Can We Derive Doctrine from Bible Stories?

Summary

Summary prepared by Acts 2:38 Life from the transcript below — the preacher’s words follow in full.

All the Bible Is Given for Our Instruction

• The question posed: much of the Bible is written in narrative, or story form. That presents a challenge for modern readers, especially those of us who live in a literary culture, because we would prefer that God had made everything plain. But you have written that it's a mistake to assume that the teaching portions of the epistles are more authoritative than the examples of Acts. So how do we determine what parts are simply describing something, and what parts set a pattern for us to follow? The common example: the disciples cast lots — yet in the modern church, we don't cast lots to determine leaders. But in the Acts 2 narrative, we say everybody should receive the Holy Spirit. How do we decide the difference there?
• Now let me take a broad view, and then we'll focus on the specific question that you raised. But the broad view is this: all the Bible is the word of God. All the Bible is given for our instruction: all the teachings, all the stories, are given for our instruction. And 1 Corinthians chapter 10, for example, and other verses, say that. That doesn't mean all the examples are good examples: some are examples to avoid. But all of them are given for our teaching. So we can't discount any portion of scripture; we can't just write it off as irrelevant. But obviously, we have to discern what it is teaching, and what applies.

Scriptures: 1 Corinthians 10

Why God Chose Story: A Narrative Culture

• But to your big question, you have to think of the scope of human history. Of course, today we're in a literary culture. We could now argue we're getting into a post-literary culture: people are going back more to video, and more oral culture. But Western civilization has been built on a literary culture, so we're oriented towards the printed page, or the written page. But think: throughout most of human history, and especially during the times the Bible was written, and God was leading his people, most people learned through oral storytelling. And they didn't read; most were illiterate. Even when people could read, manuscripts were handwritten, so they're rare, costly. The average person couldn't have a collection of books. Even in New Testament times, the average person — what we call the New Testament, 27 books — most Christians probably did not have in their possession 27 manuscripts. They depended on the gathering of the believers, and the preacher, and other people reading texts, and preaching from texts, and so on. So if you think in the broad scope — and then even around the world today, how many people are literate; if they are literate, how many people read; and even in our Western culture, most people don't read very much anymore — so if God is going to be effective in communicating his word, there are only a minority of highly educated people that would benefit from the type of approach that you and I might prefer. So from that perspective, it makes perfect sense that God would use story, or narrative, as the primary means of communicating truth.
• And when you think of that: a preacher, or a traveling storyteller — they're going to tell stories, because they're more vivid. If they gave a long dissertation, most people would walk away, not remembering anything. And especially, if they didn't have a means of recording it, or transcribing it, which most people wouldn't have, then they're going to forget everything. But when you tell a story that has a point, people remember the story, and hopefully they can remember the point. So that's why Jesus used parables so much. And you find that the teaching of Jesus is trying to communicate, with various stories, key points. And he did have certain statements that were profound, and that would convey truth.

Luke's Answer in Story Form: Acts 2

• But let me give you a practical example. A lot of times, we might say, when we have debates over the Holy Spirit: 'Well, you know: tongues, the initial sign.' And I've had people ask: 'Why didn't the Bible just come out and say, tongues is the initial sign of the Holy Spirit? You know, Luke, when you wrote Acts, why didn't you just say that?' Luke probably wouldn't even understand what you're asking, because he's in a narrative culture. Truth is taught by story. So he would have thought: I taught you the best way I knew how, in a perfectly culturally appropriate way, I expressed truth. But if you finally had this discussion, like you and I are having, and said: 'Luke, why didn't you just say that? It would have made it so simple for us, just to quote that' — he might have answered somewhat like this. And of course, we know Luke was inspired by the Holy Spirit, to write Luke-Acts. But he might have said: 'Look, I'm just an associate; I'm just a helper. My opinion, if I would have wrote, this is my opinion — who cares?' But the answer to your question — what is the significance of speaking in tongues? — he said: I did answer that. But I answered that in a story, a true story. I told the story of Acts chapter 2: the 120 received the Holy Spirit. How many of them spoke in tongues? 120 of the 120: it's 100%. And then when all the crowds gathered around, and wanted to know what is the significance of this tongues — the apostle Peter stood up, and all the other apostles stood up with him. Here you have all 12 apostles, at the same place, at the same time, giving the same message. That's unique in the New Testament. And what they explained was: this is that — this tongues that you're questioning us about. Some were marveling over this miracle; some were mocking, because they didn't understand, and thought they were drunk. But they're all asking the question: 'What does this mean?' That was the actual question that Peter was answering. So, what does this speaking in tongues mean? Peter answered: this speaking in tongues is that — the prophecy of Joel: 'Then in the last days, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh.' So what Peter and the other apostles said: when you see someone speaking in tongues, what that means is, they've received the Holy Spirit, prophesied by Joel. There's the answer to your question. But Luke might say: it's not presented as my personal opinion. It's presented as a true story, at the foundation of the church, where all 12 apostles just answered your question. So why isn't that good enough for you? And so, there's a perfect example.

Scriptures: Acts 2; Joel (book-only)

The Test: Consistent Preaching, Teaching, Experience, and Practice

• Now, obviously, when you have stories, many times they might simply be descriptive. So, they rode a donkey: does that mean we have to ride donkeys, or can we use cars? Obviously, I think most of the time we can say: well, this was part of that culture; this was part of that history; it's not of the essence of the story; it's not a principle of the story. And so, probably 90% of the time, we can just weed that out: what was just part of the background, part of the details, part of the culture, part of the history. But if we're trying to discern, what we look at is: what did the early church preach? What did the early church teach? And of course, I'm not neglecting Paul's epistles, and the explicit teaching: obviously, those are highly significant. But I'm saying, in Acts, what they preached would also be considered authoritative. So look at what they consistently preached; look at what they consistently taught; look at what they consistently experienced, or received. So if it's just one thing that happened — like Philip was caught away: I believe that's true — are we going to expect that to happen? It only happened one time in the book of Acts. Even Philip, apparently, only one time; the rest of the time, he had to walk, or travel by some other means. So is that going to be a normative thing? Obviously not, because it wasn't even normative in the book of Acts. So you look at consistent experiences, and you look at consistent practices. So if it said they did something one time — you know, Paul met with the believers until after midnight: we do find that story. Does that mean we should do that every time? It only happened once, in the whole book of Acts; so it's never mentioned in the epistles. So is it okay to have church till after midnight? Yes. Is it required? Is it normal? Is it practiced? Should it be established as a practice? There's no indication of that, in the text. And of course, if you look at that particular story, Paul was traveling, and he had to leave the next day. And so they were trying to take advantage of every last opportunity, for him to minister to that local group of believers. So it's pretty obvious, from the context: this is an unusual, one-time occurrence. So when you look at what is the consistent preaching, teaching, experience, and practice, I think that will settle almost every case of: is this just describing an incident that happened, or is this setting up a pattern for us to follow?
• Now, I do think John mentions, in the gospel of John, that: 'I wrote this narrative, so that you believe in Jesus Christ.' And he said there are many other things that could be written: the whole world couldn't contain all the books which should be written. So he's saying, very explicitly: I was selective in choosing. And of course, we believe in the inspiration of scripture: so it wasn't just John as a person, but the Holy Spirit was guiding him. So, but John is saying: I didn't tell you the whole story, like I was writing a biography; I didn't tell you the whole story, like I was writing a history. I deliberately picked and chose what I thought was significant for you to know — which we would say the Holy Spirit guided him. So he's saying: it's not just telling a story; it's not a secular biography; it's not a secular history. Everything is told for theological purpose, that you will believe. I would say Acts is the same way. It's not a secular history; it doesn't really tell the story of all the 12 apostles: only a very few of them are actually noted. And then Paul was not one of the 12, but added later. Actually, it's mostly what Peter and Paul did. So it's not a biography of Peter; it's not a history of the early church, in a modern, secular, full sense. It's very selective, which lets you know those stories were chosen for their teaching value. They were chosen to set a pattern: here's what the early church is like; therefore, you should follow that example.

Scriptures: John (book-only)

The Casting of Lots: A One-Time Occurrence Before Pentecost

• Now, in Acts chapter 1, that is an interesting case: the casting of lots. And as I've already described, I think it would be pretty easily disposed of: that's never used again. But even in the context, I think you can see: the reason why — this was before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Okay? So they're still living under the old covenant, as they awaited the new covenant. Under the old covenant, you have examples of God leading people, through the Old Testament. We don't actually know the uram and thumb, but it seemed to be some type of lot, or some type of stones, that were used to signify; and they prayed, and they believed God would help them choose the right one, to give them the answer, yes or no. Seemed to be a very rudimentary system. And so, think about it: the early church, they haven't received the Holy Ghost yet; so they don't have the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in the same way that we do, the infilling. Jesus had left them, so they can't go talk to him. So they're kind of stuck, like the Old Testament, trying to discern the will of God, but without the baptism of the Holy Spirit. So they revert to an Old Testament custom: they cast lots. They try to discern, and they pray for God to guide their choice. Some people say God did honor that, and they chose Matias, that was the 12th apostle. Some people actually say: no, they missed it; Paul was really the replacement, the 12th apostle. But regardless of that, Paul was indeed an apostle, chosen by God specially. So I really would tend to think that God did honor their request. But notice: it was situated before the day of Pentecost, under the old covenant, before they had the indwelling Holy Spirit. And it was explicitly an Old Testament practice, that they were relying upon. But you don't find that used, ever again, in the New Testament. So, a few chapters later, when they chose the seven men that would assist the apostles — we usually think of them as the first deacons — they didn't cast lots. When different ones were called to preach — when Paul and Barnabas were called to missionary service — it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit spoke. Apparently, some type of spiritual gift was manifested: tongues and interpretation, or prophecy, or some other means. And so, throughout the rest of Acts, you find them being led of the Spirit, the operation of the gifts of the Spirit. You don't find them going back to this Old Testament custom. So, even by what I've just described, I think it's pretty easy to discern: what is a one-time occurrence, based in their historical situation, versus what is a pattern for us to follow.
• And I would say that in Acts, as well as other parts of the New Testament, when you see the New Testament church operating consistently, in a certain way — and especially their preaching, their teaching, their experiences, and their practices, their consistent practices — then that would be an example for us to follow. And it's not just a suggestion, but it's authoritative teaching, from the word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit. And I think, when you start to grasp this, the purpose of these stories makes the Bible come alive, in a way that it doesn't otherwise.

Scriptures: Acts 1

Stories Are How People Embrace Teaching

• And much good preaching is the use of those stories. And if you'll just analyze that: I like to organize my message logically, and have key points. And I think that's important. But when you're preaching, and making certain statements, if you relate a Bible story, or tell a personal experience, to illustrate your point, you can actually see the audience come alive. So even though, intellectually, you've made the statement, that they understand, they agree with, they appreciate — but when you tell a story that illustrates how that applies, that connects with people, in a way that a mere statement doesn't do. I'm not discounting the value and importance of the statements: in fact, my books are filled with teaching of that nature. But I do believe the illustrations, both from the Bible and from life experience, actually are probably the primary vehicle, whereby people, in practice, accept, understand — and not only intellectually, but emotionally embrace — the teaching. And so, why would we expect the Bible to be different, from our own experience? The Bible is going to speak the way we best understand, and learn.

Scripture index: 1 Corinthians 10; Acts 2; Joel (book-only); John (book-only); Acts 1.