INTERPRETING A TEXT

 

 

Scholars for two thousand years have devoted thousands and thousands of hours to examining, discussing and debating the meaning of biblical texts. According to postmodernists, those efforts were useless, if not wasted. In the view of many postmodernists, texts mean what each individual wants them to mean. It makes no difference what the author had in mind, the meaning of the words or how scholars and others through the ages have interpreted them; the texts mean what each person says they mean. Dr. David Dockery, edited the book, The Challenge of Postmodernism: An Evangelical Engagement (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1995). Dr. Dockery quotes Dr. James Sire as saying concerning postmodernists' view of interpretation: "Continuous examination of the world requires a contextual examination; we ourselves are part of the context. Interpretation depends not on the external text or the author, but on the relative viewpoint and particular values of the interpreter" (p. 14).

 

Rubel Shelly and John York have endorsed many facets of the postmodern interpretation of scripture. In their book, The Jesus Proposal: A Theological Framework for Maintaining the Unity of the Body of Christ (Siloam Spring, AR: Leafwood, 2003), Shelly and York affirm: Moderns "were taught to seek fixed and objective understandings for every text. Postmoderns have no difficulty with less­-than-perfect interpretations, for they value persons over formulas" (p. 83). Several questions on this text are in order. Are there no "fixed and objective understandings for every text?" Does a given text mean what I believe it means or does it have a fixed meaning? If texts have no "fixed and objective" meaning, how could we ever follow Paul's inspired advice to the Corinthians? "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that you be joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment" (1 Cor. 1: 1 0).

 

It would be impossible to obey the Holy Spirit's instructions in this verse if a text has no fixed and objective meaning. For example, the author of Hebrews wrote concerning the old covenant and the new: "In that he says, A new covenant, he has made the first old. Now that which decays and waxes old is ready to vanish away" (Heb. 8: 13). Maybe the inspired author meant that the new is just greater than the old, although we can be sure of either covenant. I know that is not what the text says, but if a text means only what I want it to mean, how could any postmodernist object to my interpretation?

 

Did Jesus and the inspired writers of the New Testament have any problems with less-than-perfect interpretations? Do you remember how Satan tried to tempt the Lord to sin by quoting scripture? "Then the devil takes him up into the holy city, and sets him on the pinnacle of the temple. And says unto him, If you are the Son of God, cast yourself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning you; and in their hands they shall bear you up, lest at any time you dash you foot against a stone" (Mt. 4:5-6). In his great set of books, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1930), Dr. A. T. Robertson comments on Satan's use of scripture or should I say, "misuse of scripture?": "So the devil quotes the Word of God, misinterprets it, omits a clause, and tries to trip the Son of God by the Word of God" (volume 1, p. 32). Did Jesus believe Psalm 91: 11 ff. had a "fixed and objective" meaning?

 

Philip Gulley and James Mulholland have written two books endorsing universalism, that is, the idea that every person will be saved. These two books are, If Grace Is True: Why God Will Save Every Person (San Francisco: Harper, 2003) and If God Is Love: Rediscovering Grace in an Ungracious World (San Francisco: Harper, 2004). In the first book, Gulley and Mulholland interpret the Bible to harmonize with their view of universal salvation. They deliberately ignore passages that contradict their erroneous position. For example, they quote Paul as telling Titus: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared unto all men" (Tit. 2:11) (p. 210). Does verse twelve of this passage need to be read? "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared unto all men, teaching us (literally, disciplining us) that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world" (Tit. 2:11-12). Maybe Gulley and Mulholland's problem is not interpretation, but honesty. We are not being honest with a text when we remove it from its context.

 

I do not intend to discuss at length the rules of interpretation that are almost universally accepted by reputable scholars, but I do want to mention a few of those rules. I have already mentioned context. So I shall say a few more words on that subject. What does a word out of context mean? It means absolutely nothing. An English Dictionary or a Greek lexicon provides the possible meanings of words, but a word must be used in a sentence for it to have any meaning. The famous Greek­English Lexicon of the New Testament (New York: American Book Company, 1889), translated and revised by Joseph Henry Thayer of Harvard, gives numerous meanings of the word logos-usually translated "word. " We can discern the meaning of the Greek only when we discover its use in a sentence. Incidentally, that is the reason all faithful preachers spend countless hours studying words.

 

We must also remember that the Greek of the New Testament is not classical Greek. It is koine or common Greek, that is, the Greek spoken by the common man in New Testament times. That helps us to understand to some extent the controversy surrounding music in the worship of the church. Many theologians and preachers define the Greek psallo to include playing on an instrument. No New Testament scholar renders the word to mean playing on an instrument. Does that explain why all reputable translations of the Greek text always render the word "sing?" W. E. Vine says the word in the New Testament means to sing a hymn, to sing praise (p. 730).

 

The Greek text, figuratively speaking, is set in stone. The New Testament text was completed more than nineteen hundred years ago. We cannot add to it nor take from it. But the English language has changed since the King James Version was translated in 1611. There are many examples, but I shall give you just one. In speaking of the coming of our Lord, Paul told the Thessalonians: "For this I say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them who are asleep" (1 Thess. 4:15). The English word "prevent" means to keep from happening. The Greek word means to go before or to precede or to go ahead. That is also what the English word meant in 1611.

 

There are examples where the King James translators let their theology influence their translation. For example, the King James Version renders Acts 3:19: "Repent therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." The verb "be converted" is in the passive voice. In other words, it refers to what someone else does for us. The Greek verb is in the active voice. The verse should read: "Repent therefore and turn." Obviously, we could not turn without God's grace, but we are the ones who turn. The correct rendering of this verse rules out the Calvinistic doctrine of salvation by grace alone through faith alone.

 

Have you ever heard someone say: "The Constitution of the United States is a living document?" Do they mean by that expression that we can interpret it anyway we choose? W. Cleon Skousen's book, The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution (Washington, DC: The National Center for Constitutional Studies, 1985), calls the American Constitution "The Miracle of Philadelphia." Skousen says concerning the Constitution: "On Monday, September 17, 1787, a total of 41 of the original 55 delegates solemnly met in the east room of Independence Hall for the signing." Benjamin Franklin asked that the signing be by "unanimous consent" (p. 162). Since the signing of the Constitution in 1787, twenty­six amendments have been added to it.

 

Philosophers speak of the "principle of identity." In his book, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), Dr. Norman Geisler defines the "principle of identity: "A thing must be must be identical to itself. If it were not, it would not be itself' (p. 250). That means the Constitution of the United States is what it is. It is not what some politician or judge believes it is; it is what it is. That does not deny the duty of judges to interpret it and apply it to our lives. But the Constitution has not changed in over two hundred years, except for the addition of twenty-six amendments. Every judge from our local communities to the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States must seek to know exactly what the Constitution means.

 

The late Dr. Francis Shaeffer, a conservative Presbyterian preacher, authored many books on moral and spiritual themes. One of his books has the title, How Should We Then Live?: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture (Old Tappan: Revell, 1976). Dr. Shaeffer quotes Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., one the Supreme Court's most influential justices, as affirming: "So when it comes to the development of a corpus juris (that is, a body of law) the ultimate question is what do the dominant forces of the community want and do they want it hard enough to disregard whatever inhibitions may stand in the way" (p. 217)? In another of his books, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?: Exposing Our Rapid Yet Subtle Loss of Human Rights (Old Tappan: Revell, 1979), Dr. Shaeffer along Dr. C. Everett Koop quotes Holmes as foolishly affirming: "Truth is the majority vote of that nation that could lick all others" (p. 25). In his book, Abortion: a Rational Look at an Emotional Issue (Colorado Springs: Navpress, 1990), Dr. R. C. Spoul quotes Justice Holmes as arguing: "I see no reason for attributing to man a significance in kind different from that which belongs to a baboon or a grain of sand" (p. 39).

 

When we approach the interpretation of any document, our attitude should be: "My goal is to know the true meaning of the text." Oddly enough, there are people who write texts denying that any text has a specific meaning. It is inconceivable that a college professor could be so illogical. Whatever their motivation, they are telling people we cannot know what God had in mind in giving his word. Reasonable people know we are being misled. God has spoken clearly enough for us to understand his will. One of my college professors loved to say: "God adapted his word to man as he made man." He knew what we could understand and gave his word accordingly.

 

I am not telling you that there are no difficult passages in the Bible, but we can understand most of the Bible if we make an effort to do so. For example, Paul told the Ephesians: "Let him who stole steal no more: but rather let him labor, working with his own hands the thing that is good, that he may have to give to him who needs" (Eph. 4:28). But what if a man will not work, should we not take care of his needs? The Bible speaks very plainly on that situation too. Paul said to the Thessalonians: "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat" (2 Thess. 3: 10).

 

There is a difference between the person who does not wish to work and the person who cannot work. All of us know people whose health will not permit them to work for a living. Christians have an obligation to provide for those who cannot work. But we violate the law of God and create bums if we feed those who will not work. But should not empathy govern how we treat all people, including those who refuse to work? The truth of the matter is: Empathy has absolutely nothing to do with the situation. The Bible specifically and emphatically forbids Christians from feeding those who will not work.

 

Incidentally, the men and women who serve on the courts of our land must interpret the law as it is written. They are being blatantly dishonest when they allow their own beliefs and prejudices to influence their decisions. Tragically, there have been judges who have ignored the plain meaning of the text of the Constitution and have made decisions that harmonized with their philosophical or political views. A judge's political and philosophical views should have nothing to do with how he or she interprets the law. If they do influence his decisions, that person should be removed from the bench.

 

We hear much in our day about "loose constructionists." This expression is plainly oxymoronic. The judge must examine the text, decide what it means and rule accordingly. For example, the First Amendment to the Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This amendment has occasioned more confusion on the part of the Supreme Court than any of the other amendments. The confusion does not arise because the amendment lacks of plainness. Tragically, some of the justices on the Supreme Court have had very little, if any, respect for religion. They want religion to be a purely private matter. And yet virtually every one of the founding fathers was devoutly religious men and would turn over in their graves if they knew some of the decisions the Supreme Court has made concerning religion.

 

If the justices are governed by their empathy, they will trample under foot the Constitution of the United States. They will make decisions designed to promote their own agenda. What if a judge were empathetic toward religion, how would the other judges and the American people react to such a judge? Empathy for any person or constituency should have nothing to with the judges' decisions. If a judge operates on the basis of empathy for any moral, philosophical or political view, he is not a judge but an advocate. We expect defense attorneys to be advocates, but judges should be neutral. They are to interpret the law-not to be advocates.

 

What I have said about judges applies equally to those who preach and teach the word of God. I may have empathy for certain persons - and all of us do - but my preaching must be rooted in scripture. For example, I suffer when my married friends have difficulties that lead to divorce.  But my empathy for those who suffer from the evils of divorce must not change what I preach on marriage, divorce and remarriage.  The word of God must be my guide in preaching and in practice.  I can weep with those who weep, but I cannot alter what God has revealed in his word.  One of the reasons there are so many divorces in our land is because many preachers and other religious leaders decide they know more than God.  Those preachers interpret the scriptures so that no one will be offended and so people can do whatever they choose.  Incidentally those elderships will not allow their preachers to discuss divorce and remarriage.

 

As every serious Bible student knows, justice is one of the major emphases throughout the word of God.  The 8th century B.C. prophet Micah asked:  “Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the high God?  Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old?  Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams and with ten thousands of rivers of oil?  Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?  He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God”  (Mic. 6:6-8)?

 

Judges and preachers should vow before God almighty they will always be just in their dealings with their fellowmen.  For judges, that means they must always be honest in their interpretation of the law.  They must not allow anything or anyone to interfere with their duty to interpret the law as it is written – not as they wish it were written – but as it actually is written.  Failure to be honest with the text hampers the freedom of the American people and means the judges will stand condemned before God in the final judgment.  It is always immoral for the judge to twist the law to make it say what he and his supporters want it to say. 

 

It is also immoral for preachers to fail to preach the whole counsel of God. We preachers must spend our lives in deciding the meaning of the sacred text and then have the courage to preach it faithfully, lovingly and fully.

 

Winford Claiborne

The International Gospel Hour

P.O. Box 118

Fayetteville, TN 37334