Bible Interpretation

How a person interprets the texts in the Bible is the key issue. Is it to be taken literally, with our present day meanings for words? Or must we look closer into the words that were written, and look at their meaning at the time they were written?

We must realize that men (humans ;) did write down the words the comprise the books of the Bible, even though totally God inspired. We must also remember to consider the time period the words were written in. To neglect to consider this, we pose the risk of misinterpretting, and of not catching the true meaning of the writing. Do not be mistaken, the Bible is very much a "living" document, and God works via the Holy Spirit to add additional meanings and importance to His words for each one of us at different times. However, that does not change the original purpose or meanings of the words, and we must remember this.

Words that might suggest one thing to us in the Twentieth Century might have meant something very different to the people who wrote them long ago. You cannot ignore the culture from which the words came or you can miss the point despite understanding the words.

For instance, take the verse: "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God" (Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, and Luke 18:25). Does this seem easy to interpret? Well... think again. In Jerusalem there was a very low and narrow gate through the city wall. When a caravan entered through that gate, the camels had to be unloaded, led through the gate crouching down, and then reloaded inside the city wall. That gate was called "the eye of the needle." So, what was Jesus saying.. that it would take a miracle for a rich man to get into heaven, or just that it was hard?... was He just making a point?

Literal or Historical-Critical Interpretation

Compare the other approach, the historical-critical reading. The rule here is that a text means whatever it meant to the people who wrote it long ago. To say what a biblical text teaches us today, you first have to understand the text in its original situation and then apply the meaning to the present situation. It is interesting to note that most Christians will use the historical-critical method on some verses they find problematic in their present culture, but ignore it on others which they then use to justify condemnation of certain groups of people.

The Life Application Bible actually uses these words to describe verses they can't make "applicable" in a literal way today: "To understand these verses, we must (first) understand the situation in which Paul and Timothy worked." Are we to do this for verses that don't make sense to us today but not to use this same method with other verses, such as those supposedly condemning homosexuality? We must be equal in our treatment.

Both means of interpretation agree that God inspired the Bible and that the Bible is without error. Inspiration means that God moved the human authors to write what they wrote, so the Bible is God's word to us. The historical-critical approach agrees that what the human authors wrote may well have further meaning for which they themselves were not aware, but for them it was also down to earth. The authors were intelligent, free, creative, culture-bound human beings, and God respected and used that. He used their humanity and their culture, to express divine wisdom in a particular human form. Accordingly, if you wanted to understand what God intended to say, the first step would be to understand what those human authors intended to say. For precisely that is what God inspired.

Both the literal approach and the historical-critical approach hold that the Bible is God's word, inspired and inerrant, there is no disagreement here. But these two approaches do disagree on what is exactly God's word... the actual words on the page or the intended "meaning" of the words.

The literal approach would take words to mean exactly what they say. If you were to read in a book that a person is a real "space cadet", this approach would assume that he is truly a NASA astronaut. Similarly, reading the first chapter of Genesis that God created the world in seven days, that literal approach would instist that the universe was formed in one week. For if creation did not happen that way, the Bible is mistaken. In contrast, the historical-critical approach first asks, what is the point of the Genesis story of creation? What was the author intending to say? Well, the Bible intended to give a religion lesson, not a science lesson. The seven day story of creation is just a way of making the point: God created the universe with wisdom, care, and order. If science determines that the universe actually evolved over millions and millions of years, there is not conflict with the Bible. Through science we are simply coming to understand how God chose to create the world. Science helps us to grasp some bit of the order and wisdom that God built into the universe. But the fact that God created the universe remains as true as ever. Thus, there is no error in that teaching of Genesis based on a historical-critical approach.

In the literage usage of the Bible, the advantages are that it is easy and requires no detailed study. However, everyone can arrive at different meanings for any text they consider... "popularity decides what the Bible means". This has been true if you look at the various revisions of the Bible over time (for example considering the many changes of interpretation of the words Arsenokoitai and Malakoi in 1 Corinthians.

Also, through selective use of the Bible, Christians condemn same sex acts because the Bible mentions them in passing, but they do not advocate slavery even though the whole epistle to Philemon and many other passages support it. The literal approach is almost forced to pick and choose as it applies the Bible. When does one decide to interpret words literally and when they should be taken as only figurative? This is a major problem and with literal interpretation, as well as the fact that many of the original Greek and Hebrew words do not translate well into our present language.

Cultural Bias

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; She must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing - if they continue in faith, love, and holiness with propriety." (1 Timothy 2:11-14)

Does this mean that women who do not have children are not fulfilling their "role"?... Are women only to be allowed to teach other women?... Are we being disobedient to God by allowing women teachers in the classrooms of our schools? I don't think many would agree with these statements today, and would agree that these words were written for those times. Think about that. Women were considered in large part to be property, and were treated as such. Now, does this mean that the Bible is telling us to do the same? No.. it was just recording what was customarily done in that day.

Someone recently mentioned to me that their were only male angels spoken of in the Bible. Is that to say that their are no female angels (if in fact they do have "genders"!)? Or is it just that they were not spoken of because of the tradition of the times? Again, we must consider these things.

1 Timothy 2:8: "I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing." (not women??.... or again... was it the times this was written in, or even a language problem.. remember, words are interpretted differently)
1 Timothy 2:9: "I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God." (is God telling us that women are not to wear jewelry or braid their hair today? some would say so....)

Consider the subject of slavery in the Bible. Ephesians 6:5-9 states: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear..." This is repeated again in Colossians 3:22-4:1, Colossians 3:22, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, and 1 Peter 2:18. The Bible seems to have a lot to say about the subject. Does this mean that the Bible is endorsing slavery? Or was it written because of the custom at the time the passage was written?

To make judgements based on biblically recorded history is tenuous at best. Of course the Bible is applicaple for us today... it always will be. However, we must be careful to not take things out of context without knowing their true meaning and intent as written. Such is the case when it comes to the issue of homosexuality.

How do we determine what God meant to say in the Bible? the options are still the same: the literal approach or the historical-critical approach. God says something is wrong for a reason. Does God's word in the Bible condemn what we know today as homosexuality? Consider all the biblical passages that refer to the topic. Understand them in their original historical context, evaluate the evidence with an open and honest mind, and draw your own conclusions.