We Christians pick and choose when applying Scripture. Because we all do this, the important question is not whether but on what basis we make our selections. Much depends upon how we answer this question.

If someone asked me why I celebrate the Sabbath, for example, my first response probably would be that I have found it beneficial to devote one day a week to worship, companionship and service. If the person then asked why I think it best to celebrate it on the seventh day of each week, particularly since I am not Jewish but Christian, my next response probably would be that Scripture invites us to set aside this day and make it special.

If the person then asked my why I think the "seventh-day-ness" of the Sabbath is still important, I could answer in at least two ways. On the one hand, I could say that I equally apply each part of the Bible to my life. This answer would be false. On the other hand, I could say that I study Scripture with certain things in mind that guide me as I decide what to apply now. This answer would be true.

Let’s consider one of Scripture’s most important discussions of the Sabbath: Exodus 31:12-18. This passage instructs the ancient Israelites to works six days a week and to honor the seventh day as the Sabbath. It also enjoins them to devote it to solemn rest, and to keep in mind that it is a sign that the Lord sanctifies them and a perpetual covenant that the Lord created the heavens and earth in six days and rested on the seventh. No problems so far!

The difficulty is that this passage twice declares that those who profane the Sabbath by working on the seventh day should be put to death. I cannot accept this as applicable today, though I do appreciate the other things the passage says. If this isn’t picking and choosing from Scripture, what is?

Some might insist that it would be "ridiculous," "cruel" or "appalling" in our time to execute those who violate the Sabbath. They might add that this practice should be unacceptable today as a matter of ethical principle, not merely because we may lack the power or the desire to implement it. They would be right, but why?

An answer to this question that makes sense to me is that we should study each passage of Scripture in light of everything else we know and that we should always be prepared to re-examine our general knowledge in light of the specific text. Instead of moving one way in either direction, the traffic between each portion of Scripture and everything else we know travels on a two-way street. The study of Scripture is neither deductive nor inductive; it is interactive or dialectical. We should study the passage in light of what we already know and we should examine what we already know in light of the passage. Our goal should be to arrive at the best possible integration of both in our time and place.

How does this process work? We must begin by deciding whether we will approach Scripture merely as a cultural classic or also as the Christian canon. If we choose to view it as only a cultural classic, we will acknowledge its importance in the history of human civilization, but nothing more. If we decide that for us it is also the Christian canon, we will hold that it has contemporary relevance and importance. Much like the constitution of a nation, Scripture as its canon creates the Christian community and guides it in its ongoing life. Like the judges on a nation’s supreme court, and not like constitutional historians, those who regard Scripture as the Christian canon are interested both in what it once meant and what it now should mean.

These are not always identical. Even if Biblical historians established beyond reasonable doubt that the Israelites actually executed those who profaned the Sabbath, it still would not follow that we should do the same thing today. It is one thing to ask what a passage once meant and another to ask what it should now mean. The first question is literary and historical; the second is theological and ethical. We should not confuse these different kinds of inquiries.

If we decide to approach Scripture as the Christian canon, as I think those of us who are Christians should, what else should we keep in mind when studying any particular passage? The short answer to this question is "everything"! The long answer is that we should think of the other things we to keep in mind as occupying three concentric circles.

The first and smallest circle includes the life, teachings, death, resurrection and continuing ministry of Jesus Christ. It is the most important of the three. The second and larger circle includes all the rest of Scripture. Every part of Scripture should be applied in light of the whole of it and vice versa. The third and largest circle includes everything else we have learned about our selves and the universe in all fields of study and all arenas of professional practice. Although much of this information is not in Scripture, every bit of it is valuable when we are applying what it says.

To execute those who profane the Sabbath would be to contradict the overall tenor the life and teachings of Jesus. It would be to move against the trajectories or trends within of all of Scripture by increasing violence instead of decreasing it. It would counter everything we have learned about the value of separating political coercion from religious persuasion. These are among the reasons why we should not select this instruction as something for us to put into practice today, though it is embedded in a passage that says other things that I choose to implement in our time.

Considering any text in light of the life and teachings of Jesus, the whole of Scripture and everything else we otherwise know does not guarantee perfect agreement about what a particular passage should mean for us today; however, it does pinpoint the areas in which discussions about continuing differences in interpretation should continue.  These three concentric circles include the questions to be answered, not the answers themselves.