By Nicholas Dylewsky
The Importance of Interpreting Scripture with a 1st Century Worldview Christianity, being born in the Roman empire, has endured millenniums of growth,
persecution and prosperity. Christianity is surely a faith that has grown despite immense pressure on those that call themselves Christians to recant their beliefs and has withstood the test of time more greatly than any other religion despite the cost to those that persevere.
The problem that presents itself is that in that wide gap of time, the truths that are found within scripture are often distorted by modern interpretations that fit more with the culture of today’s society then with the culture of early Christianity. Thus, the intended message of the original author remains hidden in the text rather than coming to light.
With the distiantation that is applied between ancient and modern times, one can only expect that the context in which we interpret scripture today might be distorted and therefore be less edifying to the Church. But why then are we as Christians today, especially in America, so eager to hold to modern interpretations of scripture despite there being so many resources that point towards a more accurate reading of the text? Furthermore, if one is to examine closely the early interpretations and beliefs pertaining to Christian doctrines, would a major paradigm shift occur for those that had been interpreting scripture with modern eyes after taking off their modern lenses?
I propose that answer to the first question is that the modern reader, especially in the western world, approaches scripture with a presupposition of comfortable individualism that causes the believer to search for interpretations that cater to the individual’s comfortability rather than the openness to be confronted and convicted with Biblical truth. Therefore, the second question is answered; Yes, a major paradigm shift must occur. (Richards & O'Brien, 2012) argues that people of all cultures approach scripture with a lens that filters everything through their cultural worldview.
As followers of Christ however, we should make a proper attempt to remove those lenses and bring the text to our culture rather than the culture to the text. In support of this argument, a lot of times when modern Christians such as myself interpret scripture, a tendency to lean towards a view that fits our modern cultural standards or morals is often developed. For example, a believer that is reading scripture in the United States may have a “western” bias when interpreting scripture. An individual that was raised in India may likewise view scripture under the filter of a more “Eastern” perspective.
More specifically, western readers are likely to approach things with and individualistic mindset whereas and eastern reader would be more likely to view things with a more communal interpretation. This is also alluded to in (Richards & O'Brien, 2012), which focuses more on the filter that westerners put on scripture but also refers frequently to eastern cultural as well. Now, while bringing culture to the text can certainly assist the reader with formulating a modern application of certain verses or passages of scripture, it is essential to take a fresh look at what the author intended and how the early church would have understood said verse or passage to avoid missing the point. The result being that the true meaning of the verse or passage is revealed and therefore applied correctly even when brought forward to a modern application.
One way to read scripture is to focus on what it would mean if someone gave us similar instructions today, then we can start formulating an application. However, the argument that is being made in (Richards & O'Brien, 2012) is that a contrary and more effective method of interpreting scripture is necessary. And, if the authors are right and it is this so important to understand the correct interpretation of scripture, then the only viable to do so is do dig in to what early Christians believed about the correct interpretation of a scripture. Another way to say this is something like “The effective Biblical interpreter, when interpreting scripture, takes off his/her cultural beliefs and steps in to the shoes of the early Christian and reads scripture as if he/she was an early Christian.” Only then can the reader take the same principle and apply it to modern culture in the manner originally intended by the author.
Revelation 3:15-16 is a perfect example. These two verses are in the center of Christ’s letter to the Laodiceans. This is where Jesus tells the audience at Laodicea that He would prefer them “hot” or “cold” over “lukewarm” lest He spit them out. The traditional reading of this passage is that Jesus would prefer the individual to either be a devout Christian (hot) or a completely uncommitted individual (cold) over a Christian who is half in but not fully committed. In this interpretation, the “cold” is an unbelieving person and both the “lukewarm” and “hot” person are interpreted to be believers. In other words, “outright denial is better than [phony] piety” (Morris, 2009) (Beale, 1999).
The problem with this interpretation is that it would imply that God would spit out those who are believers, those who are saved but still prefer someone who is completely non-committed. Granted, the proponent of this view might argue that the “lukewarm” individual is not one that was truly saved; the conclusion is still that God would prefer a professing unbeliever to a professing believer that is not fully committed when logically He would either view them both the same. After all, the terms of following Christ are essentially all or nothing.
An alternate view that seems more likely has emerged more recently, notes (Beale, 1999), that what is more likely happening here is that Jesus is using the circumstances regarding the water supply in Laodicea to effectively bring about His point. Evidence exists that supports that the neighboring city of Hierapolis had a “hot springs” like water supply that had a healing effect on those that bathed in it and the neighboring city of Colossae had a supply of fresh cold water that was very pleasant to drink. In this scenario, it was also likely that the water supply in Laodicea was run off from the water supply in Hierapolis that was extremely unpleasant to drink by the time that it reached Laodicea and therefore would have likely caused the Laodiceans to spit the water out upon consumption (Morris, 2009).
This interpretation allows for the interpretation that seems more likely due to the positive description in the passage of both he “cold” and “hot,” whereas the traditional interpretation doesn’t explain why the negative is accepted by God more then the “partially positive” (Beale, 1999). We can now interpret the scripture as describing the two descriptions of “hot” and “cold” as positive while understanding the “lukewarm” to be the negative resulting in an application less separated from that of the original audience. Now we see that God prefers “hot” which is a good thing along with “cold” as a good thing but does not approve with “lukewarm”
The problem is, however, that this is not as simple as it sounds because there are still multiple views on most passages including this one. We still need to determine other things that are now in controversy within the passage such as is the “lukewarm” Christian being spit out to eternity in hell or is the passage just referring to the “lukewarm” works of the Christian being spit out while the believer remains eternally safe. However, the important part is that we have in either case approached a more accurate reading of the text by taking off our modern lens and applying the circumstances that were taking place to the early believers at Laodicea instead.
Likewise, the same can and should be done with all the other texts. As we just saw, after looking at the historical context of a passage or after looking at the remote and immediate context, many scholars still come to contradicting conclusions. There is sometimes no choice but to choose between one of multiple possible interpretations of a passage. Thus, one must then wrestle with the fact that there is only one true interpretation that is correct or inadequately settle with the idea that there could be multiple interpretations that are correct. While we hold to the belief that there is only one accurate interpretation to a passage, ensuring that one doesn’t hold a view that is incorrect can become a heavy conviction to the genuine Biblical scholar or even the daily devotional Bible interpreter.
It is possible therefore that a necessity arises to hold lighter positions on some of the views that are more secondary as a solution and a focus that is on the truths that are more salvific such as Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection are magnified. Granted, the latter might be true; but it does not change the fact that the only way to truly begin understanding many important issues in scripture is to do sufficient historical research on a passage. Not only is this essential, but the correct context must be considered as well once the historical data is collected.
While there is admittedly some difficulty even amongst the most devout Biblical scholars to determine the true meaning of certain passages, historical and cultural background research; jumping in to the worldview of the 1stcentury audience is still arguably the most important aspect of interpreting scripture correctly.
And, although some passages may still have an unclear meaning it is still more possible to now determine which interpretation is more likely whereas before doing the research we might have been un aware of some of the possibilities of what the passage truly means. The only way to effectively to this, however, goes back to the original purpose of this paper which is solely to emphasize the importance of avoiding to read scripture with our modern eyes lest we come to an inaccurate conclusion that leads to an inaccurate application.
Works Cited
Beale, G. K. (1999). The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Morris, L. L. (2009). Revelation: An Introduction and Commentary. Nottinham, England: InterVarsity Press.
Richards, E. R., & O'Brien, B. J. (2012). Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Binders to Better Understand the Bible. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
The Importance of Interpreting Scripture with a 1st Century Worldview Christianity, being born in the Roman empire, has endured millenniums of growth,
persecution and prosperity. Christianity is surely a faith that has grown despite immense pressure on those that call themselves Christians to recant their beliefs and has withstood the test of time more greatly than any other religion despite the cost to those that persevere.
The problem that presents itself is that in that wide gap of time, the truths that are found within scripture are often distorted by modern interpretations that fit more with the culture of today’s society then with the culture of early Christianity. Thus, the intended message of the original author remains hidden in the text rather than coming to light.
With the distiantation that is applied between ancient and modern times, one can only expect that the context in which we interpret scripture today might be distorted and therefore be less edifying to the Church. But why then are we as Christians today, especially in America, so eager to hold to modern interpretations of scripture despite there being so many resources that point towards a more accurate reading of the text? Furthermore, if one is to examine closely the early interpretations and beliefs pertaining to Christian doctrines, would a major paradigm shift occur for those that had been interpreting scripture with modern eyes after taking off their modern lenses?
I propose that answer to the first question is that the modern reader, especially in the western world, approaches scripture with a presupposition of comfortable individualism that causes the believer to search for interpretations that cater to the individual’s comfortability rather than the openness to be confronted and convicted with Biblical truth. Therefore, the second question is answered; Yes, a major paradigm shift must occur. (Richards & O'Brien, 2012) argues that people of all cultures approach scripture with a lens that filters everything through their cultural worldview.
As followers of Christ however, we should make a proper attempt to remove those lenses and bring the text to our culture rather than the culture to the text. In support of this argument, a lot of times when modern Christians such as myself interpret scripture, a tendency to lean towards a view that fits our modern cultural standards or morals is often developed. For example, a believer that is reading scripture in the United States may have a “western” bias when interpreting scripture. An individual that was raised in India may likewise view scripture under the filter of a more “Eastern” perspective.
More specifically, western readers are likely to approach things with and individualistic mindset whereas and eastern reader would be more likely to view things with a more communal interpretation. This is also alluded to in (Richards & O'Brien, 2012), which focuses more on the filter that westerners put on scripture but also refers frequently to eastern cultural as well. Now, while bringing culture to the text can certainly assist the reader with formulating a modern application of certain verses or passages of scripture, it is essential to take a fresh look at what the author intended and how the early church would have understood said verse or passage to avoid missing the point. The result being that the true meaning of the verse or passage is revealed and therefore applied correctly even when brought forward to a modern application.
One way to read scripture is to focus on what it would mean if someone gave us similar instructions today, then we can start formulating an application. However, the argument that is being made in (Richards & O'Brien, 2012) is that a contrary and more effective method of interpreting scripture is necessary. And, if the authors are right and it is this so important to understand the correct interpretation of scripture, then the only viable to do so is do dig in to what early Christians believed about the correct interpretation of a scripture. Another way to say this is something like “The effective Biblical interpreter, when interpreting scripture, takes off his/her cultural beliefs and steps in to the shoes of the early Christian and reads scripture as if he/she was an early Christian.” Only then can the reader take the same principle and apply it to modern culture in the manner originally intended by the author.
Revelation 3:15-16 is a perfect example. These two verses are in the center of Christ’s letter to the Laodiceans. This is where Jesus tells the audience at Laodicea that He would prefer them “hot” or “cold” over “lukewarm” lest He spit them out. The traditional reading of this passage is that Jesus would prefer the individual to either be a devout Christian (hot) or a completely uncommitted individual (cold) over a Christian who is half in but not fully committed. In this interpretation, the “cold” is an unbelieving person and both the “lukewarm” and “hot” person are interpreted to be believers. In other words, “outright denial is better than [phony] piety” (Morris, 2009) (Beale, 1999).
The problem with this interpretation is that it would imply that God would spit out those who are believers, those who are saved but still prefer someone who is completely non-committed. Granted, the proponent of this view might argue that the “lukewarm” individual is not one that was truly saved; the conclusion is still that God would prefer a professing unbeliever to a professing believer that is not fully committed when logically He would either view them both the same. After all, the terms of following Christ are essentially all or nothing.
An alternate view that seems more likely has emerged more recently, notes (Beale, 1999), that what is more likely happening here is that Jesus is using the circumstances regarding the water supply in Laodicea to effectively bring about His point. Evidence exists that supports that the neighboring city of Hierapolis had a “hot springs” like water supply that had a healing effect on those that bathed in it and the neighboring city of Colossae had a supply of fresh cold water that was very pleasant to drink. In this scenario, it was also likely that the water supply in Laodicea was run off from the water supply in Hierapolis that was extremely unpleasant to drink by the time that it reached Laodicea and therefore would have likely caused the Laodiceans to spit the water out upon consumption (Morris, 2009).
This interpretation allows for the interpretation that seems more likely due to the positive description in the passage of both he “cold” and “hot,” whereas the traditional interpretation doesn’t explain why the negative is accepted by God more then the “partially positive” (Beale, 1999). We can now interpret the scripture as describing the two descriptions of “hot” and “cold” as positive while understanding the “lukewarm” to be the negative resulting in an application less separated from that of the original audience. Now we see that God prefers “hot” which is a good thing along with “cold” as a good thing but does not approve with “lukewarm”
The problem is, however, that this is not as simple as it sounds because there are still multiple views on most passages including this one. We still need to determine other things that are now in controversy within the passage such as is the “lukewarm” Christian being spit out to eternity in hell or is the passage just referring to the “lukewarm” works of the Christian being spit out while the believer remains eternally safe. However, the important part is that we have in either case approached a more accurate reading of the text by taking off our modern lens and applying the circumstances that were taking place to the early believers at Laodicea instead.
Likewise, the same can and should be done with all the other texts. As we just saw, after looking at the historical context of a passage or after looking at the remote and immediate context, many scholars still come to contradicting conclusions. There is sometimes no choice but to choose between one of multiple possible interpretations of a passage. Thus, one must then wrestle with the fact that there is only one true interpretation that is correct or inadequately settle with the idea that there could be multiple interpretations that are correct. While we hold to the belief that there is only one accurate interpretation to a passage, ensuring that one doesn’t hold a view that is incorrect can become a heavy conviction to the genuine Biblical scholar or even the daily devotional Bible interpreter.
It is possible therefore that a necessity arises to hold lighter positions on some of the views that are more secondary as a solution and a focus that is on the truths that are more salvific such as Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection are magnified. Granted, the latter might be true; but it does not change the fact that the only way to truly begin understanding many important issues in scripture is to do sufficient historical research on a passage. Not only is this essential, but the correct context must be considered as well once the historical data is collected.
While there is admittedly some difficulty even amongst the most devout Biblical scholars to determine the true meaning of certain passages, historical and cultural background research; jumping in to the worldview of the 1stcentury audience is still arguably the most important aspect of interpreting scripture correctly.
And, although some passages may still have an unclear meaning it is still more possible to now determine which interpretation is more likely whereas before doing the research we might have been un aware of some of the possibilities of what the passage truly means. The only way to effectively to this, however, goes back to the original purpose of this paper which is solely to emphasize the importance of avoiding to read scripture with our modern eyes lest we come to an inaccurate conclusion that leads to an inaccurate application.
Works Cited
Beale, G. K. (1999). The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Morris, L. L. (2009). Revelation: An Introduction and Commentary. Nottinham, England: InterVarsity Press.
Richards, E. R., & O'Brien, B. J. (2012). Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Binders to Better Understand the Bible. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment