Five essentials of Biblical Interpretation no. 4: content
I previously wrote almost the first iii 'essentials' of biblical interpretation in 2013, reposted in 2016—but never finished this series on reading scripture well and wisely. The first related to reading in canonical context, that is, attending to the identify a text comes inside a passage, a chapter, a book, a attestation and the whole canon of Scripture. The 2d explored what deviation it makes reading texts in their historical context, and the tertiary looked at the question of genre—how does recognising the kind of writing we are reading change the way we translate it? You will discover my try at alliteration: canon; context; kind—and to this I now addcontent.
It might seem an odd thing to say in the context of interpreting the Bible, but every bit we read we practice need to really nourish to what the text says, and not what we think it says. The reason for this is the phenomenon of 'confirmation bias'; it is well documented, equally function of psychological research, that people will see what they desire to see in a situation, even if it is not actually there. This is peculiarly the case when looking at something familiar—and many Christians exercise think that they are looking at something familiar when they are reading the Bible.
A few years ago, I was speaking with an older Christian about the nature of baptism, and this person had for many years been happy with baptism past sprinkling considering of the apply of the word in 1 Peter 1.2. Simply Peter is hearing talking virtually being 'sprinkled with his blood', using a metaphor from the temple sacrifices, and connected with the temple language he then uses in chapter ii. It is articulate from Jesus' baptism when he 'comes up out of the h2o' (Matt 3.sixteen) and from Paul's metaphorical imagery of death and resurrection through the waters of baptism (Romans 6.4) that the assumption is that baptism is well-nigh immersion in water, not sprinkling with it—only that was something this devoted, Bible-reading Christian just had not noticed.[1]
Request the question almost content is simply to post the question:
What does this text actually say?
This is a fruitful question to ask every time we read, fifty-fifty of passages with which nosotros are familiar. To give two examples from my ain reading in the last 24 hours: I had never previously noticed in Acts 1.2 that the risen Jesus 'gave commands through the Holy Spirit', which characteristically associates Jesus' ministry with the activeness of the Spirit and contradicts our assumptions almost how the Spirit operates. And in 1 Cor 15.v and 7, Paul lists 'The Twelve' separately from 'all the apostles', showing that 'apostles' is a wider group when referenced in Romans sixteen.vii. Looking carefully at what the text says will always offer new insights.
Texts near 'The End'
It is specially like shooting fish in a barrel to succumb to confirmation bias in discussing circuitous and contested issues, such as eschatology, the report of 'the finish times'. In Matt 24.29, well-nigh ordinary readers (and quite a few commentators) sympathize the language of 'the sunday will be darkened, and the moon volition non give its low-cal' (from Is 13.x and 34.4) as referring to Jesus' return at the end of time. The difficulty with this is that, five verses subsequently, Jesus says with solemn emphasis ('Amen I tell you…' poetry 34) that all this will happen in the lifetime of his hearers.[2] Some scholars have argued that Jesus idea the end of the world would come up immediately—but Matthew records his words, perhaps twoscore years later, clearly believing that Jesus was non mistaken. Peter quotes similar language about the sunday and moon (this fourth dimension from Joel 2) at the day of Pentecost, and claims that what is happening right there is the fulfilment of such prophecy. Then Jesus' language virtually 'the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven' (Matt 24.30) refers to his coming to God as it is in Dan vii.thirteen, non his render to earth, and this must also be his pregnant when speaking to the High Priest at his trial in Mark 14.62.[three] Jesus actually states (in Matt 24.26–27) that all the events he is describing are not a sign of his parousia, his royal return at The End.
A similar misreading occurs in the second one-half of this chapter. Jesus' description of 'ane volition exist taken and the other left' (Matt 24.xl–41) has for the last 100 years or so been widely read as describing the 'secret rapture' when believers volition be snatched up to heaven, leaving behind a earth of unbelief. But that is not what Jesus actually says! He draws a parallel between the fourth dimension of Noah and the flood and the time of his return in poetry 37: 'As it was in the days of Noah, and so it will be at the coming of the Son of Human.' He and so highlights the division that comes at the moment of sentence: those who ignored Noah's warning from God and simply continued with the ordinary things of life 'knew nothing until the overflowing came and took them all away.' And, he says, it will be just the same at the coming of the Son of Homo. So those who are 'taken away' are the ones who have ignored God'due south warning and are snatched away in judgement, leaving behind those who accept trusted God. In other words, we should want to exist 'left behind'![4]
Don't forget to volume your place at the Festival of Theology on Jan 30th!
Texts nigh gender relations [v]
Another area where information technology is easy to succumb to 'confirmation bias' is in texts that comment on gender relations, since these are also disputed, and many of u.s.a. come to the biblical texts with strong views already formed. In each of the cardinal texts, we will not be able to solve all the problems immediately—but we are profoundly helped by noticing carefully what the text does and does non say.
One of the most usually debated is Paul's injunction in 1 Tim 2.eleven–12 that women 'acquire in silence' and 'be tranquillity'. At that place are ii of import things to annotation here in terms of the content of what is beingness said. The first is that the phrase en hesuchia, used in both places, does not mean 'accented silence' but has the sense of not being argumentative. It is a favourite term of Luke (in his gospel and Acts) and describes the inability of the Pharisees to competition with Jesus in Luke fourteen.4, the failure to discover an answer to Jesus in Luke 20.26, and even the quietness of Sabbath residue in Luke 23.56. In Acts 11.xviii, those listening to Peter's testimony are 'silent and praised God'—so it can inappreciably imply lack of speaking! When Luke wants to tell us that people are actually maxim nothing, he uses a give-and-take with a different root, sigao, as the disciples following the Transfiguration in Luke 9.36, and those telling Bartimaeus to close upwardly in Luke 18.39.
The second matter to notation is that this injunction for women to learn in quietness parallels Paul'southward command to the men in the before verses of the chapter: men are to pray 'without anger or disputing' in 1 Tim 2.eight, and in fact the 'quiet life' (hesuchios bios) should be the authentication of the whole Christian community (ane Tim 2.2). This observation does non reply all our questions about the passage—but without noticing this theme of quietness throughout the passage, we are very likely to misinterpret it.
1 Cor 11.1–sixteen is some other complex and contested passage, and again nosotros will be helped by reading carefully what the text actually says. Older translations often render verse 10 as 'A woman ought to have a sign of potency over her own head' (for example, in the American Standard Version), in club to fit this poetry with what the translators supposed was Paul's argument: women operate nether the authorisation of men (or their husbands) and wearing a head-covering was a sign of this. But in fact the text simply says 'A adult female ought to have authority over her own head' (TNIV) which rather suggests the opposite—that she has the right to exercise the administrative ministry of prophecy in the worshipping customs. At the terminate of Paul's somewhat tortuous (to us) argument, information technology is as well worth noting the conclusion he comes to in 11.fifteen: 'Long hair is given to her as [or 'in place of'] a covering.' In other words, says Paul, if you Corinthians insist on women having a covering, fine—God has already provided i in the class of naturally long pilus. So women can indeed pray and prophesy in their own right—and exercise all the other gifts of the Spirit which the Spirit gives to whoever he chooses![6]
A third text that is commonly referred to is Eph 5.21–24 with its emphasis on 'wives submitting to your husbands'. Most English translations first verses 21 and 22 as new sentences; most include a definite verb in poetry 22 ('wives submit…'); and some even have a paragraph pause perhaps with a heading between the two verses. In fact, the last finite verb comes in verse 18, with the negative and positive commands not to get boozer but to be filled with the Spirit; all the following verbs are participles which depend on this double commandment:
xviii Practice non get drunkard on wine…only (continually) be filled with the Spirit
19speaking to one some other…singing and praising
20 giving thanks always for everything…
21submitting to ane another out of reverence for Christ,
22 wives to their ain husbands as to the Lord,
23 for the husband is caput of the wife
as Christ is caput of the church,
he the saviour of his body;
24 but as the church building submits to Christ, so besides women to (their) husbands in all things
This suggests that the 'submission' of wives to husbands is one part of the submission of all members of the customs to one some other, and is one aspect of working out what it means to be 'filled with the Spirit'. This ascertainment is supported by the inclusion of the emphatic word idiois in verse 22: wives are to submit to their own husbands. In other words, the distinctive egalitarian nature of the relations in the customs of the new covenant does non obliterate natural family and household relationships.
The Challenge of Paying Attending
In some of these examples, we are able to pay ameliorate attending to the text simply past reading carefully the English translation that we accept in front end of united states, specially if it is a more word-for-word version. This is truthful of the two passages from Matt 24, the importance of 'silence' in 1 Tim 2, and Paul's determination in 1 Cor 11.15. In other cases, we tin can only know what the text actually says with the help of other commentators—an inevitable consequence of reading in translation. Most of the time, reading carefully lies in the interaction between the two—our own attention to the text and insights that others tin can bring.
A good instance of this is found in what must be the best known verse in the New Attestation, if not the whole Bible: John 3.sixteen. You can probably recite it from memory—but you lot volition most likely recite information technology incorrectly. Most people remember it as 'God then loved the earth…' meaning 'God loved the world so much…' Simply the word translated 'so' most commonly means 'in this way'; it primarily indicates the manner of God'south honey, rather than its degree. Some recent translations now reflect this, but many all the same follow the 'traditional' rendering of the Authorised Version. In 1611, 'so' was commonly used to hateful 'in this style'. In Matt five.12 AV Jesus says '…for then persecuted they the prophets which were before you'. Modern versions translate this '…for in this way they persecuted the prophets who were earlier you.' The meaning of the English word has changed—but and so many know it by heart that translators shied away from updating the language.
Most of my examples impact contested and contentious issues in interpretation, and this is not an accident. Detail readings get associated with particular theological outlooks, and we oftentimes invest much emotional and intellectual energy in defending detail positions. Changing our understanding of key texts might exist very threatening, and be seen to undermine our convictions, and information technology is in these moments we need to be nearly disciplined in focusing on what the text says, not what we want it to say—allowing God, through his word in Scripture, to challenge afresh our understanding and assumptions.
There are several things we tin practice to develop our attention to the text. The get-go is simply to read more slowly, in contrast to the way we process so much textual information in our information-saturated culture. Nosotros need to take time with a verse or a passage, to listen carefully and reflect deeply—and learning information technology by heart can help this. Another approach is to express information technology in our own words, which demands that we inhabit the text in detail first. When we look to those more expert for help, in books and commentaries, we should seek those who help us understand the text and what is says earlier they give their own view or move likewise rapidly to application. And at that place is always the choice of learning biblical languages for ourselves; i of the main advantages of this is forcing us to slow down and attend to the text in item. In fact, reading in any other linguistic communication will help u.s.a. slow downwardly and attend; I noticed the first case above (Jesus giving instructions 'through the Holy Spirit') when I was reading the passage in French, a 2nd language for me.
Questions for Reflection
When take you had the experience of reading something and realising that information technology does non say what you thought it said? How did that experience? How did you manage the sense of disorientation that this led to?
How easy do you discover it to read slowly and advisedly?
What assist might yous need to help you nourish more advisedly to the text of Scripture?
This and the other three related posts, in a revised class, will exist published as the next Grove Biblical booklet. The fabric originated in a series of seminars on how to read the Bible at New Wine Northward in 2009.
[1] Not many are aware the baptism past immersion, even for infants, is the celebrated norm for the Church of England as set out in the Book of Common Prayer; sprinkling should merely be administered if the child is of ill-health. This is why so many mediaeval baptism fonts are the size of baby baths.
[two] Some have argued that 'this generation' that will non pass away is a reference to the Jewish race, rather than the temporal generation of Jesus' listeners. Just that is not what the word means (compare Matt ane.17), and this statement is an attempt to avoid the straightforward significant of Jesus' saying.
[3] For a more than detailed discussion of these passages, meet my before Grove booklet B 82 Kingdom, Hope and the Cease of the Globe and the online commodity https://world wide web.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/making-sense-of-matthew-24/
[4] For more than details on this, encounter my online commodity https://world wide web.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/why-i-want-to-exist-left-behind/ The other 'rapture' text is ane Thess 4.17, discussed in the previous chapter.
[5] For more detail on all these passages, run across my Grove booklet B 59 Women and Dominance: The Key Biblical Texts and my online articles on gender under https://www.psephizo.com/tag/gender/
[6] In his NIGTC, Anthony Thiselton notes how earlier commentators simply discount the articulate logic of what Paul is saying here, and concludes that 'The custom to which Paul alludes [in verse 16]…is the acceptance of an equality of status according to which women may lead in public prayer or preaching…next with a recognition and appreciation of gender differences' (pp 846–847).
Don't forget to volume your place at the Festival of Theology on Jan 30th!
Follow me on Twitter @psephizo.Similar my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance ground. If you have valued this post, would you lot considerdonating £1.20 a month to support the production of this weblog?
If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my folio on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance footing. If yous take valued this post, you lot can make a unmarried or echo donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Skillful comments that appoint with the content of the post, and share in respectful fence, can add real value. Seek kickoff to sympathize, then to be understood. Make the nigh charitable construal of the views of others and seek to larn from their perspectives. Don't view debate equally a conflict to win; address the statement rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/five-essentials-of-biblical-interpretation-no-4-content/
0 Response to "Five essentials of Biblical Interpretation no. 4: content"
Post a Comment