Interpretation of Scripture

At the conclusion of the last section I introduced the subject of interpretation, even though I did not use the word “interpretation”.

The Bible is a masterpiece of literature but the whole thing is not an allegory like John Bunyan’s book, “The Pilgrim’s Progress from This World to That Which Is to Come”. An allegory, as defined by Webster, is “the representation of spiritual, moral, or other abstract meanings through the actions of fictional characters that serve as symbols.”

For many, the first eleven chapters of Genesis (that is, creation, the Garden of Eden, the ages of those before Noah, the Flood, and the Tower of Babel), the miracles of both the Old and New Testaments, the Laws of Moses, the history of Israel, the lives and message of the Old Testament prophets, the life of Jesus, the crucifixion of Christ as the payment of the death penalty you and I deserve as the penalty for our sins, the resurrection of Christ, the Second Coming of Christ and final judgment, are just allegories – mere symbolism.

Increasingly, many theologians, like the ancient Gnostics, assume the Scriptures are not to be taken literally as though they are historically true. And so many theologians and clergymen try to figure out (the word they use here is “discern”) the hidden meanings of the Bible and then convey the meaning and message they have discerned to their students as if their discernments are from the Holy Spirit.

This is the reason for the popularity of books like the “Left Behind” series and “The DiVinci Code”. Many believe the Scripture is not “truth” itself, but that the Bible contains truths that have to be uncovered. Therefore, many believe, the text is to be interpreted, expanded, and harmonized with either Twenty-First Century currents of philosophy and science or with protestant theology that has been modernized and popularized.

As one reads the Bible I believe there are five questions that need to be answered before making application to one’s personal life or to the life of the church. I am going to ask these questions and follow immediately with a brief discussion of the answers.

1. Is the passage universal, that is, is the passage for everyone in human history at all times? The Bible contains religious (relating to God) and moral (relating to one’s personal attitude and behavior) and ethical (relating to other people) standards that apply to everyone in all situations. Examples of each are: “religious” – belief in one God; “moral” – telling the truth; “ethical” – do not murder. There are many universal standards in each of the three categories.

Disagreements among believers involve such issues as the role of women in the church, the death penalty, war, sexual practices, abortion, infanticide, etc. The question is this: Are there commands, principles and practices in the Bible that apply to all people at all times in every situation?

For example: 1) Has it been and is it now a sin for women to assume roles of leadership in the church? 2) Has it been and is it now a sin for governments to administer the death penalty to murderers and others? 3) Has it been and is it now a sin to go to war? 4) Has it been and is it now a sin to have sexual relations outside or marriage or to have sexual relations with those of the same sex, or children, or animals? 5) Has it been and is it now a sin to have an abortion? or 6) Has it been and is it now a sin to murder an infant?

Believe it or not in the January 21, 1981 issue of Christian Century Magazine, page 44, Charles Hartshorne, a Christian theologian, actually said, “Of course an infant is not fully human.” And he followed that statement with this: “I have little sympathy with the idea that infanticide (murder of a baby) is just another form of murder. Persons who are already functionally persons in the full sense have more important rights even than infants. Infanticide can be wrong without being fully comparable to the killing of persons in the full sense.” In the same article, Hartshorne, a Christian theologian mind you, called a fetus “subpersonal animal life only”.

Are there universal “rights and wrongs”, or is every issue relative to one’s situation? Are religion, morality and ethics in a state of evolution regardless of the time and situation? If the answer to the last question is “yes”, then the Scriptures quickly become irrelevant or at best a secondary point of reference and in place of the authority of the Scriptures, one’s own conscience becomes the supreme authority. In theology and philosophy this is called “autonomy”.

This attitude toward the Scriptures is the reason many in society believe it is permissible for a person to practice almost any form of sexuality, regardless of the standards of Old and New Testament morality. And this is the reason the death penalty is opposed, in spite of the approval in the New Testament for the government to use the “sword” to punish evildoers. (Romans 13:3-5)

Having said this, I believe there are universal standards of religion, morality and ethics revealed in the Bible.

2. Is the passage for a particular period of time? As I said in the previous section, we have to think of the three successive methods God used as He related to humanity. Theologically these are known as “dispensations”.

The three primary ways God related to His creatures are the Patriarchal Dispensation (Adam to Moses, or Genesis 1 to Exodus 20), the Mosaic Dispensation (Moses to Pentecost, or Exodus 20 to Acts 2), and the Christian Dispensation (establishment of the church to end of time, or Acts 2 through Revelation).

Today, we are not subject to the Laws of Moses, but we are subject to the Laws of Christ. The Laws of Moses were for the Israelites who lived from the day Moses descended from Mt. Sinai carrying the Tablets of Stone until that Law was “nailed to the cross” of Jesus (Colossians 2:14). Now, as the apostle Paul explained to the philosophers of Athens, all people everywhere are under the Law of Christ. (Acts 17:30)

Yes, certain passages are for people who lived at specific times and places.   We must decide which are applicable to us in the Christian Dispensation.

3. Is the passage for a particular person or group of persons? Within the New Testament itself there are directives that are controversial. Some individuals and groups insist that the commands, principles or practices they choose are essential for all churches at all times, and yet hedge on other directives that are just as clear and concise.

For example, let’s look at the role of women in the church. In I Timothy 2:9-15 the apostle Paul tells Timothy how women are to dress. Then Paul said that a woman is “not to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent”. Paul told the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 14:33-35) that women are to be silent in the church; that women are not allowed to speak; that if a woman has a question she is to asked her husband at home; and that it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Two chapters before this, however, in 1 Corinthians 12:5, Paul wrote that a woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered should have her hair cut off.

I have been in some churches, and I know individuals, that claim to abide strictly by the New Testament, but I have yet to see all of these commands enforced. I’d love to see a male leader of the church tell a woman she cannot come into the assemblies of the church without her head covered and to keep her mouth shut while she is in the assemblies.

Strictly speaking, if women are to “remain silent in the church” she cannot sing the songs or verbally correct a child that is misbehaving. Strictly speaking a woman cannot ask a question in church or Sunday School, but must asked her husband at home (and notice, strictly speaking, a “Christian” husband is not specified).

Yet, on the other hand in I Corinthians 12, Paul tells the praying and prophesying women to have their heads covered or to be shorn of their hair. The women were prophesying (preaching?) in the assemblies of the church!

But didn’t Paul command women to be silent in the church? Are these commands absolute? And if they are absolutes, isn’t this a contradiction?

Or are these directives for the particular circumstances of those times and those situations about which we have little or no information?

I do not believe the Bible contradicts itself. I believe there are explanations, which will solve the problems of seeming contradictions. The problem is not with the Scriptures, but with us. We may not be open to accept the explanation because of our pride, or prejudices, or our up-bringing.

I know many people who believe it is wrong for a woman to teach an adult class with men in it, and yet Priscilla, along with her husband Aquila, taught a dynamic preacher named Apollos “the way of God more accurately”. (Acts 18:26)

Philip had four daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:9). I am sure if Philip had had “four sons” who prophesied, those who believe women should not be preachers would say that Philip had four sons who were preachers. After all, the word “prophecy” means, “to speak for God”.

Yes, there are passages in the New Testament for specific people in specific circumstances. And this presents some difficulties with which we must struggle, but we must "debate" in a spirit of love and in a spirit of searching for the truth.

4. Is the passage historical or parabolic? Many do not believe the Bible is historically accurate because of 1) the nature of the first eleven chapters of Genesis, 2) the idea that God would identify the Israelites as the chosen race, 3) that miracles are contrary to the laws of nature, 4) the idea that Jesus was God in the flesh who died in our place, 5) and the idea that there will be a final judgment.

Many believe the Bible is a collection of the writings of people who were searching for God, not God revealing Himself and His will to us. Many believe that the ancients were searching for God and that we are continuing their search. Therefore our thoughts and concepts are just as valid as the writers of the Bible.

So, they believe, even though the Bible may shed some light on our faith, morals and ethics the Bible certainly does not contain absolutes of faith, morals and ethics. The Bible may contain truth as long as one agrees that truth is in a process of evolution. For example, the Bible may demand love of God and neighbor, as long as one’s definition of love is vague and subject to the changes of science, anthropology, psychology, theology and philosophy.

And that brings us to the last question.

5. Is the passage to be taken literally or figuratively? No one that I know of doubts that the Bible contains figurative language. There are parables (allegories), metaphors, similes and other figures of speech.

Jesus told thirty-one stories (parables) to illustrate the messages He delivered. Often Jesus would begin a sermon with, “The kingdom of Heaven is like unto . . .” When John wrote the Revelation he said he saw “a woman clothed with the sun”, and “an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns”. Everyone one I know of or that I have ever read believes these visions are figures of something else and are not to be taken literally.

So here is the problem. What is literal and what is figurative? My own pre-disposition (admittedly) is to take everything literally unless there is an overwhelming reason to take a word or passage figuratively. For me, because I believe in God who is omnipotent, the first eleven chapters of Genesis are quite historical, a world-wide flood actually destroyed everyone but eight people, there were miracles (the laws of nature suspended), Jesus was God in the flesh who died to save me from paying the penalty for my sins, and Jesus is coming again to judge all the people of this earth.

But the “woman clothed with the sun” and the “red dragon” with all the horns and heads and crowns, I think this is not to be understood literally, but figuratively.

Are there problems with the way I understand the Bible? Certainly. I have questions just like everyone else. But the essentials for my faith and my morals and my ethics are there and easily understood. We may not like what God commanded and we may even disagree, but the message is easily understood, if we want to understand it.

But if one wants the Bible to say something else, he can go against the clear warning of the apostle Peter (2 Peter 1:20-21) who said that Scripture is not for “private interpretation”. That is, you should not interpret the Bible to mean what you want it to mean. When this is done, the doors are open and anyone and everyone can make the Bible say anything they want it to say by merely “interpreting” the words to mean something not originally intended by the writers.

As Dr. Phil says, “How’s that working for you?”