Posts
“That’s just YOUR interpretation!”
Chances are you have heard this expression before. In fact,
you may have even used it once, a few times, or on several occasions. This is
probably the most common “evade” out there. Sadly, an “evade” is exactly what
it is. More often than not, those who say “that’s just YOUR interpretation,”
are unable to support their own viewpoint. Rather than attempt to engage in a
rational discussion of the text, they will use this expression to dismiss any
view that they don’t like or disagree with, yet are unable to defend.
Paul Copan in his book “That’s
Just YOUR Interpretation” lays out a very coherent response to those
who would attempt to use this as a means of rejecting the clear teaching of the
Scripture.
First, he asks the question, “Do you mean that your interpretation should be preferred over mine?
If so, I’d like to know why you have chosen your interpretation over mine. You
must have a good reason.” Copan
observes that this excuse is often used by those who “have not thought through
their position, and they are not able to offer valid reasons for their
viewpoint.” By asking this question, it accomplishes two things. If the person
you are dialoging with is simply evading, it demonstrates clearly that he is
indeed evading. Secondly, if they do indeed have reasons for believing in their
interpretation, it brings them out in the open where they can be engaged and
evaluated.
Secondly, he suggests that you point out that “you are willing to give reasons for your
position and that you are not simply taking a particular viewpoint
arbitrarily.” Again, it demonstrates
that the position that we take is based upon careful thought and evaluation of
the evidence. If the critic has evidence, it is again an invitation to produce
it. It once again shows that on most occasions that this argument is used
simply because they don’t like what we are saying and are dismissing our
viewpoint without any basis.
“Third, since people
often toss out this criticism because they don’t like your interpretation, ask for clarification: Do you mean that you don’t
like my interpretation?” Relegating
the clear teaching of the Bible to a matter of personal interpretation is a
mere cloak for the personal distaste that some have for certain doctrines,
whether it be hell, sin, the exclusivity of Christ, homosexuality, or any other
doctrine. They believe that by calling them “your interpretation” or “your
opinion” that somehow it loses its authority. Copan responds by saying “There are many
truths that I myself don’t like ore find difficult to accept, but not liking
them doesn’t give me the freedom to reject them. I have to accept that they are
true.”
“I have to
confess…that I think there is a much deeper reason for the persistent appeal of
all forms of anti-realism [in which we create our own reality and everything
anyone believes is a matter of personal preference, interpretation, and spin]
and this has become obvious in the twentieth century; it satisfies a basic urge
to power. It just seems too disgusting somehow, that we should have to be at
the mercy of the ‘real world.’ It seems too awful that our representations
should have to be answerable to anything but us.”
I may not like the car tax notice that comes to my house
once a year. I must go to the tax collectors office and pay a fee for the
privilege of driving my vehicle for another year. I may very well say to the
tax collector regarding the notice “that’s just YOUR interpretation,” but I will
still be obligated to pay the tax or lose driving privileges.
Fourth, there may be some who would argue that there are no
legitimate interpretations at all. Every interpretation is equal in his eyes.
To such a response Copan
would say, “That’s just your
interpretation of my interpretation!” Of course you can see how ridiculous
this can get. Words mean things and we mean things when we use them. By
relegating all attempts to communicate through the oral or written word to
matters of personal interpretations where all interpretations are equally
valid, then communication itself becomes impossible. I guarantee you that every
time someone speaks it is with intent. Not only is there intent, but the
speaker (or writer) does so with the expectation that he is properly
understood. When he is not understood he will go to great lengths to correct
the listener (or reader) to make sure that his meaning is clear.
Fifth, Copan
informs us that “some interpretations are
better than others.” It is true that there are disagreements between
denominations on certain interpretations of the Scriptures. What is important
to note is that each denomination will go to great lengths to defend their
interpretations. This does not suggest that any
interpretation is legitimate. It merely points out that some interpretations
are more plausible than others, Copan
points out that “if this is so, then we assume that one interpretation- or at
least a range of interpretations- better conforms to the truth than others.” It
is the role of the exegete (ie; the interpreter) to use all the proper tools of
Biblical interpretation to find the BEST interpretation not to accept all
interpretation as equally valid. Neither can he dismiss items that he does not
like as simply a matter of someone else’s interpretation.
Finally, Copan
points out that “those who resort to
‘that’s just your interpretation’ implicitly believe that they are right and
that those who disagree with them are wrong.” Yes, they hold to their
beliefs rather rigidly themselves. They are making a truth claim that their
interpretation is correct. And so, going back to the first point, let them
establish their reasons for believing it to be so. More often than not, you
will find that they hold onto THEIR interpretation as a matter of fideism, with
no rational basis.
Doesn’t the doctrine
of sola scriptura allow for different
interpretations?
Before going into a full discussion of hermeneutics (the
science and art of Biblical interpretation)
I want to point out that the Protestant doctrine of sola scritptura is not
the same as saying “me, my Bible, and the Holy Spirit” with absolutely no
external context to be considered. Individuals were given the freedom and right
to interpret scripture. They were not given the freedom to misinterpret
scripture. There are some important considerations to be taken into account
when determining the meaning of the Scriptures.
The regula fidei or
“rule of faith” should be used when attempting to understand the meaning of
Scripture. This means that we look to the rest of the Bible to help us
understand the Bible, or to put it another way, allowing Scripture to interpret
Scripture. This does not mean that we discount the role of tradition at all.
The role of the church in interpretation is crucial as well, to prevent
individuals from going out on wild limbs with new ideas. If an idea is brand
new and has not been held by the Church at large over the past 2000 years then
that viewpoint should most likely be rejected. If a would be theologian
discovers some new meaning or truth that never existed before 1980, for
example, then his interpretation is immediately suspect. There is one meaning
to the Scriptures which has been passed down through the Church over time.
There can be many new applications of
the Bible which may change as times change.
Keith Mathison wrote in ModernReformation:
“To summarize the Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura, or the Reformation
doctrine of the relation between Scripture and tradition, we may say that
Scripture is to be understood as the sole source of divine revelation; it is
the only inspired, infallible, final, and authoritative norm of faith and
practice. It is to be interpreted in and by the church, and it is to be
interpreted within the hermeneutical context of the rule of faith. As Richard
Muller observes, the Reformed doctrine of sola
scriptura did not ever mean, ‘all of theology ought to be constructed anew,
without reference to the church’s tradition of interpretation, by the lonely exegete confronting the naked
text.’
Martin Luther himself expressed concern when he wrote, “For
it is dangerous and terrible to hear or believe anything against the united
testimony, faith, and doctrine, of the entire holy Christian Chutch, as this
hat been held now 1,500 years, from the beginning, unanimously in all the
world.”
“Again, Protestants admit that there has been an
uninterrupted tradition of truth from the beginning of the protevangelium to
the close of the Apocalypse, so there has been a stream of traditionary
teaching flowing through the Christian Church from the day of Pentecost to the
present time. This tradition is so far a rule of faith that nothing contrary to
it can be true. Christians do not stand isolated, each holding his own creed.
They constitute one body, having one common creed. Rejecting that creed, or any
of its parts, is the rejection of the fellowship of Christians, incompatible
with the communion of saints, or membership in the body of Christ. In other
words, Protestants admit that there is a common faith of the Church, which no
man is at liberty to reject, and which no man can reject and be a Christian.”
The important principle to take away is that “new
interpretations” which contradict the well established testimony of the Church
over the past 2000 years should begin as highly suspect at best and rejected
outright at worst. As we begin to delve into the arguments made by those who
advocate for reconciliation between Christianity and homosexuality, it should
not escape notice that these interpretive discoveries have eluded the Church
for the past 2000 years and only came to light in the age of the sexual revolution.
That one fact alone makes their interpretations highly suspect, and as we shall
see as we examine them in more detail later, that they are outright false.
So how then DO we
interpret the Bible?
Without going into a full blown course on hermeneutics, I
would like to summarize some basic principles of Biblical interpretation as
listed by R.C. Sproul in his book Knowing
Scripture. It is an excellent guide for the layperson in understanding
the basics of Biblical interpretation.
1. Read the Bible like
any other book.
Of course there are some things that make the Bible unique.
It is the only inspired Word of God. We SHOULD pray and ask the Holy Spirit to
illuminate the Word to our minds and show us what He would have us to know. It
is the sole authority for faith and practice. That being said, we do not throw
out the literal sense of the Bible, either. A noun is still a noun, a verb is
still a verb. Historical narrative should be read as historical narrative.
Poetry should be read as poetry. Taking the Bible literally does not mean that
we ignore figures of speech such as similes, metaphors, and hyperbole. We should look for the common sense meaning
of the text.
Sproul also gives a caution about what he refers to as “luckydipping.”
Scriptures are not supposed to be read randomly, but rather read within their
context to find the meaning of the text.
2. Read the Bible
Existentially
By using this expression, Sproul is not suggesting that the
Bible be interpreted subjectively and ignoring the historical-grammatical
context. What is intended is that the Bible should be read with the purpose of
personal application. We should get passionately and personally involved in
what we read. We should read with empathy and allow ourselves to become
absorbed into the world of the text. By putting oneself in the life situation
of the characters we can learn more from the text. We should endeavor to feel
the emotions of the characters we are studying.
3. Interpret the
Historical Narratives by the Didactic.
By this, what is meant is that in order to understand the significance
of the historical narratives, we need to look at the didiactic or teaching
portions of Scripture to clarify. The narrative portions indicate what
happened. The teaching portions of Scripture interpret the events. The question
is not “what would Jesus do?’ but rather, “what would Jesus have me do?” To
clarify, Sproul says:
“If we try to model
our lives precisely according to Jesus’ example, we may get into trouble on
several counts. First, our tasks as obedient children to God are not exactly
the same as Jesus’ mission. I was not sent into this world to save humans from
their sins. I can never speak with absolute authority about anything like Jesus
did. I cannot go to into the church with a whip and drive corrupt pastors out.
I am not the Lord of the church.”
Sproul also points out that Jesus was required to fulfill
ALL the laws of the Old Covenant, including the dietary and ceremonial laws. He
was born into a different period of redemptive history and so the historical
context is different.
Another caution is that the Biblical characters are shown as
real people, warts and all. We see their flaws. We are not to emulate their
flaws, but rather learn from them. It is through the teaching portions of
Scripture that we come to understand that.
It is through the didactic portions of Scripture that we
learn how to understand what it was that Jesus did and what it means for us
today.
4. Interpret the
Implicit by the Explicit.
The principle is sound. There are things in the Scripture
that are implied. In order to understand what is meant by that we should look
at those passages of Scripture that are clear. Where any ambiguity exists we
should be looking to the rest of Scripture to find clarification.
5. Determine Carefully
the Meaning of Words
Words mean things. It is important that when looking at any passages
of Scripture that the exegete carefully considers the meaning of the words that
are used. It is also important that he does not misuse the words that are
present. The exegete should examine the use of words within the context of the
passage of Scripture being considered. Some words have broad meanings and in
order to properly understand them it is necessary to look at the context.
Take the English word “fly.” Without a context I could be
taking about an insect, the zipper on my pants, riding in an airplane, going
fast, being thrown in the air, being attractive, or many other possible
meanings. The word only has meaning within the context of its usage. I will
conclude this article with some common word study fallacies.
6. Note the Presence
of Parallelisms
Parallelism is a common feature of Hebrew literature,
especially poetry. A parallelism may be
defined as “a relationship between two or more sentences or clauses that
correspond in similarity or are set with each other.” They may be synonymous,
where the two lines express the same thought in a slightly altered manner of
expression. They may be antithetic where the two lines are set in contrast to
one another. They may also be synthetic
where the first part creates a “sense of expectation that is completed by the
second part.”
7. Note the Difference
Between Proverb and Law
Proverbs are general statements of good advice that does not
carry the force of a moral absolute. They are principles for Godly living which
may not be applied in every situation. Sproul illustrates this by quoting two
proverbs. “Look before you leap” and “He who hesitates is lost.” It is on a
case by case basis to determine which proverb is applicable in a given
situation. The first proverb advises us to consider the consequences of our
actions. The second proverb advises us to avoid procrastination. Neither is an
absolute law to be applied in all cases.
A law on the other hand comes with an obligation to
obedience. Some laws are directives that start with a “you shall” or “you shall
not.” Additionally there are some laws that are case laws which have an “if…then”
statement attatched.
Additionally, it is important to distinguish between the
three types of laws in the Old Testament. There is the moral law, which is
binding on all people everywhere for all time. Commands such as “you shall not
murder” and “you shall not commit adultery” fall under this category. I will
argue in a future article that the laws against homosexuality fall under the
moral law.
There is also the “holiness code” which was given by God
through Moses to distinguish his people from the surrounding nations. Laws forbidding
the eating of pork or shaving the sides of the face fall under this category.
These laws fulfilled their purpose in the Old Testament and were non-binding on
New Testament believers as was revealed in the Book of Acts. The New Covenant
is not just for the nation of Israel ,
but is open to people of all ethnic groups and all nations. Thus the holiness
code no longer serves a purpose in the New Covenant.
Finally, there is the “cultic law.” These were laws that
related to the ceremonial activities involved in the worship of the Lord. They
involved the regulations regarding the priesthood, sacrifices, and festivals.
All of these were a precursor to Christ. Since Christ fulfilled the Law, these
laws are no longer necessary. We have a superior sacrifice and superior priesthood
as Hebrews tells us.
8. Observe the
Difference Between the Spirit and the Letter of the Law
Pharisees were obsessed with the letter of the law to the
point of missing the point. Christ did not repudiate the law, but he did
repudiate legalism. In fact, in the Sermon on the Mount He took the Law one
step further. The Pharisee who boasted that he did not commit adultery stood
condemned as Christ told him that his lust was just as serious. Hatred is just
as serious as murder. At the same time he condemned those who would take the
law about Sabbath breaking to the extreme of forgetting compassion, as evidenced
by their condemnation of Christ for healing on the Sabbath. To obey the letter
of the law and ignore the spirit of the law may make one technically righteous
but spiritually corrupt.
At the same time, attention to the spirit of the law does
not abrogate the letter of the law. The letter and the spirit are inseparably
intertwined. Antinomianism is also corrupt. Paul says that the law is good.
Jesus himself said that he came not to destroy the law but to fulfill the law.
In fact, only Jesus, in all of human history, has successfully kept the entire
law perfectly.
9. Be Careful with
Parables.
Parables are meant to teach a simple lesson. Some interpreters
have gone overboard to the point of allegorizing every single element of the
parable, and end up missing the point. When reading a parable, a good rule of
thumb is to look for one central message or point and not fall prey to
overanalyzing. Occasionally there may be a couple of points such as the
prodigal son, but even then, it is simple. Parables are intended to be extended
similes and metaphors, not allegories.
10. Be Careful with
Predictive Prophecy
Not every detail of a prophecy must be fulfilled to the
letter. Some are such as the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem while others are symbolic such as
the return of Elijah (which we know to be the coming of John the Baptist). Some books of prophecy are apocalyptic in
genre such as Ezekiel, Daniel, and Revelation. These books are highly symbolic.
The best principle is to seek the general meaning of such images within the
Bible itself.
11. Interpret the
Bible with a Spirit of Humility
James Sire in his book Scripture
Twisting writes:
“Christians who respect biblical authority have a special
burden to read right. We, too, are prone to fall into error. In fact, none of
us is absolutely right about what God’s Word really means. That is why we must
ourselves return daily to the Bible- reading and rereading, thinking and
rethinking, obeying what we grasp, correct our earlier readings as new insight
is given us, constantly crosschecking our grasp of Scripture with our pastor,
our fellow Christians and with the historic understanding of Scripture by
orthodox Christianity.”
Sadly, those who have published pro-homosexual exegesis have
not demonstrated this humility. They started with their conclusion and twisted
the Scriptures to conform to their personal agenda, performing hermeneutical
yoga on the texts. They did not crosscheck their findings with historic
orthodoxy, but rather came up with something new that is quite antithetical to
it.
Sproul clarifies what he means about humble exegesis:
“This does not mean that we are constantly in doubt
regarding our interpretation of Scripture, holding our views tentatively. On the
contrary, if we have done our homework by carefully following the basic
hermeneutical principles outlined in this book, we have every right to be fully
confident in our views.”
A note about word
studies
Dr D.A. Carson’s book Exegetical
Fallacies is a must read for any serious interpreter of the Bible. His
chapter on word-study fallacies alone is worth the price of the book. While I
will not exhaust all of the fallacies here, I do want to highlight a few.
1. The Root Fallacy
The root fallacy presupposes that every word has a meaning
bound up with its etymology, or root word of its components. Some expositors
have attempted to assign meaning to Greek and Hebrew words based upon the origins
of the root word. This can lead to some serious misinterpretations.
An example in English is the word nice which comes from the Latin nescius,
meaning ignorant. While we can certainly study the history of the word to
discover how nescius became nice, it would be a serious mistake to
believe that when we call someone nice that we desire to imply that they are
ignorant. Likewise the English good bye
is a contraction of “God be with you.’ Again, it would be an error to assume
that we are calling down a blessing when we use the phrase “good bye.”
2. Semantic
Anachronism
This is the fallacy of reading a later use of the word into
an earlier use of the word. An example is the Greek word dunamis from which we get our English word dynamite. We can certainly see why when TNT was invented
that they chose to use the Greek word for “power” to name their creation. Where
the mistake is made is when we reverse it and assume that the idea behind
dynamite should be inserted wherever we see dunamis
in the Greek New Testament. The concept of dynamite was unknown at the time and
would never have even been thought of.
This fallacy can also be seen when a later use of the same
word is forced into an earlier text to express meaning. We can see this in
English. For example, since we are taling about homosexuality in this series,
lets use the English word “gay.” It would be a mistake to assume that as we
read early American literature, such as Nathaniel Hawthorne or Mark Twain, that
when they use the word “gay” that they mean “homosexual.”
3. Semantic
Obsalescence
This is similar to the semantic anachronism. Just as it is
wrong to push more contemporary meanings into earlier texts, it is likewise
wrong to push earlier meanings into later texts. A word that means one thing in
Classical Greek does not necessarily carry over to Koine Greek. Meanings can change over time. In fact, some words
become obsolete and are no longer used in common conversation.
To illustrate, the English word cute had a specific meaning in Elizabethan England. It meant “bowlegged.”
Today the word has a very different meaning. When I see my friend’s new baby
and say that “she is cute” I certainly do not have “bowlegged” in mind. My
intent is to indicate that she is “adorable.” By trying to assign an obsolete
meaning to a contemporary usage leads to misunderstandings and insults.
4. Selective and
Prejudicial Use of Evidence
5. Unwarranted
Semantic Disjunctions and Restrictions
“Not a few word studies offer the reader either/or
alternatives and then force a decision. In other words, they demand semantic
disjunction, when complementarity might be a possiblility.”
6. Unwarranted
Restriction of the Semantic Field
Going back to my earlier illustration of the English word “fly,”
some words have a very broad range of meanings. Some word studies attempt to
restrict the meaning of a word by falsely declaring it to be a technical term,
when its usage may indeed indicate an alternative meaning. It is through
context that the word finds its meaning.
An example is the Greek word eimi (to be). It can be used to indicate identity (“I am he”),
attribute (“No one is good except God alone”), cause (”To be carnally minded is
death”), or resemblance (“The tongue is a fire”). Knowing which usage is
correct depends upon the context.
7. Unwarranted
Adoption of an Expanded Semantic Field
This fallacy supposes that the meaning of a word is broader
than the context allows. It attempts to bring in the entire semantic range of a
word into a specific context.
“Perhaps the principal reason why word studies constitute a
particularly rich source for exegetical fallacies is that many preachers and
Bible teachers know Greek only well enough to use concordances, or perhaps a
little more. There is little feel for Greek as a language; and so there is a
temptation to display what has been learned in study, which as often as not is
a great deal of lexical information without the restraining influence of
context. The solution, of course, is to learn more Greek, not less, and to gain
at least a rudimentary knowledge of linguistics…
The heart of the issue is that
semantics, meaning, is more than the meaning of words. It involves phrases,
sentences, discourse, genre, style; it demands a feel for not only syntagmatic
word studies (those that relate words to other words) but also paradigmatic
word studies (those that ponder why this word
is used instead of that word.)”
TO BE CONTINUED…
FOR MORE READING
