know if that seems to you like a sad example on the fixation some preachers have for bypassing their bible study -needed to prepare the sermon- by invoking ilumination from the Holy Spirit”
Now, what I said and made me sad is that this particular preacher tried to make up for his laziness in preparing the sermon -so here we agree that we are to study diligently the Scriptures, don’t we?- by claiming that the Spirit was going to give him the reference right there (that as I said, it did not happen).
Again, when I said that I knew where such verse was, I wasn’t claiming any mystical experience -you misunderstood my point- but rather I am humbled that by the grace of God I knew it because I strive in doing my best when studying His word.
p.s. btw, the verse was 2 Cor 11:14, just in case you want to know.
21. 4Given
March 13, 2006
11:49 AM
I apologize for not being clear. I am referring to the preacher and his “It’s coming….” comment. That is an embarrassing display of a lack of preparation. A “sad example” as you so accurately wrote. I thoroughly agree with your ending comment. It becomes obvious how much a pastor does or does not labor over the Word of God. This is why my husband and I are so thankful for the Lord guiding our footing to the church that we call home… our family. Our pastor does labour intensely and has the fear of God.
22. 4Given
March 13, 2006
11:57 AM
Oh, and I wasn’t claiming you had a mystical experience… for hiding God’s Word in your heart is not mystical. It is a delight and a display for the glory of God of diligently labouring over the Word of God. I was not pointing to you at all when I was writing about the “mystical experience”. I was merely pointing out the tendency of many to rely on “guidance” from the Lord apart from studying His Word.
23. mikbry24
March 13, 2006
12:43 PM
I recently read Moreland’s book and was deeply challenged as well. I believe this book will be one that I will make a point to read at least once a year.
I once served with a pastor who used to say, “The same grace that saves us also teaches.” It was his way of indicating that, indeed, the understanding of Scripture is aided by the Holy Spirit. That being said, to assume the Spirit will teach us without any effort of our own is like the person who, in school, does not study for their exam and just prays and asks for “leadership of the Holy Spirit” in answering the questions. Will God honor such a prayer? To answer, I believe that the Spirit does enlighten us as we read and study Scripture, but would agree with Moreland that there is much of the Word that the Spirit would only shed light on as we enter into a deep study and ponderation and after much intellectual exercise. As David said earlier, why else are we admonished to “study to show ourselves approved unto God” and to be “transformed by the renewing of your mind.” I think Moreland has touched on something in this book that today’s Evangelical Church needs to hear.
24. DLE
March 15, 2006
10:02 AM
Hmm.
First we have Busenitz proving that the gifts of the Spirit have ceased.
Then we have Swavely saying that the Spirit no longer leads by signs or any other supernatural leading.
Here we have Moreland saying the Spirit doesn’t help believers understand the meaning of the Scriptures.
I’m scratching my head here trying to figure out if we’ve left the person of the Holy Spirit with anything to do other than to be a rubber stamp sealing our salvation! (I’m not being flippant, either.)
The Holy Spirit has been given to us believers. He is an active person of the Trinity, emphasis on the active. He did not work once and no longer. As the Comforter, He still comforts. He did not comfort at one point and now no longer. This is true of all the things He still does today.
Someone already mentioned John 16:13, but I’ll repeat it: “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.”
He guides into all truth. Does He use teachers? Absolutely! But teachers are not enough.
Do we know everything there is to know about God? Has the Bible revealed every nuance of the depths of God? Is there nothing more the Holy Spirit can reveal of Him?
It was noted that Moreland mentioned 1 Cor 2:14-15, but it appears he left out everything before that. Here’s the whole idea of Paul’s in context: “Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”— these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ. —1 Corinthians 2:6-16 ESV
What Paul writes before verses 14 & 15 is important! There are hidden things of God! Paul boasts of the man caught up to the third heaven who saw inexpressible things. The Bible does not record what those things are, but God still revealed them to this person (Paul, most probably), so they actually exist. Is it possible for others to know them? I believe so—if the Spirit chooses to reveal them.
This applies to Scripture, too. Take this passage from Exodus 17:6: “Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb, and you shall strike the rock, and water shall come out of it, and the people will drink.” And Moses did so, in the sight of the elders of Israel.”
Yet this is what Paul says of this in 1 Cor 10:1-4: “I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.”
I would contend that no amount of study will draw this comparison unless the Holy Spirit is giving the understanding. Not only is the Rock/Christ analogy hard to fathom otherwise, but equating the passing of the Israelites through the sea as a baptism into Moses, plus the equating of manna and water to the Lord’s Supper? Note too that the baptism is by water (sea) and spirit (cloud). Do the Old Testament writings make these analogies anywhere, because the OT is what Paul had available to him? No, the Spirit made that understanding of the OT live and breathe!
The Jews had the Scriptures, yet for all intents and purposes it was veiled to most of them because they did not possess the Spirit to give them understanding. As Paul notes in the 1st Corinthians passage I quoted above, the rulers of that age missed it.
This is getting long, but there are hundreds of other ways that the Spirit gives understanding of the Scriptures. I’m not going to get into God being Adam’s teacher alone, or Hebrews 8, or any of the other passages that support the Holy Spirit giving understanding. They are so numerous I can’t believe any Bible teacher would contend otherwise.
I’m just sad that this relentless battle to diminish the role of the Spirit today just doesn’t stop.
25. Peter G.
March 15, 2006
3:01 PM
I need to read it again, but Moisés Silva dedicates the last section of the last chapter of Interpreting Galatians to this very topic. If I remember correctly, he not only questions the Spirit’s role in interpretation, but even in application. I need to read it again, though. Dan Wallace also has an article on the topic at Bible.org entitled “The Holy Spirit and Hermeneutics.”
26. mikbry24
March 17, 2006
12:59 PM
That’s not what Moreland is saying at all…..
Post Your Comment Here »