Interpreting Scripture

Biblical interpretation or technically speaking, hermeneutics, is a powerful field within the Christian faith. It is also a very serious one. To take into one's hand, the word of God, and explain it, is a very serious matter, that should not be taken lightly. This is, after all, THE word of God, upon which men are to build their lives and hearts.

There have been many books written about the subject, each one purporting to be a faithful methodology. Some are extremely academic works, written by and for the educated and others are simple, straightforward efforts by simple, straightforward men.

On one hand, it could be argued that any passage of Scripture could be interpreted in any way the interpreter sees fit, as long as it draws the listener to God. But it could also be argued that the text must be faithfully interpreted according to word meaning, literary form and context, taking into account historical context, author's intent, and the culture of the original audience.

Ultimately, I believe that any interpretation or commentary on the text of Scripture should not be arbitrary. The reader must have a sound reason for any interpretive position. “Why” and “on what grounds” is any meaning applied to a text. Scripture is not wax, to be molded as one sees fit. The original author meant something by the words he used and the original audience would have, most likely, understood what the author meant. These should be a starting point, at the very least.

And remember, the Bible warns about being a teacher. It's a great responsibility. We must not project upon the text, our own opinions or ideas. The explanation of the text ought to be built from the text itself (and its context), not upon our whims, ideas or preferences. Our goal should be to explain the text, not define the text.

Time and the proper identification of literature

For many years I held to a literal interpretation of the chronologies of the Old Testament.  So often people will make of the mistake of limiting their interpretive options to two, either a literal understanding of Scripture, or a nonliteral.  But this is a false dichotomy.  We are not restricted to only two options.  As is the case with literature, you must read the particular genre within its own rules.  One does not read poetry literally.  If someone says that they only have eyes for one particular girl, this is not read in a scientific sense, as if their eyeballs are only functional when around the one specific female.

When one reads a cookbook, one does not do so for romantic reasons or with the goal of understanding the world better.  The Bible, in the same line of thought, is not just a book.  It is a collection of letters, histories, poetry, apocaplytics and instructions.  You have to know and understand what it is you are reading.  One thing I like to say, when responding to those who say things like, no one in their right mind would read the Bible literally, is this.  The Bible may speak of things scientific, but it is not a science book and it was not given to us to teach us science.  The point of speaking about creation is not to give a science lesson in Newtons laws or the such.  It is to communicate that God is the creator and we are his creatures.  There is a specific relationship between us.

This brings me to the chronologies found in Scripture.  When we understand that the chronologies were not given to be a science or sociological study, we can understand that we do not need to read them literally, in order to read them honestly.  First, the chronologies were given to communicate that mankind has been descending from the singular Adam and that the sinful nature that we have inherited from is really truly part of the nature of man.  Second, the chronologies communicate that Jesus is truly a man.  A living, breathing, from the line of David, man.  He was not a ghost, a literary figure or a creative collection from various peoples imaginations.

So ultimately, we can read the chronologies in Scripture as chronologies but because they are not communicating scientific fact, we do not need them to be generationally succinct. There may be gaps.