(31 votes, average: 4.87 out of 5)
Loading...Every now and then I receive an email from a devout Christian who tells me that no one (including, well, me) is able to interpret the Bible correctly without guidance of the Holy Spirit. I take this view seriously, but I’ve never found it convincing.
Well, OK, I did when I was a student at Moody Bible Institute in the mid 70s; but not for much longer than that afterward. Today, of course, I don’t believe the Holy Spirit can guide one in reading the Bible since, as an agnostic, I don’t believe in the Holy Spirit at all (since I don’t believe in God). But even when I did believe in the Holy Spirit (after Moody), I came to think that it made no sense to claim that a person needed divine guidance through the Spirit to interpret the Bible correctly. This was for two main reasons, both of which — when they occurred to me — struck me as virtually irrefutable.
The first is this: if it is true that
Are you interested in understanding the New Testament and early Christianity from a scholar’s perspective but in lay-person’s terms? Join the blog! Click here for membership options
Back when I was a conservative Christian studying English Lit at university, I remember having a revelation about textual criticism: If you can impose a reading onto any text, as we were being taught, that’s one more reason the Bible & Christianity must be true – God anticipated this literary trend and gave the Spirit as a safeguard when attempting to deconstruct the Bible!
I’ve since shared all the thought processes you list here, and realise that far from being ‘yet more evidence’, this conception of the Spirit further speaks against the infallibility, reliability, and ultimately, truth of the Bible.
On these lines, I really enjoyed your debate with Glenn Scrivener via Unreliable a few months ago. It struck me that he was freely reading & interpreting the Bible (and history) according to his bias that beauty, positivity & humanity are all ultimately found in Scripture – but clearly believes this reading is Spirit-led & inspired, at least to some degree. He didn’t seem to know how to handle actual textual criticism dealing with language, history & precision at all. Very characteristic of intellectual Christians, I thought.
I’ve often wondered why you chose not to post/refer to that discussion on the blog?
I guess it didn’t occur to me!
Bart, please do discuss this on your blog!
The expressions on your face speak volumes here: https://youtu.be/y9PQQNiirhI?t=1551
(time marker 23:53 of this YouTube video ‘Bart Ehrman v Glen Scrivener: Did Christianity give us our belief in equality, compassion & consent?’ just in case the above link doesn’t work).
In fact, I would love to read what you have to say about your thoughts when Glen said “God uniquely becomes human”.
Your responses to Glen were in all honesty quite a breath of fresh air after all the smoke pouring out of his apologetic reinterpretation where he burns to ashes all historical fact!
Sometimes I just marvel at how you are able to keep yourself calm when listening to such blatant horse manure!
Once again, I’m sure everyone following your blog would really enjoy your comments re this video!
In any event the video was well worth watching just to see how far some people will go to show that their belief system is the best now, and that has ever existed, and that always will be in the foreseeable future – what a great lesson in human nature and confirmation bias!
And what a marvelous job you did by setting the record straight, bravo!!
Thanks for mentioning Bart’s debate with Glen Scrivener.
It is available here: https://youtu.be/y9PQQNiirhI and is titled ‘Bart Ehrman v Glen Scrivener: Did Christianity give us our belief in equality, compassion & consent?’
Another way to find it is to go to the ‘Premier Unbelievable?’ channel on YouTube and search for the above video.
Short summary? This comment to the video pretty much sums it up: “Glen wants so hard for this to be true. He starts with the answer and then tries to twist the evidence to suit his conclusion.
Bart wasn’t having any of it.”
Very enjoyable to watch, as Bart wasn’t having any of the bullshit Glen was peddling – ahhh, an important point of fact is that Glen was peddling his book that most Christians will just want to be true, even if it is completely not historical. Talk about “twisting the evidence to suit his conclusions” !
Yeah, maybe I should post it.
Thanks! I will definitely watch it and then post my thoughts on here.
Why is an ancient book required at all to seek and receive knowledge from the Holy Spirit?
That belief places limits on the divine. A talking burning bush would better get my attention!
I’m convinced that it is not an intellectual exercise to or how to understand the Greek written documents.
It has been and can be expressed as found in John, “I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly”. It is all about life, possibly an evolved state of life found in unity with God. The Holy Spirit in this sense would be the moving influence or active force of God in action,,, as a fulfilled promise.
,,,it is about life, and that we may have it more abundantly !
That word “correctly” is surprisingly tricky. It suggests an objectivity of an interpretation that all too often just happens to agree with the person proposing it as being “correct.”
(And perhaps the Holy Spirit is just a prankster who enjoys stirring things up!)
Your logic is impeccable. If one believes in the Holy Spirit, one has to acknowledge the power of the Holy Spirit to move even someone who does not believe. Might this not be part of the Divine plan? Who is to say that a non-believer hasn’t been (unknowingly) moved by Holy Spirit to understand scripture correctly? Surely believers aren’t claiming that Holy Spirit doesn’t have the power to do this?
Baptism is a good example of a basic Christian doctrine that different groups claiming to have the guidance of the Holy Spirit can’t come to agreement on. Of course, one way around this is for a group to claim that the others are wrong because they don’t really have the Holy Spirit! I once was a member of such a sect.
Spot on, excellent point. I was on the other end growing up. I was a Presbyterian. I was told I was never really baptized or I have to baptized again as an adult.
My first guess would be to point to Paul’s letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 2: ~9-14) where he points to the Spirit being the only way to understand God’s teachings – also making the point that those who read/interpret without the spirit would find the teachings “foolish” or at the very least, not understandable.
You do raise a good point, however, in showing that different Christian groups have vastly different understandings of various parts of scripture. My question back to you would be: are these people who are emailing you really thinking you are trying to theologically “interpret” the bible, or are you merely trying to deduce what historically would have happened based on the evidence available and the various methods you employ?
I have never heard you offer theological interpretations of the New Testament (perhaps the most you have done is give an overview of what some people think certain things mean), so I don’t know why someone would try to accuse you of interpreting anything in the first place!
I certainly interpret the New Testament and explain its theological views; what I don’t do is promote normative interpretations that are meant to affect what people believe and behave. (So I explain it’s theology but don’t use it to establish my theology) (such as it is)
On a somewhat similar topic, what do Christians mean when they say that God is speaking directly to them, in the contemporary world, in the Bible? Do they mean something more than that the Bible is relevant and can be applied to the contemporary world?
Or maybe that it contains prophecies about things that will take place, or are taking place, in the contemporary world—even if no one had previously thought of those things as prophecies?
Could it mean that God somehow had us as individuals in our own circumstances specifically in mind when he inspired certain words?
Or that the Holy Spirit guides an individual’s interpretation and elicits a more or less unique personal response to certain passages that are especially relevant to that person’s life?
They usually mean that God is literally making them think something based on what they read in Scripture, that there has been a divine intervention in their thought process.
To answer seeker 1952’s question, here is an example of God speaking directly to me through the Bible. I was praying alone in church one day when the words “Psalm 69” came into my mind. I had no idea what that psalm said, but I looked it up. I found that this was just what I needed at that point. I know that these words were not written to me, but I believe that God directed me to them. That is how I think that God speaks to people today though the Bible.
I always thought that being an agnostic means one doesn’t ” know” if any religious claims are true or not, without denying such claims might be true. An atheist, on the other hand, ” knows” and affirms that God does not exist. The same for the Holy Spirit, the divinity of the Bible, or any other supernatural claims. For example, I cannot claim to be an agnostic. I am an atheist. Though I was a strong believer in some of my ” past” lives.
I mean, when I was younger.
The beauty of these ancient texts we spend our lives reading is that, being incomplete and unclear, they result, unlike scientific proofs, in infinite interpretations. This elusiveness assures the long lives of these texts. Who would need a ” correct” interpretation, one that ends the questioning for good?
God forbid……
Therefore, whether the Holy Spirit intervenes or not is irrelevant. “The Holy Spirit” is the exact translation of the Hebrew ancient term, Ruakh Ha Kodesh. Even within the endless penchant for manifold interpretations in Judaic lore, it is never assumed that one needs to be inspired by it. Knowledge, attachment, deduction, debate, tolerance and constant study are key.
I have a different view of agnostic and atheist from most. My view is that they are not two different *degrees* of unbelievers (one saying I don’t *know* if there’s a God and the others saying there *is* no God). In my view agnosticism is about knowledge (from teh Greek word gnosis). If someone asks me if I think there is a divine supernatural being in the universe, I say that I simply don’t and can’t know. Atheism, in my view, is about belief. If someone asks me if I *believe* there is a divine supernatural being in the universe, I say no, I absolutely don’t believe it. So I see my self as both an agnostic and an atheist.
Interesting! Makes sense. Thanks!
Bart:
Excellent post. I have always been struck, ever since I first read it, by Augustine’s assertion in “The City of God” that if God speaks to humans at all, it is not through the reverberations and syllables of human language, but through Truth itself. I know you are familiar with this passage too because I remember you referencing it in a talk of yours. Of all the commands of Jesus recorded in the Gospels, “Keep asking, seeking, knocking” is one of the most poignant and most interesting.
If you rely on the Holy Spirit, what is the proper format for the footnote? The MLA style sheet doesn’t say.
If you rely on the Spirit, you already know.
I have been struggling with that very thing as a believer. I have a Q about 1 Corin 8-11. It seems that ch 8 should pick up at ch 10. Does Paul digress a little about himself in 9? TBC not enough space
Yup, gets off onto something else for a bit it seems. The other problem is that his views of idols in ch. 8 and ch. 10 seem to be at odds (are they simply and stone with no real existence, or are they demons?)
In ch 9 he defends his apostleship and his right to support, that he does not use. It’s still about food, it seems like Paul just jumped in there . Thoughts? One day I will come up with something challenging
I think the connect he’s making is that those with *rights* to do something (e.g., eat food offered to idols; to have a spouse travel with them) should consider whether exercising those rights is the right thing to do.
Bart, I’d be interested to know what your thoughts are on what the New Testament writers and those early christians believed about the Holy Spirit. Do you think there was a “doctrine of the Holy Spirit” among those early Christian believers and if so – how developed do you think it was? Do you think it was a requirement among those early churches that their members believe in the person and divinity of the Holy Spirit? Thank you
The Spirit is talked about a good deal in the NT writings, from Paul to John to Acts etc. but I don’t think there is any kind of set doctrine about the Spirit or, so far as I can tell, even clear ideas about what hte Spirit entails. Certainnly there is no doctrine of the Trinity. For each of the authors, though, the Spirit is critical. For Paul, for example, it is the power of God that indwells believers allowing them do obey God (unavailable to anyone else); for John it is hte substitute for Jesus who provides ongoing revelation; for Acts it is the power of God that makes the Xn mission both possible and unbelievably successful. Etc.
Bart..
A good friend emailed me this link of a recent statement by a Prominent Theologian named Walter Brueggemann and although it is focused on writings regarding homosexuality in the OT. He also writes more to the subject of Interpretation of the Bible without any reference to Holy Spirit giving correct interpretation. He brings up the fact that all readers of scripture filter the interpretation through themselves. When one claims that the Holy Spirit is required for Interpretation, then they justify themselves as being filled with Holy Spirit as they read with an interpretation of purpose to “justify” their own righteousness. It’s a self serving claim.
https://outreach.faith/2022/09/walter-brueggemann-how-to-read-the-bible-on-homosexuality/
I don’t know think that this is Bible-specific, but I’d say that it is possible to have a “spiritual” understanding of a text that goes deeper than a mere academic understanding. By “spiritual,” I mean something that has a deep and lasting, significant, and positive impact on one’s character. So it’s not that there’s necessarily some person named Mr. Holy Spirit who is whispering interpretations in the reader’s ear. It’s just a question of whether the person’s gets something character-changing out of it.
Can a book have so much meaning/interpretations as the Bible has had over the years ? It has build up a plethora of views/interpretations over time,believers and non believers alike, and who can really say they have it right? I look at a simple thing like did Jesus really exist ? I feel he did and Bart you also believe this. But some skeptics like Dan Barker, who used to be a believer, will say he doubts he even existed. Maybe, Nietzsche got it right when he said,” There are no facts,only interpretations”. At the end of the day what do we really know? Nothing!!!!!
Referring to your first sentence, how does one know which interpretation is Holy Spirit- guided? A 1995 book “Hearing the New Testament” (ed. Joel Green) presented 5 NT passages to 19 different contributors (one of which was Bart) for interpretation using different “strategies”. Which one was guided by the Holy Spirit (if ANY one of them)? I would challenge the aforementioned “devout Christians” to so identify.
Mine was.
I suppose that goes without saying!
I was a member of a non-Christian cult as a teenager and remember reading this cult’s holy books and being utterly convinced it was words from heaven itself. I was convinced this was religious literature with no equal, not merely inspired but a material expression of God’s highest truth. Later I found that the author of these works compiled them by liberal use of bombast and plagiarism. What happened to all that inspiration I’d discerned in these texts in my callow youth? I discovered later that words aren’t merely an expression of ideas, they can create the illusion of knowledge, and the feeling of bliss which can be interpreted as evidence of the divine. In other words, supposedly inspired texts sometimes have the effect of a drug, or perhaps pornography. They can touch a part of our minds that releases something akin to endorphins.
These same folks who rely on the Holy Spirit also keep telling us that in matters of interpretation we should stick to the “plain reading of the text!”
But, all speaking in tongues (at least that I grew up hearing- in KS as well) all sounded vaguely middle eastern. You’d have to admit the holy spirit in that harmony, no?
Hmmm. I never noticed that when I did or heard it! (In KS!)
I remember years ago, a charismatic Christian recalling that they’d used the word “Bwana” in their prayer language, thus proving that some tongue speaking referenced actual languages.
Nice anecdote, but, like “sounded vaguely middle eastern,” not exactly a basis for actual proof thereof. Would likely need to record such inspired utterances and have a linguist listen and verify. I’m guessing with all the recorded streams of church services, that could actually be done now. I’ll defer that project to a future doctoral candidate.
This article, with citations included, may be of interest: https://makingnoiseandhearingthings.com/2013/11/07/the-science-of-speaking-in-tongues/
“People don’t tend to use sounds that aren’t in their native language. (citation) So if you’re an English speaker, you’re not going to bust out some Norwegian vowels. This rather lets the air out of the theory that individuals engaged in glossolalia are actually speaking another language. It is more like playing alphabet soup with the sounds you already know. (Although not always all the sounds you know. My instinct is that glossolalia is made up predominately of the sounds that are the most common in the person’s language.)”
Wonderful blog post. Growing up as a Presbyterian the Holy Spirit always played either an non-existent part or mysterious part of my faith. I think when people tell others they need guidance from the Holy Spirit to understand Scripture, they really mean “turn off” your doubts and read it through conformational bias.
Is the theological idea that a reader requires the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible correctly found in patristic writings or any time before the Reformation? When did this idea originate?
I suppose it originated iwth the claim that God spoke through the prophets. The prophets also wrote. So God spoke through their writings. ANd then through the writings of others.
It seems to me that a more fundamental reason that that argument doesn’t hold water is that it directly contradicts the notion that “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing, by the Word of God”.
It’s a circular argument…if one needs the Holy Spirit to understand the Bible, then how is an unbeliever ever supposed to come to faith by studying the Bible? Which comes first…faith (and the HS) or hearing/studying the Word of God?
Also, when you say:
“I could point to passage after passage after passage where well-meaning and clear headed Christians who claim to be given their understanding by the Spirit provide two, three, or four contradictory interpretations of the passage. “, I think that would make for a fascinating post, series of posts, or even a book!
The Holy Ghost is about that voice inside us, good or bad. Most people have trouble getting the Commandments right, much less finding a verse to hate their neighbor with. Also, the Bible is not the religion, that is what church fathers created from it and other sources. Of course, you can still DIY your own.
I think enlisting the ‘support’ of the Holy Spirit can also be used for sinister purposes. I attend a Catholic church and current attempts to liberalise the Church, e.g. by allowing women to become priests, can be shut down by the hierarchy who claim that the Holy Spirit is NOT directing them to do this.
I love a Spirited debate.
I do not agree that the first reason is valid evidence against the statement in the title:
“You need the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible”.
I agree with the empirical fact (that many Christians seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit
and do not agree among them), I do not agree however with the relevance of the fact.
It is strong evidence against some loosely related statements, such as, for instance:
“Asking on humble prayer for the guidance of the Holy Spirit
is *sufficient* to guarantee perfect interpretation of the Bible”.
It is entirely consistent both with the empirical fact and with the statement in the title
that the Holy Spirit only guides some extremely holy and wise people,
which are exceedingly rare, and which interpret the Bible very well indeed.
I stress that I do not believe that to be the case, but that is not the point.
The point is the logic of the argument.
I received a flyer that said God cannot lie. Are there any instances in the Bible where this is not true?
Well, to start with, he told Adam that “on the day” he ate the forbidden fruit he “would die.” That obviously didn’t happen.
No modern scholar worth their salt reads Genesis that way. The biblical authors obviously realized what they were saying about God when they crafted this piece of mytho-history and it didn’t bother them. But the fact that you critique a version of the story you were brought up with speaks volumes about what guides your work now–aka., let me build every case imaginable to show how the Bible isn’t that which I grew up learning–great, we get it. Engage more challenging interpretations and thinkers like David Bentley Hart.
I’m not sure how many biblical scholars you’ve read on Genesis, but this is a standard exegetical point made in the historical commentaries. (As you know Bentley Hart is not a Hebrew Bible scholar)
Maybe God meant Adam would die some day, not necessarily on that day. Hence the loss of immortality.
Yup, maybe so. But if so, next time he should say what he means!!
Lol. That’s great. I enjoy your blog a lot. Thanks for always responding
This topic reminds me of Christian Smith’s book, The Bible Made Impossible (2011).
Smith points to the fact that there are doctrinal differences of opinion among evangelicals on most every major topic including baptism, divorce, hell, charismatic gifts,
rapture, women in ministry and so on. Differences in such doctrines are significant enough to cause churches to split into thousands of
denominations, and “massive fragmentation” distinguishes the church in America. Intelligent, sincere believers who disagree on doctrine all claim divine guidance. It seems more like human hubris to me.
There is nothing nice I can say about people who ‘say’ they are led by the HOLY SPIRIT so I best say nothing at all and hold on to my wallet.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
Often when I’m reading the Bible (like Ecclesiastes or job) I come across some verses that are so existential that I always think that If I read them to friends, they would never guess that they came from the Bible! Off of the top of your head, do you have any interesting verses (nihilistic or contrary to usual principles of systematic theology or just bizarre) that you could share?
Thank you!!
Long before you were born, when I was about your age, The Byrds made famous a great Peter Seeger song, “Turn, Turn, Turn”
To every thing, turn, turn, turn
There is a season, turn, turn, turn
And a time to every purpose under heaven
A time to be born, a time to die
A time to plant, a time to reap
A time to kill, a time to heal
A time to laugh, a time to weep
No one but us Bible geeks knew it was from teh Eclclesiastes. Lots of bizarre verses. Read Judges 19 sometime. Yikes.
Dear Bart,
Do you have any thoughts on the passing of Queen Elizabeth II, and the beginning of King Charles III?
She was an incredible person, not just monarch, filled with virtues that I admire and wish more people did: dignity, respect for others, duty, sacrifice, bravery and courage, persistence, devoted love of family, concern always to do what was right, even if it was personally incredibly costly. For the past 20 years I’ve listened to her Christmas Queen’s speech and loved every one of them. As most everyone, I’ve had my doubts about Charles, but I think his King’s speech was flat out brilliant. Some of my family are anti-monarchists, and I get it. But as an outsider I think it a noble and inspirational instituion, despite its obviously problems, which are many.
That’s a lovely tribute to the late Queen, the new King, and the institution of the monarchy – thank you, Bart.
And now you have to get used to singing “God save the KING!”
It is a sharp adjustment to make!
It’s also curious that we went from having a female head of state and a male head of government to a male head of state and a female head of government in the space of two days – the gender balance at the top has been retained.
Hi Bart,
Any recommendation to use as a “Reader’s Companion to the New Testament” for someone with only basic knowledge?
Watched all of your lectures and loved them, and will get around to your books soon. Still want to go over the NT beforehand but would appreciate some help to appreciate subtleties, and spice it up with interesting historical comments on the chapters.
Ta!
I’d suggest you take a look at my book The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christain Writings.
I just can’t take seriously the idea that you need the holy spirit to interpret the Bible. It’s ridiculous for exactly the reasons you mention. It shouldn’t take that much reflection to realize that the guidance the holy spirit does not help with accuracy; it merely boosts wishful thinking and quells critical doubts. What you really need—perhaps more than anything else—to interpret the Bible, is a sense of historical context and an inclination to do one’s best to read things as they would have been read at the time they were written. For example, those guided by the holy spirit have mistakenly assumed over and over again that the Kingdom of God refers to heaven, but those who study history know it’s a paradise on earth.
I was raised in a group (independent oneness pentecostalism) that emphasized the idea that you need the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible and had a clear, simple answer to the first objection: only they (and those who agreed with them on everything) truly had the Holy Spirit!
It seems that you, and many others (both Christian and non-Christian), have a preconceived understanding of the Spirit based on your Christian upbringing. Just because there are many interpretations, seemingly contradictory, does not mean each has not been guided by the Spirit. To assume such is to assume the Spirit produces a monolithic interpretation or form of knowledge for all people. I would argue, following an analogy from popular biblical scholar Pete Enns, that the Spirit/Word/divine, etc. is 100% God and 100% man. Like a polyphony, multiple melodies can be harmonized to produce coherent and beautiful music. So in sum, the Spirit does not have to fit your conception of a person who thinks in one fixed uniform mode and inspires Christians to think within that that same mode.
>> “Like a polyphony, multiple melodies can be harmonized to produce coherent and beautiful music.”
And, it would be more than nice if indeed the polyphony was harmonised. I’m not sure, but is there harmony? From my perspective, I hear neither euphony nor symphony from that polyphony; all I hear is cacophony. And, in some cases that cacophony tends to lead to woe for lots of people.
I am puzzled about one point in your ‘irrefutable reasons’. You state that “if it is true that the Holy Spirit is the one who provides the correct interpretation of Scripture, then why is it that so many people who claim to have the Holy Spirit cannot agree on what the Bible means? This is simply an empirical fact that is not open to dispute.” The key word here is “claim.” Just because different people believe they are guided by the holy spirit and come to different conclusions doesn’t mean they actually are guided by the Holy Spirit. Only one may actually have such guidance–or none. Of course, if you don’t believe in the Holy Spirit, the answer would be none. The rub comes when purveyors of conflicting viewpoints each believe in the truth of their own interpretation, which is why we have so many denominations.
Do you think there is a way to demonstrate whether somneone who genuinely has teh Spirit actually does? Presumably they claim they do because they believe they do.
I know of no way to demonstrate definitively that one has the Holy Spirit guidance. This is the problem with ‘one truth’ believers. Postulating inerrancy and a claim to inerrant interpretation ‘solves’ the problem for some. but since nobody is perfect, it all goes back to belief. One would hope that we have the humility to recognize we may be wrong–and allow for others to come to different conclusions.
== Only one may actually have such guidance == Christians with different interpretations each believe that they are the one with the divine pipeline.
I see the Holy Spirit as either the hand of God or the touch of God, as being touched by the Heavenly Father. There are many prophets that saw things of the future, that is not possible by human acknowledgement alone. And I am not referring to only prophets of of biblical scripture. To claim there have not been any prophets or prophecies since Daniel or Tobit is ludicrous. Lucy at Our lady of Fatima is a good example. I have read and/or experienced futuristic prophecies, be it small as they may. However, as of the Law Books, the Historical, the Wisdom, the Gospels, Acts and Letters of Paul, they are mostly recordings or instructional. The Prophets and Revelations, are portrayed as something beyond our present day perceptions. I feel The Bible nor faith interventions can be all be captured under one heading.