For the 1st post of this series, I made
a case for how important it should be to consider an author's
intention when interpreting the Bible. Though often overlooked, we
should seek such information when possible, and be open to what
insights it provides when presented. As I made clear with the example
of Norman Geisler – the more we ignore informative contexts for
Bible studies, the more absurd conclusions we reach in our studies.
And this, subsequently, creates greater separation with a culture
today that feeds on information from an ever-present cycle of blogs,
newspapers, tweets and discussion forums.
For this post, what I will do is
clarify my point by applying it to some popular Bible study topics. I
have at least 3 examples that should showcase this concept – 2 of
which have the potential to completely change an entire theological
basis. All based on considering what an author intends to say, as
opposed to what one thinks is being said. As I share these examples,
keep in mind I am trying less to instruct someone in a specific
believe, but hope instead to just show how much consideration for an
author's intent is responsible for vastly opposing views on a topic.
Before I get to the more popular and controversial examples, I have a brief example from a book I am reading[1] to display just how this works. Some critics of the resurrection narratives in the Bible point to Acts 13:27-29 as an example of an alternate (and conflicting) tradition of the events. At first glance, it appears Paul is saying that Jesus was taken down and buried by his enemies - the very people who wanted him crucified. This, as opposed to declarations in the gospels (Matthew 27:57-60, Mark 15:42-46, Luke 23:50-54) that Joseph of Arimethea was responsible for this deed. But this interpretation assumes Paul's intent is to recount a detailed history or narrative. However, in a large context of Acts 13:16-41, Paul has been giving a 1 page summary of the Old Testament history and trying to draw parallels to Jesus. It could be argued this shows Paul's intent is not to present a detailed history, but to “preach” his point without boring his audience with irrelevant information. One interpretation assumes contradictions, the other disproves them. But both interpretations revolved around what one thinks Paul intends to report.
Moving along, the first of my controversial example relates to what is a popular topic as we get closer to December 21st, 2012 (you know, the day when nothing will happen but people still panic about). That is, the issue of “end-times” as it relates Bible prophecy. “Wait a minute!” you say. “Everyone knows the point of Bible prophecy is to foretell what will happen in the future. We know it's intent by it's very nature.” Assuming this is true (which is at least questionable by historians, by Bible scholars and even Jews), this only speaks to part of the intent – why. One consideration often overlooked is who the author intended the information for. For instance, if Bible prophecy is intended to foretell the future, whose future?
Consider first that most Bible prophecies, in context, were revealed to a specific cadre of Israelites, and involved very detailed judgments – sometimes specifying regions and nations. For each such prophecy, then, we should at least ask a few things of ourselves. Was the author's intention to foretell the future of those Israelites? Or was it to speak of ancient places where things would be happen in our future? If it is meant to foretell our future, we should figure out where those ancient places are today (something archeology has a hard time doing with 100% precision). One location can take on multiple names as successive people move in or conquer, which is why most Biblical sites now have Arabic names. Not only that, each culture in the surrounding area can have different names for the same location, even with similar languages. Further still, within Israelite culture itself archaeologists have shown some Biblical sites to have changed names over the time that passed.
If, instead, you believe a prophecy was meant to speak to the future of the people hearing it, one must work hard to find clues in the past that these events may have been fulfilled. This too can be challenging, with limited historical texts and information available as general knowledge. But if this were not attempted, it could be easy for one to assume the prophets (Jesus included) were mistaken (since the often use words such as “now”, “coming soon”, “this generation”), were purposeful liars, or were not expected to experience things they were given vision about.
All of these are possible interpretations, and all of them have been offered as solutions in material I've encountered. The point is, which conclusion you make depends solely on who you believe the prophet intended to speak to. With the Bible containing hundreds of prophecies, it is not hard to see the magnitude of how these considerations might impact one's entire view of the Bible. Either everything begins to become focused around the past, or everyone keeps looking to things to happen in the future. Dozens of entire novels have been written speculating about the future, too, so it is not as if the understanding of these things is of little importance to people.
The second example I will share takes us into the creation / evolution debate. This is a very hot area of debate that has polarized Christians against each other for decades, just as much as it has worked up non-Christians. After all, further knowledge and understanding of our universe (or lack thereof) can be at stake. Aside from the scientific aspects of this controversy, however, I am going to of course focus on the theological ones. And this will be easy to do, as all such discussions ultimately revolve around 1 thing - how one interprets the first 3 chapters of Genesis.
While you probably know what your interpretation is of those 3 chapters, why you have it and how strongly you believe it – you may not have considered why other people believe differently. It is a tendency for both sides to think something like “if the other person only knew...” or “if they were only listening!” However, while it is perfectly acceptable to be confident of your interpretation, it is presumptuous to be certain someone else's interpretation is wrong without considering how they may have reached that conclusion. But how do we do this? As you may have guessed, of course, we consider what the author may have been trying to communicate in writing Genesis. To ignore this is to give in to that tendency to create conflict with others. And this only further prevents Christians from bonding more with people of dissimilar beliefs, and dare I say also hurts what could be productive witnessing attempts.
At this point, you may be thinking “How can there be any debate? The issue is easy - Genesis is recording history. One side is agreeing, the other side is disagreeing. Only 1 side can be right. It doesn't matter what arguments they make – it only matters what they believe.” But in reality, it is more complicated than that – the real difference is whether a person approaches the passages of Genesis with a literal or figurative understanding. Those who are convinced the literal reading is proper would see, in a figurative interpretation, paradoxes and conflicts with other areas of scripture. On the other hand, individuals who lean towards a figurative understanding of the passages are not as convinced of such conflicts, being more concerned instead with conflicts to the conclusions of scientific research and observable phenomena in our world.
But further masked by this figurative-literal paradigm (and other interpretations of these 3 chapters) is, of course, an issue of author's intent. Did the author of Genesis' early chapters intend to convey the literal, material origins of the universe? Literalists will of course answer yes, but figurative interpreters see the issue differently. They tend to ponder if perhaps the author intended to use a figurative story as an attempt to explain the uniqueness of a Hebrew world view in conflict with the world around us.
Beyond this are further questions one
might ask, all of which can inevitably lead to opposing conclusions.
For instance, was the author intending to speak to everyone who might
ever pick up the book in the future? In other words, did he have a
future universal purpose in mind? Or was he simply speaking only to
the Israelites of the day, who would become God's chosen. Was he
helping to clarify their identity amongst other cultures and beliefs?
Or was he intending to present a scientific account of origins? All
of these are valid questions at least, and answering each will take
you to a radically different place. And why? Because of the
consideration for what an author might be trying to say,
rather than assuming it.
If you've followed with me and taken
every thought captive so far, allow me to give you some final
questions for consideration. How much of the questions raised here
have you asked about your beliefs on prophecy? What about
Genesis 1-3? What about the resurrection? You may be certain of what
you believe – but do you know why someone else might disagree with
you? If so, you may better be able to make progress with your
arguments, learning to rebuke and correct your opponent (2 Tim 3:16).
If not, you may find yourself tending instead to insult and scold
them. These, too, are radically different directions that can be
taken. May you choose the right one.
[1] "Alternate Burial Traditions." Defending the Resurrection. Vol. 3. N.p.: Xulon, 2010. 48. Print. Tekton Building Blocks.
No comments:
Post a Comment