How Do Bible Stories ‘Teach’?

When you think about it, it’s quite astonishing that the majority of the Bible’s content is stories (the technical term for which is ‘narrative’). You’d perhaps expect it to be more like a rule book, or instruction manual, or at least a compendium of required beliefs. If evangelical statements of faith are correct in asserting (as a core belief) that the Bible is our supreme authority for faith and conduct, how, exactly, are Bible stories authoritative?

The question is particularly challenging in relation to Old Testament stories, and not least the rather horrific ones, though the question also arises in principle for the New Testament. Here, though, things may be slightly easier. The stories and their contexts feel a little bit ‘closer to home’, and Jesus even explains the intended teaching in some of his parables. John’s Gospel sometimes offers us interpretive pointers (bits of commentary) alongside a story.   

But to state the obvious, stories are not (in and of themselves) propositional truths—i.e., statements of doctrine (correct beliefs), facts and information about God, or divine commands. We may derive those from stories, indirectly, but that necessarily requires some level of interpretation. Which begs the question: Whose interpretation (and application) is authoritative, such that we can confidently say that Scripture is speaking authoritatively about something through a story?

In case it sounds like I’m just being ‘picky’ about something that’s really not a problem (unless academics make it into a problem), up to three-quarters of the Bible is narrative, so it’s hardly theoretical.  

Since interpretation is unavoidable, the authority of Scripture in relation to a story is conceptually problematic at the outset. Evangelical statements of faith invariably assert that all Scripture is authoritative, so which interpretations of stories are the authoritative ones? Can there be more than one? What measure or standard should we use to determine the ‘correctness’ of an interpretation (and its application)?

For most ordinary Christians reading Bible stories, the answer is probably some combination of (a) “What it seems to me to be teaching,” (b) “What my pastor said it was teaching,” and (c) “What that person I like on YouTube said it was teaching.” I’m not decrying those as sources, necessarily; but if we’re looking for something more robust (more of a methodology, that we can apply consistently) our best starting point is to ‘look to Scripture to interpret Scripture’. I’m not always keen on Reformed thinking, but in principle, that approach is sound: we look to the clearer passages of Scripture to help us with the less-clear. We look to what the Bible overall teaches as our interpretive lens for what we sense the Bible is saying and meaning in relation to a particular passage where it’s not self-evident. This avoids us getting ‘the wrong end of the stick’ based on a (mis)reading of a verse, passage, or story in isolation—drawing conclusions that would be inconsistent with Scripture more broadly.

The reason I say this approach is sound in principle is because much still depends on what we think (or what we’re told) those supposedly ‘clearer passages’ are teaching us. Those ‘clearer passages’ are still reflecting what’s clear to the particular interpreter! (And for the avoidance of doubt, I’m not talking here about the core Christian beliefs outlined in the early Creeds, that define what it means to be a Christian.) 

I personally would narrow down what we mean by ‘the clearer passages’ to focus on the nature and character of God that we see in Jesus and his clear, unambiguous teachings. This is not to argue for a ‘canon within the canon’ as such (all Scripture is equally Scripture), but the reality is that none of us (ordinary reader or scholar) treats every Bible verse or passage as equally informative or normative. The concept of ‘clearer passages’ only gets us so far, of course, because there remains a subjective element, but it’s a worthwhile start.

Some combination of looking to Scripture to interpret Scripture, the clearer verses and passages helping us with the less-clear, and most of all, a Christocentric lens, prioritising Jesus, seems the preferred way forward.

But even following that methodology, we should not rule out there being more than one potential interpretation and application, especially when it comes to a story. It is not necessary to insist that a story has only one correct ‘point’ in ‘what it’s teaching’, not least because of the role of the Holy Spirit in our Bible reading. For sure, no proposed interpretation or application should violate clear scriptural truths, but that aside, more than one valid truth and application is entirely possible, especially when it comes to stories.

How does all of this fit with ‘the authority of Scripture’ as a simple application? Or the Reformers’ notion of the so-called ‘perspicuity’ of Scripture (that its plain meaning can be derived by anyone, learned or unlearned, with the Holy Spirit’s help)? Not that easily, to be honest. We need to remember that the insistence on using the word ‘authority’ to describe (if not define) the nature of the Bible is a peculiarly Modern one (the early Creeds say nothing at all about the nature of the Bible). So, too, some of the other words that feature prominently in evangelical statements of faith, such as ‘inerrancy’ and ‘infallibility’. These also come to us from the Reformation, originally as a direct challenge to the authority of tradition and papal infallibility in the Catholic church of the day (and rightly so, at the time). But they should always be understood in their original context—that with which they were seeking to make a contrast—not being detached and given a life of their own.

We never see the Bible speaking of itself in any of these terms (though Reformed folks would argue that it didn’t need to at the time—it had always been understood to be the case). Pretty much the only thing that the Bible does say about itself is that it is divinely ‘inspired’ (literally, ‘God-breathed’)—per 2 Timothy 3:16. What does that mean, exactly? Good question! It seems to be intentionally enigmatic (a divinely-inspired teaser for us, maybe?). Conservative Reformed evangelicals will say that it’s ‘obvious’—that it ‘must’ mean the Bible’s ‘authority’, infallibility’, and ‘inerrancy’!        

Keep in mind that what we’re discussing here are these ideas and concepts in relation to stories—the authority of the narrative portions. I am not questioning the authority of Scripture in general, though I am pointing out that its authority, not least concerning stories, will always in practice be the authority that we personally grant to an interpretation. That’s really what any speaker or writer is doing—inviting us to buy into their interpretations (and their proposed applications).

Next time we’ll take a look at how we might apply all of this in relation to a particular Old Testament story—that of Abraham and Isaac, in Genesis 22.