Hard to the Core (Interpretation)
The beginning of the discussion in any of these doctrinal discussions is interpretation - what do the words mean that we are reading. I have noticed this is the beginning of where we all start to go ‘one way or another’ - not that this is ‘bad’ - but this is where we choose our perspectives on what a scripture will say.
I think we all try to let the scriptures speak for themselves and that is our goal - but we cannot help but bring in some of our own biases - that’s quite normal. The real question is - does our biases hurt the interpretation or help in the ‘mining’ of it?
EX1: Blessed are the meek (gentle or humble), for they shall inherit the earth (Matt 5:5)
That sentence is going to depend on how we define the terms within it. Meekness is a word we have to define - what does it mean to us? Its blessing is interesting - ‘shall inherit the earth’ - what does that mean? It’s also antithetical in its emphasis - meek inherit the earth? How so? But that’s the task of the interpreter.
EX2: But go and learn what this means: ‘I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT SACRIFICE,’ for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners. (Matt 9:13)
Interesting teaching, when you consider its ramifications…but this is a teaching attributed to Jesus. Why does the focus on compassion mean more than the focus on sacrifice? What are the ramifications of a sentence like that on our daily lives? On our theologies? On the way we view God? On the way we view others? Meaning does, in a sense, determine your actions.
This is where we all are having the problem clicking with one another on our various interpretations of scripture and debates into the study of God (theology). This however goes a lot deeper than a few passages - we actually get into whole books, whole works of an author, and comparative frameworks.
Some see the various books as quite different but working together - some do not see this at all - the books are harmonious. Some see a difference in focus from gospel to gospel - and letter to letter…some think is not the case. So we will never see ‘eye to eye’ on all issues - that’s the obvious part - but that’s not the troubling part.
The troubling part is only select interpretation is the intent of the author - and someone knows it (to some in-depth extent). We start to discuss ideas about God (or even scriptures themselves) and apply the selected criteria to those passages - so it reads as we need it to.
EX1: “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it” and “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me“. (Matt 7:13 & John 14:6)
These passages are sometimes held so in common one might think they were written one after the other in the same chapter. However, they are not - they are in different books with different authors (and in different contexts/conversations). Do those passages mean the same thing? Question is - how can they - they look nothing alike.
EX2: The gospels in their accounts of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus say little to nothing about the meaning of the atonement (fact). Many of the letters refer to this aspect of the death of Jesus.
Why do the gospels not delve into the meaning of the atonement in more depth - if it is such a huge theological breaking point for the faith? The letters, namely Hebrews, seems to make this such a central theological point that it cannot be ignored (unless one stops reading). Whose emphasis is right? The gospels or the letters?
The problem we are all facing is breaking down the teachings/scriptures to their core meanings and what is important. So what is the core meaning and how do you arrive at it?
Pam said,
April 17, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Quite a few years ago, I read a book called, “Scripture Twisting” and it changed the way I treat people who don’t see what I see in scripture because it made me realize that we are all guilty of scripture twisting. The theme of the book was how people from different cultures read the Bible according to their own culture. The correct way to understand scriputure is for it to interpret itself and to discern the meaning spiritually. That takes a long time. I think the more we study (and I mean really study on our own, not just sit under teaching and preaching) the more our thinking is changed from a world view gleaned from the culture we are raised in to a God-centered worldview and our thoughts also become more like scripture. We will always twist scripture to our own understanding but as our understanding becomes more scriptural, we twist it less.
For me, the core meaning is Jesus. That means that I measure all that I read according to His character according to the way He lived on earth as well as what He has meant to me personally. I believe that when Jesus is fully revealed so to will scripture be fully understood.
Pam
OneSmallStep said,
April 17, 2008 at 5:04 pm
**The real question is - does our biases hurt the interpretation or help in the ‘mining’ of it? **
Both, probably. One of the things we all do, myself included, is sometimes equate our understanding on part with what the Bible actually says. I’m not sure there’s anyway to avoid doing this, though. A problem when reading the BIble is that we do lack a great deal of cultural understanding. Those living in the times it was written would’ve had no problem understanding, because the cultural was second nature to them. But the Greek/Hebrew culture is not second nature to us, and takes effort on our part, to “switch” our thinking.
I also think another problem we have in these discussions is something you’ve alluded to in your meek example: the definition of terms. How one person defines the Messiah is not the same as how another. Heck, even how we define “God” is different.
**So what is the core meaning and how do you arrive at it?**
I think the core meaning is salvation (also another word that requires a definition). Repair and healing. One of the troubling aspects with the substition atonement is that it’s very “you” focused. You are broken/a sinner, you deserve to be punished, Jesus took your sins, you are unclean, and so forth.
Not everyone needs healing from themselves. Yes, we all do at times, but not constantly. Sometimes, we need healing from the world, or from what others have done to us. If you go into a war-torn country, with people who have just suffered beyond belief, the idea that Jesus was punished in their place is laughable, and quite frankly, doesn’t help the victims. That’s not good news.
What would be good news is redemption from the war, from the pain inflicted upon them. The good news would be that there’s something better. That God has conquered all powers opposed to Him, and there’s a new creation just waiting.
I arrive at that through the gospels, and through those, I try and interpret everything else in the New Testament. In terms of the gospels themselves, I’m starting to try and interpret them through a Hebrew mindset, and looking at what the Tanakh said, to try and see how Jesus was raised, and that culture.
Pam said,
April 17, 2008 at 5:55 pm
OSS,
I also believe in the new creation that is waiting as you put it. I believe that Jesus died for all the sins of all sinners and God isn’t counting sin any longer. Jesus is a gift offered to all and all that we have to do is receive the gift.
I also think that even though we get tangled up over the different ways we each perceive the Bible that the really important things are accesible to all, even after so many thousands of years.
Pam
societyvs said,
April 17, 2008 at 9:35 pm
For me, the core message of the gospels (and basically any of the writings) is to follow the teachings and how they enhance your life. Those are the ideas that really mean something in the actual realities we all will face each and every day. I think the teachings ask this of us and are pointing to this idea - all over the place.
The message is very simple: what do these teachings mean to you - in your dealings with others? That is where the impact of God’s words find their realization - in action or ‘in use’.
A lot of this debate over the character of God, Jesus, Messiah, the end of times, atonement, etc - are all fun and have at their base some relevance - but those are not ideas that actually teach you ‘how to act’ (they are theological musings about God and His plans for humanity). We can be sure of one thing though - the teachings are meant to change the way we impact the world - our responsibility in the walk with God.
I was just reading Levine today and she told this rabbinical story that had me laughing - because it was very poignant and meaningful (oddly enough about different interpretations and the power to interpret)…I will relate that story here (so we can all see the truth and laugh).
‘Rabbi Eliezer related all the answers of the world and they were not accepted. Then he said ‘Let this carob tree prove that Halakhah {Jewish Law} agrees with me’. Thereupon the carob tree was torn in a hundred cubits (others affirm 400 hundred cubits). They answered ‘No proof can be brought from a carob tree’.
Again he said to them ‘Let the spring of water prove that the Halakhah prevails’. Thereupon the stream of water flowed backwards. They answered ‘No proof can be brought from a stream of water’.
Again he said to them ‘If the Halakhah agrees with me, let the walls of the study house prove it’. Whereupon the walls were about to fall. But Rabbi Joshua rebuked them saying ‘when the sages of this study house are engaged in a Halakhic dispute, what (right) You have to interfere?’. They did not fall, in honor of Rabbi Joshua, nor did they resume to be upright, in honor of Rabbi Eliezer; and they are still standing this way today’.
Again he said to them ‘Let it be announced by the heavens that the Halakhah prevails according to my statement!’. A voice from heaven (bat qol, literally, ‘daughter of the voice’ - the voice that speaks at Jesus’ baptism is bat qol) cried out: ‘Why do you dispute with Rabbi Eliezer, seeing that in all matters the Halakhah agrees with him?’. But Rabbi Joshua arose and exclaimed: “The Torah is not in heaven.’ (see Deut 30:12-14 “It is not in heaven, that you should say ‘who will go up to heaven for us and get it for us so that we may hear and observe it?’ Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say ‘Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us, and get it for us that we may hear it and observe it?’. No, the word is very near to you; it is in your mouth, and in your heart for you to observe”).
Rabbi Jeremiah (explaining this comment) said ‘the Torah had already been given at Mount Sinai; we pay no attention to a voice from heaven (bat qol), because You have written that ‘one follows the majority’ (Exodus 23:2 - “Thou shalt not follow the multitude for evil; neither shalt thou answer in a cause, to go after the multitude to pervert [judgment]“. ).
Rabbi Nathan met Elijah (the prophet) and asked him ‘What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do in that hour?’. He replied, ‘He laughed (with joy), saying, ‘My sons have defeated (or over-ruled) Me, my sons have defeated Me.” (Baba Metzia 59a).
That last paragraph had me laughing for some reason - laughing with joy it would seem also!
Pam said,
April 18, 2008 at 8:57 am
Jason,
Yep, we have a tendency to complicate things and when we do we reduce God’s Word to “line upon line, precept upon precept” (which is how to understand the big picture that the Bible portrays) and miss the heart of the matter which is the way we should live. “Knowledge puffs up but lover edifies” What we learn from scripture should teach us to love better and if that isn’t the case then the focus of our study is wrong. When I keep Jesus the focus, I glean what I need to know from my study and also put it into practice.
Pam
DagoodS said,
April 18, 2008 at 8:58 am
The first question which tends to create a very demarked divide is whether the writings (Tanakh or New Testament) were intended to be interpreted by the audience of the time, or were intended to be eternal writings—interpreted by all times and all cultures.
Those who hold to the broader eternality of the writing tend to smash the verses (regardless of the original intent) into their current culture. For example, the prohibition of 1 Tim. 2 against women teaching in church, is interpreted by a person who limits it to the culture by saying it was limited to the time of the First/Second Century. A person who holds to the eternality of the writing would interpret it to continue ‘till today as a prohibition. (Curiously, the “eternal interpreter” would then immediately reverse methodologies and hold to only a cultural prohibition on wearing gold or pears, within the exact same passage. Weird.)
I would question what you mean by “core” teaching. The question of what is “core” about the books of the Tanakh, or the books of the New Testament, or the books of the Bible, or the books of the Gospel, or Paul’s books, or Psuedo-pauline books, or the Epistles, or the Synotics or the Johannine books, or the individual authors or the individual editors, ALL generate different (and sometimes very different) responses.
Worse, we can’t even determine the author (or authors) of the individual sections DID have a “core” teaching. For example, Paul, in 1 Corinthians, appears to be addressing a laundry list of problems he perceived in the church. There is no “core” in laundry lists. *grin*
Part of the problem of interpretation is our limited knowledge in four areas:
1. Who the author of a particular section is;
2. Who is the intended audience;
3. The culture within the time of the writing;
4. The nuance and meaning of three (3) dead languages. (Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic)
For those who are looking for original intent, these are the primary questions we wrestle with. For those who think “intent” can be applicable to all cultures and all times—less so.
SocietyVs: For me, the core message of the gospels (and basically any of the writings) is to follow the teachings and how they enhance your life.
While this sounds pleasant—I see a great deal of problem in the application. As discussed elsewhere at another time, for some the ability to boldly lie to me, simply because I am a heretic, “enhances” their life. They derive the ability to do so from their interpretation of the gospels.
For others, the ability to call me an “asshole” or “blockhead” is justified by their interpretation. And by the relish with which they do so, I can only assume they feel “enhanced” by it. Others feel comfort in prohibiting women from leadership roles, because of their interpretation.
See, by reading the Bible through the lens of “how is my life enhanced” many people utilize their comfort level. They feel “better” having bashed some homosexual, being justified by fait–…er…Romans 1. They feel their life is “enhanced” by pushing a law to have the Ten Commandments on a marble block in front of some building.
While we may decry this attitude, and claim it is not what Scripture “intended”—aren’t we imposing our own “interpretation” of what an “enhanced life” is? They certainly seem out-of-sorts if evolution is taught in a high school. Who am I to say such miserable people would be “enhanced”?
societyvs said,
April 18, 2008 at 9:14 am
“They derive the ability to do so from their interpretation of the gospels.” (Dagoods)
That’s why I think I write a blog - to address those exact problems - and the theology behind it that allows it to happen (ie: this name calling and right to hate for faith). You are right - it is subject to one’s interpretation of the passages they read - and we both know many mistakes have occured through-out the ages in the name of faith in God (due to one’s view of some passage). I actually don’t disagree.
However, the rabbinical passage I wrote in my last comment addresses my real concerns - and that is the strict-ness of interpretation and what judgments we make form what we read (which is from God - for many a believer). I think the debate needs to go on and on and on between many and many different people as to the interpretation of these texts and current relevance. To give up that fight is to let the scripture succumb to failure.
Now not everything is going to be ‘cut and dry’ and we will find that some passages have more than 1 meaning - which is kind of nice. But what needs to be ‘cut and dry’ is the way people act concerning their beliefs in God and the select writings…we cannot very well have KKK interpretations slipping into the convo that have no justification in a modern world (and if they do - they need to be held to the strictest observation and study - so as to very well judge their intentions).
But we need a faith that is both allows variety and varying interpretations - as long as the idea can be defended (like in a court room of sorts) and found to be meaningful. For the Christian, in the end they face God’s court with their measly judgments on what they read from these authors and how their faith was lived in real life…and that’s the point of the gospels (or at least part of a framework I see). Judgement isn’t bad - we all do it and do it a lot - it’s when we judge unjustly that it is bad (ex: Fred Phelps).
But the core of the message is to follow what is taught - and you are right - we need to check what it is we are following also. I don’t have some strct view of scripture per se - and hold it in a category of renewal/adaptation through the ages. The scriptures do not need to change - but then again we need to be honest about a letter being a letter and so forth. So I am big on context and history of these things (in some senses of those words) - and finding what something ‘means’ and ‘how that looks’ for me in today’s world.
thejust1 said,
April 19, 2008 at 9:29 am
The problem we are all facing is breaking down the teachings/scriptures to their core meanings and what is important. So what is the core meaning and how do you arrive at it? (SVS)
I think we are dealing with a couple of issues here, which I want to highlight. Even though it has already been said by others.
Issue 1 - The problem with breaking down teachings/scriptures to their core meaning is that we are dealing with and are confronted with an infinite number of core meanings. We have millions of people bringing millions of interpretations into the mix. One person’s “core meaning” comes from their own thoughts and feelings, from their own personal core. The best we can get from anybody is “opinion”. Do we trust or even dare to trust someone’s opinion?
Issue 2 - What is the core meaning of the gospel/scriptures/message? Once again we all have differing answers to the question and maybe it is not wise to narrow down the core meaning to a singular thought or ideal. For example if I define the core meaning of scripture to be - healing- then I need to construct my interpretation to support my core meaning. Our answer to issue 2 affects the way we personally view the core meaning of scripture.
Pam said,
April 19, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Just1,
I think the scriptures are just too complex for any one human brain. We can’t contain or rightly understand them all. There are many perspectives from which to view them and if we could see all of them at once, I believe we would have the perspective and mind of God. It is good to realize that His Ways are higher than ours and to remember that we can only understand a portion of Who He is. Our brother or sister may understand one portion much better than we do and we also may have a more complete understanding from another point of view. As a believer, I think I have grown into scripture and find that it is the expereintal aspect that makes what I read in the Bible a part of who I am. The scriptures apply to each of us personally like a mirror reflecting back to us what our life looks like to God. When we judge ourselves according to that reflection and take action to reinforce that which is good and correct that which is not, we do fine. When we use it to judge one another and try to force others to see what we see, we are using scripture with an evil intent. The inquisition is the most extreme case of this that I can think of but the same spirit of inquisition is always present with us. One can have a good understanding of scripture but use it with such wrong intent that it becomes one of the most lethal weapons on earth. On judgement day, I don’t want to stand before God and explain why I have misused His Word in such a way. To do so is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.
Pam
thejust1 said,
April 19, 2008 at 8:12 pm
The scriptures apply to each of us personally like a mirror reflecting back to us what our life looks like to God. When we judge ourselves according to that reflection and take action to reinforce that which is good and correct that which is not, we do fine. (Pam)
That’s an interesting thought, “the mirror reflecting back to us…” I wrote a song a few months back about this exact concept. It was called “Glass Door”, the glass door being a mirror in which you could see your life reflected back to you. I know this comment has nothing to do with anything on the topic of this blog, but your comment did remind me of it.
thejust1 said,
April 19, 2008 at 8:29 pm
On judgement day, I don’t want to stand before God and explain why I have misused His Word in such a way. (Pam)
Please don’t take this as criticism on your comment, I just want to share the approach I have taken on life, (which I think is scriptural). I think every day is judgment day. Because whether I like it or not and whether it is fair or not, I stand before God and people and I am judged. The judgment is based on my words or lack of words and my actions or lack of action.
Now whether or not there is an actual judgement day can be debated all day long. I choose not to wait for it, I’d rather adjust or have my life be corrected today while I still have the ability to make the adjustment.
Pam said,
April 20, 2008 at 2:03 pm
thejust1,
As a believer, I too judge myself every day. I know there is nothing hidden from God and I see no point in putting it off. It is better to take care of as much as possible now.
I didn’t want to start a debate on Judgement Day. I do believe there will be a final accounting to God for all of us and nothing you can say will change my mind.;-}
Pam
societyvs said,
April 21, 2008 at 8:29 am
” I think every day is judgment day. Because whether I like it or not and whether it is fair or not, I stand before God and people and I am judged” (Just1)
I believe something similar - trying to work with the framework of judgment as a ‘way of living’ or ’seeing faith through the eyes of judgment’. Sounds bad…but it isn’t.
I believe we are in charge of these teahcings we read - and in a way - our own personal little courts with which all our relationships and interactions flow through…question is…how do we use the teachings when people come to our courts? Do we use a fair and just system when dealing with others? In a sense, we are using our interpretations of scripture to make judgment calls upon life and upon others - and this is a great charge/responsibility.
It’s not that are to be judgmental (but this is inevitable being a human being) - but that our courts should exist on the highest plain - rendering judgments that are fair and offer chance. Basically, having mercy, love, and peace as some of our higher reasonings…and remembering ‘the way we deal with others - may we be dealt with the same’ in that greater court (God’s).
It leaves room for a final ‘day’ - where we all answer at God’s court for our actions and the way ‘we treated others’ (or handled the teachings and how we elaborated upon them). We have to defend our case before God and let God know what we thought of what we read and how this impacted us.