Interpreting Scripture

As readers of English versions of the Bible, our understanding is heavily influenced by at least two significant factors: (1) The misunderstanding that naturally occurs when writing is translated from one language to another, particularly in languages lacking equivalent usage and word meanings, and (2) The fact that we view writing of other times and cultures through the ‘lens’ of our own time and culture. These issues profoundly affect our reading both in ways easily identified and in more subtle ways that hinder an accurate understanding. This problem applies to all the Bible’s contents, whose authors lived long ago in cultures vastly different from our own. 

For those who accept the Bible as Holy Scripture, this is an issue of more than academic interest. Precise interpretation of the text from its original languages and subsequent analysis spanning gaps between cultures and time periods is essential to accurate understanding and application of Scripture. Errors in interpretation impact readers who absorb them and, potentially, others with whom they interact. At their worst, interpretive errors can cause people to believe things that are actually anti-Biblical. 

We can improve our understanding of Scripture by applying some basic principles of Biblical interpretation. These include at least the following: 

1. The meaning of Scripture is not always vague, obscure, or hidden within some deeply symbolic expression. Much of the Biblical text simply means what it says. 

2. Scripture helps interpret Scripture. A fuller understanding of the meaning of many (maybe even all) Bible passages can be gained by viewing a passage from the perspective of other passages that address the topic involved. 

3. Cultural misinterpretation of the Bible is pervasive to the extent it may be considered the ‘default’ position for many readers, for three reasons: 

(1) Cultural complexity -- there is not a single category of time and cultural values that represent “Bible times.” The multiple cultures and times present in Scripture vary widely from each other. 

(2) Cultural distortion -- because culture is powerful, pervasive, and often subtle, readers who live within a culture [few have lived in multiple cultures] often remain unaware of the degree to which their own cultural background and bias influence their understanding of Scripture. 

(3) Cultural conformity – we will face fewer conflicts with non-believers (and perhaps other believers) and can avoid the stigma of being considered odd, out of touch, reactionary, politically incorrect, etc. if we interpret Scripture in ways that conform to the dominant values of our culture. 

4. When we detect cultural conformity (#3, above) in interpretation, we may benefit from recognizing that the messages contained in Scripture were often distinctly opposed to the values of the dominant cultures surrounding the writers (nota bene – Jesus was consistently and shockingly counter-cultural). 

5. The Bible describes three different covenant relationships between God and man (first with Abraham, then with Moses, then with Christ’s church) and not all the ‘rules and regulations’ under one covenant continued under the next. One example is the law given to Moses in Exodus 31 that calls for execution of anyone who desecrates the Sabbath. Careful study is required to delineate which teachings and requirements carried over through all three covenants. 

6. For numerous Scriptural passages, an understanding of the culture of the time makes it clear that what is written is not intended as a universal mandate. One example of this is chapter 11 of I Corinthians, in which Paul asserts that a woman should not pray with her head uncovered. This is understandable within the context of that culture, when women of bad reputation left their heads uncovered. 

7. An instruction, prohibition, or moral standard repeatedly addressed to multiple cultural audiences (e.g., to both Jews and Gentiles, over hundreds of years, by multiple authors) is not culturally dependent and therefore not subject to reinterpretation based on the reader’s culture. An example of this is limiting sex to the marriage of a man and a woman, a position from which Scripture does not deviate. 

8. Our understanding of many passages can be enhanced by bearing in mind that the Scripture originated in the area we call the Middle East, a portion of the world where the predominant values were (and are) those of an ‘honor/shame’ culture. An example of this is one of the key factors in the Jewish leaders’ decision to kill Jesus, the fact that he had shamed them in public debates. 

Avoiding the pitfalls of Scriptural misinterpretation is challenging. Even extensive study of Biblical cultures will not guarantee totally accurate understanding of the Bible, but a basic knowledge can greatly reduce the tendency toward interpretive errors. A multitude of books and articles are available to help build a foundation in this area. Experiencing the ‘aha’ moments produced by studying Biblical cultures is often the encouragement needed to continue. 

 

Recommended reading/study: 

Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes, by E. Randolph Richards & Brandon J. O’Brien 

The Complete Jewish Study Bible, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Mass. 

NIV Cultural Background Study Bible, Zondervan Publishing, Grand Rapids, Mich. 

Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith, by Marvin R. Wilson

Truth

 

Pontius Pilate, a first century Roman official, gained notoriety when he attempted to avoid condemning Jesus Christ by asking, “What is truth?”. That question, far from being an original thought of Pilate, has been asked in many ways throughout history and is still asked today.

  People of all sorts -- intellectuals, the minimally educated, those steeped in religious orthodoxy, nonreligious, and citizens of all possible political persuasions –- hold to their respective tenets and principles and generally believe them to be true. Because these beliefs and values are what determine how we live our lives, the means by which we choose them is critically important.

Some invest substantial time and mental energy in a ‘search for truth’, trying to determine which of the many competing ideas and theories about politics, religion, economics, education, etc., most closely align with the reality of life as they experience it (those who go to such effort are probably at best a small proportion of the population). More adopt the views proposed by parents, teachers, peers, and religious or political leaders without testing these ideas against a standard of truth criteria.

Each person is, of course, free to develop a set of beliefs which they hold to be true using whatever means or methods they desire. This can range from a vigorous, lifelong search for the ‘truth’ about some topic or issue, to simply adopting the beliefs and values of one’s family or other influential group. For those who see value in consistently applying a set of presuppositions/criteria as a tool for judging which ideas one will accept as ‘truth’ I suggest the following:

1. Truth exists. I state this only because there are those who suggest the opposite: “There is no such thing as objective truth.” I flatly reject this idea as a non sequitur (perhaps the simplest way to approach this assertion is to ask, “Is the statement that there is no such thing as truth, true?”).

2. Truth is not relative. We live in an age when some suggest multiple, conflicting truths can coexist. This idea -– which is often voiced as, “This is true for me, and that is true for you.” -– is nonsensical. Consider as an example the statement, “The earth is flat.” The world either is flat or it is not -– there is no rational room for both sides of this issue. Suppose I believe the earth is flat and you believe the earth is not flat. These two conflicting ideas cannot both be true; one is true and the other is false.

3. Truth is not decided democratically. That is to say, the weight of public opinion has no effect on truth. A majority believing anything does not make it true, and a minority believing it does not make it false. At one time, virtually everyone believed the earth is flat.

4. Truth is not influenced by the attitude of those who believe something. If we believe something that is false but hold to that belief with great sincerity -– we may even say we believe it ‘with all our heart’ -- it is still false. Our adamant insistence on its importance to our belief system and values has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is true.

5. We ought to be careful of the language used when we discuss truth. For example, it is not unusual to hear statements in the form, “I decided _________ is true.” Statements of this type are not to be taken literally. If objective truth exists then we are not in a position to ‘decide’ what is true. Properly expressed, the thought in mind is –- “after reading, research, thought, or whatever -– I concluded _______ is true” or “I deduced that _______ is true.”  This may seem a matter of semantics that could be ignored, but the words used are important because words are what we use to express truth.

Debt Free - With A Catch?

Debt Free – With A Catch?

If you are familiar with Christian evangelism, you have probably heard numerous analogies applied to the concepts of salvation and heaven (including some used by Jesus, e.g. “heaven is like treasure hidden in a field” or “heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son”). Scripture is filled with analogies that help us understand spiritual concepts, and sin and salvation are included.

Among the more useful and oft-used salvation analogies are the portrayal of sin as debt and salvation as payment of that debt. The sinner (debtor) responds to a salvation invitation, and Jesus cancels the debt. It’s a simple transaction in which the debtor has nothing to lose, and everything to gain. It’s an easy decision; simply accept the offer and have one’s sin-debt erased. How could there be a better deal than that?

Picture a person (yourself?) who is so deeply in debt there is no possibility, no matter how hard they try, to ever pay off what they owe. Then picture the one who owns everything offering to pay the person’s debt, simply out of love. If the analogy between sin and debt is valid – if our debt is real and God is truly willing to cancel it, why would anyone refuse such an offer? Can there be a rational reason to say no?

There are at least two reasons to turn down such an offer. The first, which is the more easily countered of the two, is the illusion that we do not owe a sin-debt. Many people believe that, although not perfect, they live reasonably “good lives” and if heaven is real they deserve admittance. This thinking makes sense until the individual understands that God does not grade on a curve, his standard is perfection, and no one will get to heaven based on their behavior.

But even among those who realize they fall short of God’s standard and cannot earn salvation (that is, they can’t work off their sin-debt), many reject the offer to trade their debtor’s existence for a debt-free life. Why do they turn down an offer, made with no strings attached, to have their debt paid for them? For a simple and very rational reason: the offer is not made with “no strings attached.”

Again, imagine yourself as a person deeply in debt who is approached by someone willing to pay it off for you. But there is one condition. Yes, your current and future debts will be taken care of, but you must turn over control of your finances to the one who pays. This places the offer in a different light. Letting someone pay off your debts is one thing; giving them control of your finances is another. Maybe you shouldn’t be too hasty. Maybe your debts aren’t as bad as they seem. Perhaps there is a way for you to pay them off, or to negotiate some compromise. People with bigger debts than yours don’t seem worried; maybe there is no need to rush into such an arrangement. Maybe you don’t need to give up control.

The same reasoning that would lead a person to refuse an offer of debt cancellation because they do not want to give up control of their finances applies to Jesus’ offer to cancel a sin-debt. His offer is free, he really does offer to be one’s savior with no payback required. But he doesn’t stop there. His offer is to become one’s savior and lord. And it’s the lord part that stops people cold. His offer is unbelievably generous, but there are strings attached. He wants control of the sin-debtor’s life, and that’s simply too scary for many. So, even though it makes no sense to turn down an offer of total debt cancellation, doing so is the only option for those who cannot trust enough to give up control.