Revelation: The Most Misunderstood Book in the Bible

Just over 50 years ago, Vernard Eller, the eminent Anabaptist scholar, published a book titled The Most Revealing Book in the Bible. It was, of course, about the Book of Revelation. While that is doubtlessly true, I am calling Revelation the most misunderstood book in the Bible.*¹  

The Book of Revelation was the discussion topic of Great Books KC at its monthly meeting on December 6. That discussion group started in 2004, and I introduced it in a blog post for the first time in October 2014 (see here).

Although I attended regularly for many years, last month I attended Great Books KC again for the first time since last December. They have a “rule” that each year some book of the Bible will be discussed, and last year that book was the Old Testament book of Job.

Especially since this year’s selected book of the Bible was Revelation, I made the effort to drive down to the Plaza Branch of the Kansas City Public Library to attend and take an active part in the discussion of that last book of the Bible, which is so often misunderstood and misused.

While some of the 13 attendees (most of whom participated via Zoom) had a fairly good understanding of Revelation, several were clearly perplexed by it and some seemed to have a serious misunderstanding, which is seemingly true of the general public.

Misunderstanding of Revelation was augmented by Hal Lindsey, who died last month, two days after his 95^th birthday. Most of you recognize his name and remember him as the author of The Late Great Planet Earth (1970).

Lindsey’s book sold more than 10 million copies before the end of the 1970s, becoming the best-selling nonfiction book of the decade. By this and his later books, Lindsey “brought the once-obscure theology of dispensationalist premillennialism into the mainstream.”

Moreover, “Lindsey’s books demonstrated an incredible appetite for apocalyptic speculation … and paved the way for many other prophecy writers, including Tim LaHaye, Jerry Jenkins, and Joel Rosenberg …. introducing wide audiences to the concepts of the Rapture, the Antichrist, and the mark of the beast.”*² 

In March 2015, nearly ten years ago, I made a blog post titled “Do You Believe in the Rapture.” Although I did not mention Revelation, the widespread belief in what dispensationalist Christians call the Rapture is based on a literal interpretation of Revelation and, to a lesser degree, on a few other parts of the Bible.*³  

Belief in the Rapture is one of the major misinterpretations of Revelation that has been held by many Christians since the early part of the 20^th century, and especially since Lindsey’s 1970 book.

In my remarks at the Great Books KC December meeting, I emphasized the following points, which I am now sharing briefly.

** Revelation was written primarily for the Jesus-followers who were living “then and there” rather than for people “here and now.”

** Revelation was written in apocalyptic language that should be taken seriously, but not literally. As N.T. Wright writes, Revelation “is full of strange, lurid and sometimes bizarre and violent imagery.” That eminent New Testament scholar goes on to say,

This book in fact offers one of the clearest and sharpest visions of God’s ultimate purpose for the whole creation, and of the way in which the powerful forces of evil, at work in a thousand ways but not least in idolatrous and tyrannous political systems, can be and are being overthrown through the victory of Jesus the Messiah and the consequent costly victory of his followers.

   (These quotes are from the Introduction of Wright’s 2011 book Revelation for Everyone.)

** Despite all the violence depicted in Revelation, the focus is clearly on the non-violent Lamb, the historical Jesus who was crucified and resurrected.

Revelation, properly understood, has a direct link to Christmas. By far, the best-known part of Messiah, Händel’s superlative oratorio, is Hallelujah Chorus, which is often performed in celebration of Christmas.

The words of Hallelujah Chorus come from Revelation 19:6, 11:15, and 19:16. During this busy week before Christmas, perhaps you can take four minutes to listen to those words being impressively sung (here) by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

_____

*¹ The title of a blog post I made in October 2017 is “Revelation: The Most Misused Book in the Bible.” I encourage you to click on this link and read it (again). There are 30 comments (including my responses) posted below that article, and according to Blogger.com, there have been about 550 pageviews of that post.

*² These quotes are from a lengthy and informative 11/27/24 article in Christianity Today magazine (see here).

*³ According to the stats provided by Blogger.com, that post has, inexplicably, had nearly 3,700 pageviews. 

Note: Some of you may be interested in the 11/12/24 post by Religious Dispatches, “The Trump Administration’s Approach to Immigration is Inspired by the Bible — The Book of Revelation.” Here is a link to that provocative article about the grave dangers embedded in the widespread misunderstanding of Revelation. 

Rightly (or Wrongly) Explaining the Word of Truth

Ralph Drollinger is probably the tallest Bible study teacher you never heard of, at least until recently—and he may be one of the most detrimental to the health of the nation. In the Bible, 2 Timothy 2:15 ends with the words “rightly explaining the word of truth.” It is highly questionable, however, whether Drollinger rightly explains the Bible. 

(From a 4/10/18 online article by Andrew Seidel)

Drollinger’s Capitol Ministries

In 1996, Ralph Drollinger (b. 1954), who is 7’2” tall and a former NBA player, started a new organization in his home state of California. Its goal was “to create disciples of Jesus Christ in the political arena throughout the world.”

As a Christian, I certainly can’t fault that goal. But it is important to understand the kind of disciples he and his organization were/are trying to create.

Ten years ago, in 2010, Drollinger established his first national ministry in Washington, D.C., where he began a weekly Bible study for U.S. Representatives. Five years later he began a separate ministry to U.S. Senators. Then in 2017 he created a ministry to members of the White House Cabinet.

In addition, according to the Capitol Ministries website, they have “also created discipleship Bible studies to the political leaders of 24 nations on four continents.”

In their “comprehensive doctrinal statement,” Capitol Ministries declares,

We teach that the Word of God is an objective, propositional revelation (1 Cor. 2:13; 1 Thess. 2:13), verbally inspired in every word (2 Tim. 3:16), absolutely inerrant in the original documents, infallible, and God-breathed. We teach the literal, grammatical-historical interpretation of Scripture, which affirms the belief that the opening chapters of Genesis present creation in six literal days (Gen. 1:31; Ex. 31:17).

But, does the world really need more “disciples” who adhere to biblical inerrancy, including belief in a literal six-day creation?

Drollinger’s Bible Studies

Drollinger’s Bible studies on Capitol Hill has an impressive list of “sponsors.” The Cabinet members who are sponsors include Vice President Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, as well as Ben Carson and Betsy DeVos. Former Cabinet member sponsors include Rick Perry and Jeff Sessions.

Eleven Republican Senators are listed as Bible study sponsors, including Joni Ernst from Iowa, Cindy Hyde-Smith from Mississippi, James Lankford from Oklahoma, and David Perdue from Georgia.

Then there are 41 Representatives who are sponsors. The two most widely known are Kevin McCarthy, currently the House Minority Leader, and Louie Gohmert, the outspoken Congressman from Texas.

Although who actually attends each Bible study is not made known, the weekly schedule is 7 a.m. Wednesdays for the Cabinet, 8:00 a.m. Tuesdays for the Senate, and 7:45 a.m. Thursdays for the House.

There is no indication that DJT has attended any of the Bible studies, but Drollinger sends a copy of his printed studies to him and reportedly sometimes receives back comments written in his felt tip marker pen.

On March 23, Drollinger’s Bible study was titled, “Is God Judging America Today?” An online article the next day (see here) was very critical of what Drollinger said in that study—and on March 27 Drollinger issued a questionable rebuttal titled “Lies, Distortions and Inaccuracies.”

Drollinger’s Detrimental Influence

Questions about Drollinger’s Bible studies are not just recent. A 10/05/17 article in Newsweek magazine refers to Drollinger as the “next most prominent godly voice in Trump’s White House” after Paula White.

That article points out that in “Entitlement Programs Viewed Through the Lens of Scripture,” an August 2016 Bible study, Drollinger asserted that the Bible “is clear” that caring for the poor is the responsibility of the family and the church, not the government.”

Newsweek also published “White House Bible Study Led By Pastor Who Is Anti-Gay, Anti-Women and Anti-Catholic,” a 4/11/18 article even more critical of Drollinger. That headline doesn’t seem to be inaccurate—and it could have included anti-environment as well.

All of Drollinger’s Bible teaching is, no doubt, based on “the literal, grammatical-historical interpretation of Scripture.” But that is the problem—and I address that issue in “Fed Up with Fundamentalism’s View of the Bible,” the fifth chapter of my book Fed Up with Fundamentalism (2007, 2020).

To a large extent, sadly, Drollinger seems to be wrongly “explaining the word of truth.”

Still Fed Up with Fundamentalism's View of the Bible

This article is based on the fifth chapter of my book Fed Up with Fundamentalism (2007), which I am currently updating (and slightly revising) for re-publication at the end of the year. Beliefs about the Bible were central to the rise of fundamentalism 100 years ago and its “resurgence” that began 40 years ago.  

The Basic Problem: Inerrancy

Fundamentalists, now generally known as conservative evangelicals, have strongly emphasized the necessity of an inerrant Bible. Perhaps more than anything else, belief in Biblical inerrancy is the defining doctrine for fundamentalists.

Writing in The Fundamentalist Phenomenon (1981), Jerry Falwell declared: “A Fundamentalist is one who believes the Bible to be verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore inerrant and absolutely infallible” (pp. 119-120).

In the ninth chapter of Inerrancy (1980), Paul D. Feinberg presents this definition:

Inerrancy means that when all facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences (p. 294).

There are several problems with this definition, though. Is it possible to know all the facts? And how do we know when the Bible as a whole, or when any individual passage, is “properly interpreted”? And do we really expect the Bible to be infallible about specific matters in the social, physical, and life sciences?

Three Related Problems

1) The Problem of Interpretation

Here, especially, is the problem of conservative evangelicals’ insistence on interpreting the Bible literally.

W.A. Criswell was one of the most prominent Southern Baptist pastors in the 20^th century. He has been called “the patriarch of the ‘conservative resurgence’ among Southern Baptists.” Perhaps his best-known book is Why I Preach That the Bible is Literally True (1969).

In the third chapter of that book, Criswell (1909~2002) emphasizes that the Bible “is the Word of God, not merely contains it.” Then on the basis of 2 Timothy 3:16, Criswell asserts: “On the original parchment every sentence, word, line, mark, point, pen stroke, jot, and tittle were put there by inspiration of God.”

What does it mean, though, to say that the Bible is literally true? And how can one determine what is literally true and what is not? For example, what about the snake talking to Eve in the Garden of Eden? Did that literally happen? If so, how was it that a snake could talk? And what language was used?

2) The Problem of Selective Reading

To give just one example here, these days we hear a lot, especially from conservative evangelicals, about maintaining traditional marriage. But the biggest names of the Old Testament were polygamists—Abraham, Jacob, and David. Moreover, adultery was punishable by death.

The point, of course, is that “following the Bible” in maintaining “traditional marriage,” means following only selected parts of the Bible. There is no question but that even the staunchest fundamentalists are selective in the Bible passages they interpret as literally binding on Christians today.

3) The Problem of Changing Beliefs

If the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and Christians are supposed to believe in a literal interpretation of that Word, how can there be changes in what Christians say the Bible teaches?

In issue after issue, though, there have been changes, some of them quite dramatic. In the final part of Chapter Five, I write about changes in beliefs about the physical sciences, slavery, and even the proper dress for women.

So, while maintaining a high opinion of the Bible’s significance, I am fed up with fundamentalism’s view of the Bible for the reasons given above, among others.

Revelation: The Most Misused Book in the Bible

While I usually try not to make strong, dogmatic statements that cannot be empirically supported, I am quite certain that the book of Revelation is the most misunderstood and misused book in the Bible.

A Traditional View of Revelation 

Growing up in a conservative Southern Baptist church, it was not uncommon to hear sermons about the impending end of the world based on passages from Revelation, the last book of the Bible.

Especially when visiting evangelists preached “revivals” at my home church, Revelation was often used to emphasize that the end times were upon us for sure and we had better get ready for the rapidly approaching doomsday. I still remember hearing frightening sermons along those lines in 1950 or before.

Twenty years later, the final Battle of Armageddon still had not come, but Hal Lindsey wrote powerfully about the impending end times in The Late Great Planet Earth (1970), said to be the bestselling non-fiction book of the 1970s.

Especially over the past 200 years, the Bible has been used frequently to predict the imminent end of the world. The books of Ezekiel and Daniel in the Old Testament have also been used for such “prophecy,” but the main basis has been the book of Revelation.

But I have long been convinced that the traditional “dispensational” view of Revelation is wrongheaded and that the widespread way Revelation has been used among conservative Christians is erroneous. 

A New View of Revelation 

In the early 1960s, my understanding of Revelation greatly changed—and greatly improved, I believe—by reading the book Worthy is the Lamb: An Interpretation of Revelation (1951) by Ray Summers, who was one of my seminary professors.

One of the main points that I realized from reading Dr. Summers’ book is that Revelation was written for Christians at the end of the first century, not for the purpose of prophesying what was going to happen in the last half of the 20th century.

During each of my two pastorates while a seminary student, I taught Revelation over the course of many Sunday evenings, using Worthy is the Lamb as the main commentary for interpreting that difficult book of the Bible. 

Repeatedly, I reminded those in attendance that every part of Revelation was written to help/encourage the persecuted Christians at the end of the first century. Thus it is important, first of all, to see what meaning each part of the book had for them. 

To say the least, it would not have been helpful for the early Christians to learn that Revelation was predicting how Russia was going to trigger the Battle of Armageddon in the 1960s or ’70s.

A Recommended View of Revelation 

This article on Revelation was prompted by Brian Zahnd, author of the previously introduced book Sinners in the Hand of a Loving God. Three of the chapters (7~9) of that engaging book are about Revelation, and last month BZ preached a sermon at Word of Life Church where he is pastor on “What About the Book of Revelation?” (That sermon, which you can hear here, is certainly worth listening to).

BZ also agrees with my opening dogmatic statement. He writes, “The book of Revelation is easily the most misunderstood and misused book in the Bible” (p. 149).

Revelation is, truly, an important part of the Bible. It must, however, be read and interpreted wisely. If properly read and interpreted, it gives us Christians hope for the future and strength to oppose political idolatry and evil in the present.

Rather than neglect Revelation because of its misuse, we need to pay attention to its abiding message, even for us today.

Why Study the Bible?

For the first time in a long time, on Sept. 24 I attended a Sunday School class in a Southern Baptist church. That experience was the springboard for the question posed above.

Questioning Bible Study

June and I spent the last weekend in September in southwest Missouri. On Sunday morning we attended a very lively Baptist church in a rural area several miles south of Springfield. 

The study material used for the class we attended was the “Explore the Bible” quarterly produced by LifeWay, the publishing company known from 1891 to 1998 as the Southern Baptist Sunday School Board.

Exodus and Leviticus are being explored during this fall quarter; the Sept. 24 lesson was on Exodus 14:13-28. In the class we attended, the King James Version was the translation used, although LifeWay also offers two other translations.

By the end of the class, attended by 12-15 older adults, I began to wonder about the purpose of it all. There was almost no attempt, either by the teacher or the quarterly, to make the class any more than a study of the events found in the Bible passage.

After returning home, I was able to buy a digital copy of that Sunday School quarterly online. Here are a couple of statements in it indicating what readers might learn from study of Ex. 14:13-28. (i) “God delivers His people, providing a way of escape.” (ii) “Believers demonstrate faith in God by obediently following His directions.”

Bible Study Questions

In listening to the Sunday School teacher, who was quite articulate in his lecture about the Bible passage, there were several questions that I would like to have raised. I did not have any chance to do that—and it probably would not have been appropriate to have done so as a visitor.

Here are some of my questions: If the Church is God’s people today, will God provide us a way of escape from our “enemies” similar to that provided to the Israelites whom Moses led to and through the Red Sea?

Since God did not tell the Israelites to build up armed forces and fight against the Egyptians militarily, why do so many U.S. Christians seem to think they should be supporters of massive armed forces now?

Then, what are God’s directions to believers today? Is God directing Christians in the U.S. to support the current President? My guess is that probably 80% or so of the people in the church I attended on Sept 24 voted for and continue to support DJT, even though (or because?) he threatens to unleash “fire and fury” upon North Korea and to “totally destroy” that country. Is that God’s will?

So, why study the Bible to learn about the past without considering or discussing what lessons there might be for the present?

Of course it is much easier, and far less controversial, for a teacher or a quarterly to deal with information about the past than to struggle with present-day implications of the Bible passage being studied.

Purpose of Bible Study

There is, certainly, some value in studying the Bible for understanding its content in historical context. Shouldn’t the primary purpose of a Sunday School class, though, be seeking to understand the meaning and challenge of the Bible for us in our context today?

But who is willing to engage in the hard work of that kind of Bible study? And to what extent would our interpretation be shaped by our political views rather than the latter being shaped by the Bible?

Still, we surely need to study/explore the Bible with the intent of finding it a lamp to our feet and a light to our paths.

The Bible is Like a Rorschach Test

Long before I read Brian Zahnd’s new book Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God I had made a note to use the above title for a future blog article. Thus, I was surprised when I read this in BZ’s book: “Sometimes the Bible is like a Rorschach test: our interpretation of the text reveals more about ourselves than about God” (p. 14). Quite true!

Literal and Metaphorical Rorschach Tests

Rorschach inkblot #10

The story of the background and development of the Rorschach test is thoroughly told in a book by Damion Searls published earlier this year under the title The Inkblots: Hermann Rorschach, His iconic Test, and the Power of Seeing. (I have only scanned the book, but here is the link to Thinking Friend Clif Hostetler’s review of it.)  

Rorschach created the inkblots test for the purpose of psychological analysis and evaluation. But the popularity of those tests has resulted in their metaphorical use also.

In his book, Searls reports that in 1993 Hillary Clinton said to an Esquire reporter, “I’m a Rorschach test” (p. 263). And then in 2008 Barack Obama said to a New York Times reporter, with a somewhat different meaning, “I am like a Rorschach test” (p. 309).

Truly, as the Rorschach test amply illustrates, people look at the same thing, or same person, and come to widely different conclusions about the nature and significance of those things or persons.

That is true for the Bible also.

The Bible as a Rorschach Test

How people read and interpret the Bible varies greatly. For example, the Bible as seen by fundamentalist Christians is different in multifarious ways from how it is seen by those of us who are not fundamentalists.

The passages of the Bible a person chooses for evaluating current issues tells us a lot about that person. Their use of the Bible is, truly, like a Rorschach test.

For a case in point, consider Robert Jeffress, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas. Last month (here) I quoted Jeffress saying that God has given Pres. Trump the authority to “take out” Kim Jong-un. That dangerous assertion is based on his selection and interpretation of “God’s Word” as found in Romans 13.

Then on Sept. 11, in commenting on the immigration issue and the “Dreamers,” Jeffress told Fox News (see here) that “God is not necessarily an open borders guy.”

According to the Dallas pastor, the Bible teaches that God has established borders and instituted the government to protect its citizens. Thus, he says, those Christians who emphasize compassion based on Gen. 1:27 are telling only one side of the story.

It seems quite clear than when Jeffress looks at the Bible, he sees a book that supports the current President of the U.S. and the bulk of the Republican Party. That doesn’t tell us much about the Bible, but it tells us a lot about Jeffress and the “evangelicals” who agree with him.

The Proper Criterion

In his book mentioned above, Zahnd emphasizes that all of the Bible should be read from the viewpoint of Jesus. That is, the Old Testament, the letters of Paul, and all other parts of the Bible must be interpreted in light of the life and teachings of Jesus.

Baptists used to have it right: the 1963 version of the Baptist Faith and Message clearly and importantly stated: “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.”

Thus, when Jesus is the basis for interpreting the Bible, we find a perspective considerably different from that of Pastor Jeffress.

What does your interpretation of the Bible say about you?

How Should We Read the Bible Today?

Although he wrote it back in 2001, eminent biblical scholar Marcus Borg declared, “Conflict about the Bible is the single most divisive issue among Christians in North America today.” We don’t know if he would say the same thing now, for, alas, he died in January. (In March I wrote about him here).

Today, though, it seems to me that the most divisive issue among Christians is same-sex marriage—but that squabble is largely because of opposing understandings of how to read and interpret the Bible.

Borg’s book is titled “Reading the Bible Again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously but Not Literally.” In many ways it is similar to another good book written three-quarters of a century earlier: Harry Emerson Fosdick’s “The Modern Use of the Bible” (1924).

Recently, I have looked through another excellent book on this subject: N. T. Wright’s “Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today” (2011). And then there is a new book which I haven’t seen yet: Harvey Cox’s “How to Read the Bible”—but I have read Jonathan Merritt’s informative interview with Cox about his book. (That interview was published last month here.)

If more people had read and heeded Fosdick’s book, many of the needless “Bible wars” of recent decades could have been avoided—and maybe the newer books would not have been necessary.

Fosdick wrote about two parties in the churches: one which thinks that “the essence of Christianity is its original mental frameworks; the other party is convinced that the essence of Christianity is its abiding experiences” (p. 102).

There are some who still today see the Bible as a rulebook. That seems to be their primary “mental framework.” The issue of same-sex marriage, for example, is decided by the rules, the prohibitions, the condemnatory words found in the Bible and considered binding at all times and places.

Others of us see the Bible as a record of God’s grace, a book abounding with the good news of life, love, light, and liberty—the 4Ls that I have emphasized for years. Those are the “abiding experiences” that we find in the Bible and seek to live by today.

When I read the many anti-gay or anti-same-sex marriage arguments from conservative Christians, I see that they are legalistically holding on to the mental framework of the past, but I have trouble seeing how they are upholding the abiding experience of a gracious God.

Certainly the Bible contains condemnation of sin, that which destroys a proper relationship with God and which injures others as well as oneself. That is, the Bible condemns such sins as pride, greed, idolatry, and injustice.

All human actions that devalue others—treating people like things, exploiting them, using them for one’s own selfish ends, etc.—are all expressions of human sinfulness. It is most likely that the only type of homosexual activity condemned in the Bible were those kinds of actions. And there was, no doubt, that kind of activity then.

And there still is. But that certainly doesn’t mean that all homosexual activity is of that nature.

The Bible’s condemnation of the sinful treatment of others is not a reasonable basis for rejecting same-sex marriage between consenting adults who seek to live a life of covenanted commitment to each other.

The abiding experience of God’s grace for all people, including those who wish to be in a committed same-sex relationship, should surely not be defined by people who read the Bible with the mental framework of an era long past.

Cherry Picking

Earlier this month I received an email from a Thinking Friend about cherry picking. He said that he prefers “the Greatest Common Denominator” in spiritual traditions.

Then he wrote, “Does this make a ‘cherry picker’ of me? But even when I was exclusively Christian, I exercised discernment regarding the Bible, as you do. Of course I cherry pick! I want the ripe, not the unripe and rotten.”

Good point.

But is it legitimate to cherry pick when deciding which verses in the Bible, or which parts of a religion’s doctrinal statements, to accept or reject?

Cherry picking can certainly be used illegitimately. It is listed as one type of fallacious argument—and it is sometimes. But not all cherry picking is wrong or fallacious.

Consider this example.

As most of you have heard, Adrian Peterson, the star running back for the Minnesota Vikings, was indicted earlier this month on charges of reckless or negligent injury to his four-year-old son. He is accused of beating his son repeatedly.

But Peterson’s child abuse indictment has led to some people to hold up for spanking or switching children.

Corporal punishment of children has long been considered as divinely sanctioned by many conservative, “Bible-believing” Christians. After all, the Bible says, “Whoever spares the rod hates their children, / but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them” (Proverbs 13:24, NIV).

The oft-quoted words “spare the rod and spoil the child,” though, don’t come directly from the Bible. They are from a 17^th century poem by Samuel Butler.

Still, the admonition in Proverbs is taken quite seriously by many. But what about Deuteronomy 21:18-21?

That passage says, “If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him,” they are to take him to the elders and then “all the men of his town are to stone him to death.”

Thank goodness for cherry picking!

Many other examples could be given of Bible verses that even the staunchest fundamentalists do not take seriously.

There are, however, many examples of Bible verses that fundamentalists do take literally but which “moderates” (or “liberals”) do not consider normative for contemporary Christians.

One example, of many that might be given, is 1 Corinthians 14:34, which says, “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says” (NIV)

Is there any justification for cherry picking and downplaying that verse? And if so, what?

A person’s theological understanding is the basis for determining which Bible verses to follow and which to all but ignore.

Accordingly, as a seminary teacher I long stressed, but perhaps not strongly enough, that systematic theology is more important than biblical studies.

Sound exegesis on the basis of a thorough grasp of Hebrew and/or Greek is important—but not the most important.

Biblical study in and of itself cannot determine which verses/passages are normative. That is the job of systematic theology, formed perhaps by use of the “Wesleyan Quadrilateral.”

That unwieldy term refers to John Wesley’s methodology that said the four sources for theological development are scripture, tradition, experience and reason.

Of those four, scripture is the most, and tradition the least, important. But together they form a good basis for constructing a view of God, humankind and the world that, in turn, helps one interpret and apply the Bible correctly.

So it’s not really cherry picking after all. Rather, it’s theological understanding that guides us in affirming some Bible verses while giving little weight to others.