Living by the Book/Living by the Book Workbook Set (55 page)

1
. Carcopino, Jérôme,
Daily Life In Ancient Rome: The People and the City At the Height of the Empire
(New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1940) 100.

2
. Durant, Will,
Caesar and Christ: A History of Roman Civilization and of Christianity from their beginnings to AD 325
(New York: Simon and Schuster, 1944) 370.

W
hat does the Bible have to say about genetic engineering, global warming, and spam? What about abortion, birth control, and euthanasia? Is there anything about public education, prison reform, or universal health insurance? Would we turn to the Bible to help us solve problems in transportation, housing, or waste disposal? Can we find any verses on AIDS, arthritis, or Alzheimer’s?

I’m not being foolish. If we’re going to read the Bible one moment and read an on-line blog the next, we’ve got to face these kinds of issues. We’ve got to ask what connection there is between the revealed truth of the Word and the world as we find it. Otherwise, we’re back to Ken’s dilemma: The Bible has relevance only as a devotional guide; it has no bearing on the practical matters of life.

However, any sensible reader will immediately recognize a problem in this regard. There is no one-to-one correspondence between the verses in the Bible and the issues of contemporary life. We can’t just “plug in” biblical texts in answer to the needs and problems we face. Life is far too complex for that.

Nor was the Bible written for that purpose. It is not a text on biology, psychology, business, economics, or even history. When it does speak to those
areas, it speaks truthfully but not comprehensively. The Bible’s primary subject is God and His relationship with humankind. And it is largely our responsibility to work out the implications of that for everyday life. We have to think them through and make choices—biblically informed choices.

That brings us back to the dictum mentioned before:
interpretation is one, application is many.
Without question, there are many specific matters that the Bible never mentions, things that weren’t even issues in the days when it was written. But that doesn’t mean it has nothing to say to those issues. On the contrary, it tells us the fundamental truths or principles that God wants us to apply across the entire range of human need.

What do I mean by a “principle”? A principle is a succinct statement of a universal truth. When we talk about principles, we move from the specific to the general. For instance, Proverbs 20:2 reads, “The terror of a king is like the growling of a lion; he who provokes him to anger forfeits his own life.”

Technically speaking, one could argue that that verse doesn’t apply to us who live in a democratic republic rather than a authoritarian monarchy. We don’t have a king, so we don’t have to worry about his anger. But that would be a terribly narrow reading of the passage. It would also be a misreading of the genre, which is the proverb. Proverbs invariably state general truths through specific cases. Here, the issue is one’s relationship to government. The principle is to respect the authority and power of government.

Does that cover every contingency with respect to government? Of course not. Nor should we expect it to. Not even legal libraries with miles of books can do that. But the principle does get us started in the right direction. It tells us the basic attitude that should characterize our relationship to government. Our specific behavior may vary from situation to situation, but in every case we’re to show respect for the civil authorities that God places over us.

We saw another example of the need to see general principles in 1 Corinthians 8. The issue there is meat offered to idols. That’s no longer a concern in our society. I suspect it is a concern for some Christians today in cultures where idolatry is prevalent, but for Christians in advanced cultures, it is inconsequential. Does that make 1 Corinthians 8 irrelevant? No, because it
gives us principles for some larger issues such as matters of conscience, tolerance, respect for other believers, and sensitivity to their backgrounds. Those certainly aren’t irrelevant.

But suppose we’re reading a biography, say the life of Daniel. Remember we said that one of the things to look for is that which is true to life. So what is it in Daniel’s experience that resonates with real life? One of the most notable facts is that this godly man functioned with integrity in incredibly ungodly surroundings. In fact, a blue ribbon panel appointed to check out his dossier could not uncover one shred of damning evidence when they wanted to depose him (Daniel 6:1–5).

So what difference does Daniel make today? Well, what sort of work environment surrounds you? It’s probably not as wicked as ancient Babylon. But maybe you know of deception and fraud at your company or in your industry. Maybe you’ve been targeted politically by someone who wants your job. Maybe someone is making life hard for you because of your stand for Christ. Do you think the story of Daniel might hold some principles that apply to your situation? Do you think you might be able to learn from how he handled the challenge confronting him? Do you think there might be any lessons to learn about living as God’s person in a secular, or even evil, system?

If you can discern principles from your study of Scripture, you’ll have some powerful tools to help you apply biblical truth. You’ll bridge the gap between the ancient world and your own situation with the timeless truth of God’s Word. But how can you determine whether your perception is accurate? What’s to guard you from error and extremism as you generalize from the text? What’s to ensure that you stay practical? There are no guarantees, but here are four guidelines to consider.

This brings us back to the practice of comparing Scripture with Scripture. As you state a principle from a particular passage, think about other passages that reinforce that truth.

For instance, I generalized from Proverbs 20:2 that believers should show respect toward governmental authorities. If that were the only text in the Bible that spoke to that issue, I would need to be cautious about pressing the point too heavily. But a concordance tells me that many other passages reinforce that principle, such as Romans 13:1–7 and 1 Peter 2:13–17. So I feel confident in applying Proverbs 20:2 in that manner.

Likewise, Paul addresses the issue of meat sacrificed to idols in Romans14. And Daniel has counterparts in Joseph, Esther, and Nehemiah, who also served pagan governments yet maintained their integrity and godly character. So I have plenty of backup as I seek to make application from those biblical texts.

People get into trouble finding a “principle” from a single verse and then trying to build a whole doctrine on the basis of that one reference.

For example, one young man insisted that God wants people to go barefoot. His rationale: Genesis 3:22 says that God used animal skins to make garments for Adam and Eve, but the text never mentions sandals or shoes; therefore, it’s clear that God never intended people to wear shoes made from animal skins. Not only is that an argument from silence, and not only are there other texts that contradict that application (Mark 6:8–9; John 1:27; Acts 12:8), it sounds downright silly. It makes little doctrinal or practical sense.

Another error occurs when someone uses Scripture to justify what Scripture clearly condemns. One time a student was convinced that he should marry a certain woman. “God told me to marry her,” he explained to me, and he quoted a particular verse.

I had a number of problems with that, not the least of which was the fact that the woman was an unbeliever. I said, “If you choose to marry her, that’s your decision. But don’t put words in God’s mouth. He has clearly said, ‘Do not be unequally yoked,’ so it’s highly unlikely that He would tell you something different.”

We have to be very careful in generalizing from Scripture. It’s not that we can’t apply the Word broadly, but let’s apply it sensibly and consistently.

Checking a principle against the template of Scripture is only half the battle. As John Stott says, it’s not difficult to be contemporary if you don’t care about being biblical, and it’s not difficult to be biblical if you don’t care about being contemporary. But to be biblical and contemporary—that’s an art.