Reading and understanding historical texts requires considerable effort. An historical document, whether the Magna Carta, or a letter written by your great grandmother to your great aunt during the Dustbowl, begs context and is useless without it. The Magna Carta, without the oppressions of King John, and an understanding of Natural Rights, is nothing more than a list of grievances by whiny upper classes. The letter from your great grandma, without understanding the cataclysmic dust storms in North American prairies and consequential mass migration to the west in the 1930s, could be read as an effort to mitigate boredom on a windy day.
The focus of this blog is on biblical interpretation. The bible is unique in that it is a collection of 66 documents written over a period of 1500 years, covering a span of, roughly, 6000 to 8000 years. That's a lot of history, from a lot of perspectives. The problem to be solved is that a sentence or two is usually extracted from the text and assigned prima facie meaning based on the environment and prejudices of the reader. No historic document is interpreted so carelessly, (save for the U.S. Constitution) and it is a terrible contradiction for one to claim that the bible is the word of God yet apply careless interpretation to its text. Proper interpretation requires context, and context flows from many springs, but I'll reduce them to a few basic sources. I call them circles. First, there is the Historical Circle of context. This is the largest circle, and it includes any political, geographical, geological, or cultural information that can shape the meaning of a particular text (or "verse" if you prefer). Second, and smaller but within the first, is the Whole Bible Circle, and it takes into account the major themes of the bible as we interpret a text. Third, and smaller still, (you get the pattern) is the Book Circle, in which we attempt to understand the whole of a book, Galatians for example, before too closely examining a verse or two of text. Last, is the Passage Circle, in which we understand where the immediate context of a passage begins and ends. This is often marked by subheadings in our bibles, but I don't think it's wise to rely on these. It's essential to examine the text ourselves to determine when the writer begins and ends thought and purpose to bookend a passage. We will examine each of these "context circles" in subsequent blogs, without spending too much time contrasting with other methods of interpretation, or "hermeneutics". If I thought they were useful I would use them.
0 Comments
Here's one that I can relate to: "It isn't God I'm opposed to, it's religion." I have read, or heard, that many times over the years, and I believe the same, depending on how one defines religion. The word is found only five times in the New Testament, three of those being the Greek word "threskeia", which Strong's defines as "Worship that is expressed in ritual acts." The adjective religious (Gr, threskos) is used twice. The word "religion" does not appear in the Old Testament at all. So, why is there so little religion in the bible? Paul used the word when giving his defense to King Agrippa, "They (the Jews) have known for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that I have lived as a Pharisee, according to the strictest sect of our religion." What did James write of religion? "If anyone thinks himself to be religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of God is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world." (Emphasis, mine.) James' point is that behavior, primarily in the form of service, defines a Christian. Ceremony, especially without self-control in daily life, does not. Couple this with Paul's admonition to Roman Christians to, "present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship." This is in the context of understanding that God is the source of mercy and judgement, and that conforming to Christ in our behavior is the appropriate response. While "religion" is rare in the New Testament, "worship" is common, but it is absent in the context of church, i.e., a gathering of Christians. In other words, it is never used to explain "how to worship". There is no list or order of activities that constitutes NT worship. There is one occasion in which Christians are hypothetically gathered, and in this hypothetical, Paul uses the word "worship" to the church in Corinth regarding proper use of spiritual gifts, and the preference of prophecy over tongues, especially uninterpreted tongues. If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? But if all prophecy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you. The one worshiping in this instance is the outsider who enters and is convicted by what he hears. In the passage that follows, Paul does speak of "a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, a tongue, and interpretation." But for what purpose? "Let all things be done for building up," he said. These things were teaching tools, not a worship manual. Here's a hard truth: the beef people often have with "organized religion" is a valid one. In fact, they have stumbled onto a biblical truth. Now what? "I need to get organized," I once told a friend. To which he replied, "To get organized, you'd have to be organized." That's wisdom, folks. We all need a friend like that. I live with the understanding that there are people, maybe most of them, who get twice as much done as I can, simply because they spend less time looking on the ground for something that's in their pocket.
I just finished an apartment remodel, which leaves me a few days in this unusually mild December to get some things done in and around the house. There are trees to cut, round, split, and stack. About an acre of blackberries to prune. Exterior paint and trim to finish. An effective way to murder gophers, en masse, to discover. An entire room that needs ceiling, floor, and trim replaced. And a door installed on a room for an underachieving musician. Moi. I've been playing guitar since my teens, so over 40 years, and still can't play as well as the random 12 year-old in a music store shredding "Church Street Blues" or "Autumn Leaves". I'm just not that guy. But over the years I've accumulated guitars, (materialism requires no talent) and I needed a place to put them instead of laying them all over the house so my wife can stumble over them and tell me how thrilled she is that I have a hobby. More or less. So, I boxed in a small, screened porch that was on the side of the house, and now it's my little room with all my stuff in it. Besides guitars and basses, it has a desk with my old Tascam DP01/FX recording unit, Yamaha five-piece drum kit, various amplifiers, cables, microphones, etc. It'll be a good place to make music. I just need to organize it. If I bookended my book collection with actual books, not alphabetically but by writer, it would have Peter Egan's works on one end and Ernest Hemingway's on the other. We're talking secular stuff here, obviously the Bible is predominant. Calm down. Hemingway is universally known, but Egan? You probably know him only if you were a motorcycle or car nut from the early 1980s to 2013 when he retired. He wrote columns for Road and Track and Cycle World magazines that managed to blend humor and poignancy with a conversational voice. His books are collections of his columns and feature stories, and his retirement marked the end of an era. The magazines he worked for are now, like many print rags of yore, largely online publications. Hemingway, of course, is famous for popularizing a distilled prose that eschewed excessive modifiers. William Strunk, in his excellent writing primer, The Elements of Style famously wrote that "Vigorous writing is concise." Though contemporaries, I don't know if Hemingway and Strunk ever met. If they did, I suspect they got along well. My point, which Strunk would have wished I had gotten to already, is that the aforementioned men represent my preferred margins in wordiness. Egan is about as loquacious as I think is useful, Hemingway, about as spartan, and my preference tilts toward Hemingway. The first time I read him (Hem?) I was in the Corona, California Library. I had sat down with A Moveable Feast and was mesmerized by the directness of his prose. I caught myself giggling, not because it was funny, but because I enjoyed it so much. It was an epiphany, and it seemed the perfect literary voice: nothing wasted, a direct transport to 1920s Paris. Published posthumously, A Moveable Feast was a memoir of sorts, chronicling Hemingway's time as a struggling, expatriate writer with a new family en La Ville Lumiere, but even his fiction was obviously autobiographical. His "Nick Adams" short stories, written at various times throughout his career, parallel his life with an uncomfortable fealty. But that's what makes fiction good, i.e., writing what one knows. It is also what can make writing fiction, good fiction, dangerous. Hemingway committed suicide at 61 years-old in Ketchum, Idaho, after several years of failed marriages, depression, alcoholism, and subsequent electroshock therapy at the Mayo Clinic. He had spent decades recounting the disappointments, tragedies, and outright failures of his life in order to write well, and he wrote well enough to revolutionize English prose, but destroyed himself in the process. Reliving the traumas and regrets of the past is caustic. The apostle Paul, after recounting his time as a Pharisee who persecuted Christians in his misguided zeal for Jewish purity, wrote the following to the church in Philippi. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— 10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Paul wrote this from prison in order to encourage those in Philippi. His past, though useful to learn from, no longer defined him, "forgetting what lies behind, I press on...". It was eternity with Christ, that vision on life's horizon, that motivated him, and that he used to motivate others. The past, in contrast, is a treacherous place. Fools choose to live there. I had just finished my veggie omelet and coffee at The Farmer's Daughter in Galena, Missouri, stood up to put on my riding jacket, and walked to the register to pay. "How was everything?" asked the lady at the register, who also served and bussed tables.
"Great as usual," I replied. And it was. I finished paying and turned toward the door. "Nice day for a ride. Have fun!" I threw up my hand in that lazy peace sign universally understood as "Yep." None of that "Ride safe" or "Keep the shiny side up" from her. I guess she observed my thinning hair and gray beard and deduced that safety instruction wasn't needed since I'd survived this long. Long indeed. I've been riding for almost 40 years, and I enjoy it more now than I did when I had all my hair and couldn't grow a beard of any color. The nice thing about The Farmer's Daughter, besides the food and friendliness, is that it is at the head (tail? I can't tell) of Highway 248, a smooth, curvy bundle of two lane road which runs from Galena to Cassville. I started "Renny" my Royal Enfield 650 twin, tapped into 1st gear and rumbled off. As I accelerated up the hill I glanced down at the shiny blue tank, or "Ventura Blue" as the Royal Enfield marketing team dubbed it. According to my childhood box of crayons, it is "Sky Blue," assuming the sky were covered in a glossy clear coat. Outside of town the speed limit jumped to 55 and the scenery became a kaleidoscope of red, yellow, and orange. I greeted one of my favorite downhill turns with gentle pressure on the front brake to transfer weight, and traction, to the front tire. I shifted my body to the right as the trees tilted left, eased off the brake and rolled on throttle to stand the bike up and exit the turn. A light touch on the brakes for a left turn and the scene repeated itself for about 20 miles. I thrummed past tractors mowing hay fields for the last time this year, and cattle ruminating in the sun. Turkey vultures finishing off an unlucky raccoon in the road took flight at the sound of Renny's exhaust, only to light again in my mirrors. The sound of the bike echoed off the stark white siding of the Mountain Home Church of Christ, then got lost in a deeply creased valley. An abandoned gas station marked my descent to the intersection of Highways 39 and 248. Left on 39 leads through more curves to Shell Knob and Table Rock Lake. A right turn leads back home. I turned right. Stuff to do. My wife was still at work when I rolled into our driveway, so I cleaned the house for company later in the evening. She would do it "right" later on, but I pretended to make it easier for her. When she got home, she thanked me for straightening up. A gracious gesture. Once everyone had arrived, we began the evening with a prayer: thankful for the food, thankful for one another, and thankful for the bread and fruit of the vine, which reminds us of Jesus' body and blood, respectively. Vigorous conversation during dinner gave way to singing a hymn to God, but not before discussing the words so we could better grasp what we sang. Coffee and pie accompanied a discussion over scripture, then a couple hours of chit-chat about everything from kids to tractors brought another Sunday to an end. And it was good. "Jesus changes lives!" says the sign outside one of the many church buildings near my home. (Bible Belt, y'all.) It's a positive sentiment, to be sure. Your life is miserable. You cannot find lasting joy. It seems that every decision you make is the wrong one, but following Jesus will right those wrongs and make you happy. Wellll... In the last post I inferred that the action of repentance drives out depression, and listed three changes that one who repents should make: replace bad thoughts with good, laziness with productivity, and selfishness with service. There are more, but I think these are the big ones. The point was, (is) Jesus won't change your life, you do that by doing his will, and that is not a guaranty of a problem free life. Problems, they are a comin'. When I'm riding my motorcycle, I am always conscious of safe riding technique, constantly reviewing and practicing them as I ride. I'm always striving to make my inputs smooth; never abrupt on the brakes or gas, trail-braking into curves to keep weight on the front tire, keeping distance from other vehicles, and never crossing the double yellow line. But the big one that makes all these others possible, is looking far down the road. Keeping the distance in sight brings every potential hazard into view and gives me time to react. Looking directly in front of me would reveal a hazard faster than I could react to it, whether it's gravel in the road, or a car turning left in front of me, or a deer with bad timing. A spiritual life is conducted in the same way. After all, on my motorcycle, the distant road is where I want to go. If I haven't made it there, something has gone wrong. Eternity with Jesus is the distant road we keep in view, "fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfector of our faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame and sat down at the right hand of the Father." Jesus endured suffering because he kept his eyes on his goal, saving us from spiritual death. If Jesus had to suffer, why would we expect not to? Are we greater than our master? The goal is heaven, so there is no need to be depressed about earthly problems. Sometimes, those problems are a badge of honor. Peter wrote of the sufferings first century Christians were to expect because of their faith in Christ. 12 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. 13 But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. 14 If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. 15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler. 16 Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. 17 For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? 18 1 Peter 4:12-18 Peter wrote this to Christians living through persecution by Emperor Nero, but his expectations for them was that they would endure, or as the apostle John wrote to the seven churches in Asia, "be faithful unto death." Seeking happiness on earth is misery, seeking heaven is eternal joy. There is an undeniable proliferation of pharmaceuticals in current advertising media. Among those ads are, if not a majority, certainly a plurality, of mood-altering, or psychotropic, drugs. Depression has become big business. Why is so much money and effort put into public advertising for these, (or any) prescribed medications? I don't have an answer. I doubt that patients walk into their doctors' offices and demand a particular drug because they saw it in an advertisement. Patients tend to accept the prescriptions their doctors give them. There seems to be a blanket acceptance that doctors' ethics and morals are superior to the general population. The Hippocratic Oath secures that notion, somehow. Well, politicians swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. How's that working out? To assume that doctors are immune from the incentives and constraints of the pharmaceutical industry is naive. Moreover, regarding psychotropic medications, most of these prescriptions are unnecessary. If one is a Christian relying on psychotropics to put a smile on one's face, some soul-searching, and bible study, is advised. The first thing to recognize is "repentance". What does that word, as used in the New Testament, i.e., Greek, mean? Every time "repent" the verb, or "repentance" the noun, appears in the New Testament, the translated Greek words are metanoeo, and metanoia, respectively, which means "to changes one's mind". Therefore, the onus is on the believer to change their thinking in response to what Jesus Christ has done, not to wait on Jesus to change their mind for them. We change our thinking in subjection to Him. If we refuse to change our own thinking, we have refused to subject ourselves to Jesus. I can think of three things that God teaches us in the New Testament regarding attitude and behavior:
17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. 19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. What Paul expects here is behavior modification by replacing bad behavior with good behavior. It is impossible to remove bad behavior without replacing it. The vacuum has to be filled, and it will not naturally fill with good. There are multiple examples of this type of behavior modification in the New Testament, and it is inescapable to the careful reader. I may go into more detail in subsequent posts, but for now consider this: of Christians who are convinced of their need for psychotropic drugs, how is their metanoia? Have they traded bad thoughts for good? Have they traded laying around feeling sorry for themselves for productivity? Have they replaced thinking of what they want with thinking of the needs of others and turning those thoughts into action? Have they mastered these things, (hint: nobody has) or did they accept their doctor's prescription as a shortcut? Are they living the self-sacrificial life of a servant of Jesus? It is my understanding that one should not stop taking psychotropics on their own. The results can be dangerous! The virtually omnipresent Mike Rowe of "Dirty Jobs" and "Mike Rowe Works Foundation" is a proponent of a concept called safety-third, which isn't a disregard for safety, but an acknowledgement that the safety-first mantra has divested workers of accountability regarding their own safety. A helmet and harness, while helpful, doesn't make one invincible. Rather, awareness of one's surroundings is the best way to keep stitches off the noggin. Ours is a world in which we are decreasingly required to think.
Modern automobiles have antilock brakes, multiple modes of traction control, auto-parking, hands free steering, etc. Speed dial means one doesn't need to remember phone numbers. Photo editing software means one doesn't need to worry about proper lighting or sifting through dozens of photos to find the best one. Convenience is valued over skill. This has always been true, and I don't consider it inherently bad, despite the preceding screed. I'm not a Luddite. The point is that there are tradeoffs. With every advance in technology comes a devaluation of some skill(s). Metalsmithing made flintknapping a waste of time, automobiles made riding horses a pastime, and bible verse numbers made understanding context seem like a chore. That last innovation rests on the shoulders of Frenchman, Robert Estienne, a 16th century printer and all-around smart guy. Estienne spent his days printing classic Greek and Latin texts, mostly because there wasn't much else in demand at the time. In 1551 A.D., he printed the Vulgate with numbered verses in the New Testament, the first to do so. (Chapter divisions are credited to Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, circa 1244-48 A.D.) He did this, most likely, for university professors and students as a teaching convenience, but it became the thing we humans love so much - a path of least resistance. It's easy to see the allure of such a thing in a university. The professor cites a passage intended to shore up a point, the student goes straight to the verse without the need to search through a mountain of pesky words, and proof-texting is born! (And not a single angel rejoiced.) Once again, the innovation isn't bad, but it requires accountability in the student. Specifically, a Christian's desire should not be to get bible study over with, but to extract as much learning as possible from the text. As the Apostle Peter said, we are to "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." Grab a bible and appreciate that no scripture quoted by any writer or subject, (such as Peter or Paul in Acts) has landmarks for the reader to reference. Obviously, as evidenced above, chapter and verse designations didn't exist, but there are times when the author of a quoted text isn't even mentioned. Read through 1 Peter, for example. There seemed to be an expectation that scripture was known, or a trust that it would be investigated. If one has to read through most of, say, Acts to find a single sentence, is that a bad thing? Poring through large swaths of text helps one to understand the context surrounding a target verse, a practice that would help eliminate proof-texting, the scourge of modern bible classes, and a crutch of too many bible teachers. It's common for a modern observer of political shenanigans to lament the number of sleazy lawyers who somehow get elected to political office, thereby allowing them to write and pass sleazy laws. William Blackstone, in the introduction to his Commentaries on the Laws of England, (1756) made what many modern readers, including myself, might consider a startling, counterintuitive observation. That is, that legislators should be lawyers. His reasoning, though, is sound. His argument, distilled, is that a lawyer, a good lawyer with complete knowledge and respect for the law, is less likely to write new laws, and a legislature full of such creatures is less likely to pass a law should an errant member happen to write one. This is because knowledge of the law should lead a wise man to realize that new laws are unnecessary since the legal tradition, or Common Law, already provides remedies for the great majority of injuries one might suffer. A new law is more likely to be a superfluous complication than a remedy. And how unbecoming it must appear in a member of the legislature to vote for a new law, who is utterly ignorant of the old! What kind of interpretation can he be enabled to give, who is a stranger to the text upon which he comments! (Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1756) To his point regarding unnecessary complexities in law, Blackstone writes, "Hence frequently its (The Common Law) symmetry has been destroyed, its proportions distorted, and its majestic simplicity exchanged for specious embellishments and fantastic novelties." Could one apply this principle to other organizations, traditions and institutions? What about the churches of the first century as described in the New Testament versus modern churches? Pliny the Younger, in a letter to Emperor Trajan in 112 A.D., had this to say about the Christians he had interrogated who, sadly, had renounced their allegiance to Jesus.
According to this account, by 112 A.D. church gatherings were still simple affairs consisting of singing, prayer, and a common meal. By the third century, and certainly by the fourth, numerous complexities had been introduced. Are the traditions that modern believers in Christ regularly practice, which are not found in the New Testament, a result of second and third century Christians failing to understand inspired first century writings? Did they, like legislators not familiar with the law, not appreciate the sufficiency of the gospel, nor the dangers of "specious embellishments and fantastic novelties?" I wonder....
In the Gospel of John, Jesus had a chat with a Samaritan woman who, based on their conversation, figured out that Jesus was the Messiah. Of course, he helped her along a bit by telling her so. During this conversation she mentioned a difference between where the Jews worshipped and where the Samaritans worshipped. Jesus responded, "Woman, believe me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth." This mention of "true worshipers" most Christians will agree is about, well, Christians. But if one were to ask a Christian what "worshiping in spirit and in truth" means, it is my experience that they couldn't tell you.
What Jesus reveals to this woman, (and to us) about worship, is that it has nothing to do with place, but spirit and truth. It seems that the Lord inspired New Testament writers to deemphasize structures to emphasize attitude. Paul, in his letter to the Romans, "Therefore I urge you brethren, to present your bodies as a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, your spiritual service of worship." A spiritual service of worship, eh? Sounds a lot like what Jesus told the Samaritan woman. If you read the surrounding context in Romans, you will see that Paul is referring to attitude and behavior, living sacrificial lives for the good of others. And no, this passage is not about sitting in a pew on Sunday morning, giving on Sunday morning, listening to the Lord's Supper talk on Sunday morning, or anything referring exclusively to Sunday morning, but life between Sundays. Peter also, in his letter to, "those who reside as aliens," in the midst of explaining what proper attitude and behavior should be, said, "you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." We see here that these stones are not traditional, inanimate stones used for building physical structures. They are human stones, used to build a spiritual structure. |
Gus MarvinsonArchivesCategories |