How Not to Interpret Scripture

There is a class that most college students will take at one point in their academic career. It is the course on Western Civilization—“Western Civ” for short. It is a feeble attempt to supplement the modern college curriculum (typically in two freshman-level courses) with what used to be the very backbone of a liberal education. The course revolves around classics of the Western Tradition: Plato’s Republic, Virgil’s Aeneid, Augustine’s Confessions, Descartes’ Meditations, and Locke’s Second Treatise on Government. But one text in particular, I think, has been subject to mistreatment and misuse—the Holy Bible.

The problem is simple. One of the goals of the Western Civilization class is to teach students the ways in which certain texts have shaped the world in which we live. This often does not happen within the modern secular university.

The reason for this is that most people charged with teaching such classes have been deeply steeped within the modern worldview; as such, their understanding of scripture is quite different from the approach that shaped the ancient and medieval world. Typically, there are three ways to understand scripture available to the modern mind—none of these are true to the actual historical reading of the Bible; more importantly, none of these accurately reflect the way in which the Bible has been understood within the Catholic intellectual tradition.

The first of these three approaches to scripture is fundamentalism. This view, which has been popular in America for over a century, is a byproduct of the Protestant rejection of the interpretive tradition of the Catholic Church. Instead of relying on a tradition of apostolic tradition (full of flawed human beings, to be sure) or on the powers of human reason (which are often mistaken) to aid in our understanding of God’s Word, the fundamentalist view simply accepts all passages of the Bible as literal, historical truths. If the genealogy from Adam suggests that the world is 6000 years old, so be it—regardless of what human reason, through the sciences of geology, biology, anthropology, and all the rest may say. The word of God is meant to be taken literally at every step—and our faith demands that we reject our own reason when it conflicts with this literalistic approach to the scriptures.

While this approach to scripture is somewhat influential throughout America, the second approach is constantly growing in popularity among those with a weak background in theology and history, and especially among those who spend a considerable amount of time on the internet (i.e., the young). It is largely derivative of the fundamentalist view, except it is highly antagonistic in nature. This approach to scripture is largely characterized by a highly uncharitable reading of various passages with the intention to undermine their moral, spiritual, or religious authority. Popular authors like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, and popular figures in entertainment like Bill Maher are spokesmen for this approach.

“You expect me to believe that snakes can talk? Or that ‘the first day’ could have existed before the creation of celestial bodies? How childish, how absurd,” they say, without ever attempting to penetrate the text in pursuit of deeper, spiritual, truths.

This view, while rarely endorsed by college faculty (for even most unchurched professors understand how anti-intellectual it actually is) is nevertheless very popular on college campuses due to the combination of theologically uneducated youths, the internet (where misinformation abounds), and a desire to view oneself as intellectually superior; picking on “people of faith” is an easy target when one thinks that such people are naive, superstitious, and simply irrational, given the assumption that everything in the Bible is to be understood (by people of faith) to be literal, unambiguous, scientific, historical truth.

The final approach to scripture encountered on college campuses, while certainly more intellectually respectable, is equally unhelpful when trying to gain an understanding of the way in which scripture shaped our world. This is the historical-critical method, developed in the early modern period by philosophers like Benedict Spinoza. Writing in a period of religious persecution and widespread theological controversy, Spinoza argued that biblical scholars should read scripture as if it were not the word of God—as if the many books of the Bible had no collective unity, no overall meaning as a whole, no purpose beyond what the human author, in his own historically limited view of the world, could have intended.

This became the model of all secular Biblical interpretation within modern universities—the Bible was a collection of ancient writings, stemming from particular and contingent historical circumstances, which could give us insight into ancient Jewish and Christian thought, but is not necessarily reflective of any higher, deeper truths.

The problem with all of these approaches, at least, within a Western Civilization class, is that they are peculiarly modern. That is, they are entirely inappropriate for understanding the way in which the Bible shaped the Western world within the context of ancient and medieval history, which is typically the context in which they are examined.

If the goal of a Western Civilization class is to help students understand the way in which these texts have shaped the world; if it is to involve them in the great conversation that extends back to the fathers of our Western culture, we ought to teach our students how the great minds within the Catholic intellectual tradition understood the word of God, as it was this Catholic tradition that shaped the West.

Students are often surprised to find that St. Augustine, an ancient Roman in a world of pagan superstition, argued that the creation stories in Genesis are not to be understood as scientific, cosmological truths. They are puzzled by the fact that Aquinas, a medieval monk, praises reason, philosophy, and science in addition to faith. This is a product of their lack of exposure to the very worldview that produced Christendom—a blind spot in the college education of many.

The approach to scripture that transformed the Western world is one in which the whole of the scriptures is interpreted through the lens of the Word of God incarnate. God, it is revealed to us, is Truth and Love. Therefore nothing within his revelation can contradict Truth and Love—any interpretation of the Bible that is contrary to the light of human reason or that contradicts the law of love cannot be from God.

Contrary to fundamentalism, our faith, and the scripture in which it is revealed, is not contrary to reason. Contrary to the critics of fundamentalism, we do not treat faith as an anti-intellectual substitute for reason. Contrary to the historical-critical method, the Bible is an integrated whole that cannot be understood merely by an analysis of its parts.

This leads to the last misunderstanding about the scriptures. It is not the Bible alone that serves as the basis for our faith; rather, the Bible is only at home within the Church, with its long apostolic tradition, a tradition of authoritative interpretation that can be traced to Jesus himself. In the Acts of the Apostles, the Ethiopian eunuch could not understand the scriptures until Phillip—an apostle, charged with authority by Christ—interpreted them for him.

It is rare that this apostolic, Catholic approach to Biblical interpretation is offered to students at our modern, secular universities. Thus, the graduates of these universities may ultimately become ignorant of the understanding of scripture that shaped the world in which we live. The approach to the Bible that produced the West as we know it—an approach that looks for deeper, spiritual meanings, transcending the letter of the text, as part of a holistic revelation of the God that is Truth and Love—is often missing from the college curriculum. This is true even in a course like “Western Civilization,” which places such importance on history, interpretation, and the roots of our culture.

Genesis 1:2 is not about a flood.

Genesis 1:2 AND the earth became without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the DEEP.

DEEP what? Jeremiah 4:22 For My people is foolish, they have not known ME; they are sottish (stupid) children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.

23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills mood lightly.

25 I beheld, and, lo, there was NO man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by His force anger.

27 For thus hath the LORD said, "The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.

28 For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will NOT repent, neither will I turn back from it.

IIPeter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of,

that by the word of God the heavens were of OLD, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then WAS , being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth with are NOW, by the same word are kept in sore, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8 BUT, beloved, be NOT ignorant of this one thing,

that ONE day is with the LORD as a thousand years, and a thousand years as ONE day.

Yes, Peter says a thousand years is like a day with God but that is completely out of context with the creation account in Genesis.

The same Creator that had Moses pen Genesis, is the same Creator that had Peter pen how God keeps time. Ignoring God is taking God out of His context.

Everywhere the Hebrew word yom is used with an ordinal number in the OT it means a 24 hour day as we understand it.

Seek wisdom... escape the Jeremiah 4:22 proclamation.

s it beyond God's ability to create everything we know in six days?

Mark 13:23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.

This is NOT about what God can do, it is about what He said He did and why.

If it is, then this coming Sunday might be a problem for Him also. You can't have the ability to do one without the other.

I have no clue what this is about... God did not name the days of our week, man did.

Again, back to the issues brpought up by the author Hayes:

. . . picking on “people of faith” is an easy target when one thinks that such people are naive, superstitious, and simply irrational, given the assumption that everything in the Bible is to be understood (by people of faith) to be literal, unambiguous, scientific, historical truth.

In this, the author is identifying people who take the Bible to be God's authoritative communication to be interpreted literally as a bunch of simpletons. Apparently he thinks that the Romanist allegorical interpretive method is far superior, which it is not, because arguments about such methods cannot be resolved.

God wants humans to understand what He means in telling us the theme, from the beginning, of the coming of the Messiah and his Kingdom of righteousness and peace; and giving us the clear statement of how He saves humans into that Kingdom, to have everlasting life.

Therefore, God does not make His Word unintelligible to the ordinary reader. Here are the four rules with which to regard the Bible:

(1) Normal interpretation is basic. Otherwise we would not be able to understand not only what Hayes has written nor of what God has written. God's Bible is not nonsense or a coded puzzle of some kind.

(2) Literal interpretation is normal. Literal interpretation contains both literal language and figurative-literal language. Do not confuse literal interpretation with literal language, as Hayes seems to whether deliberately or not, I do not know. Figurative and/or allegorical interpretation is NOT normal. It takes both literal and figurative language and lays a meaning (metaphorical, symbolic, or figurative) upon what is said or written. When this is done, the interpretation can be slanted to mean something else than what God wants.

(3)There is only one primary interpretation to which all context lends itself. There may be several secondary applications for which the scripture might explain, but only one specific intended meaning to the humans addressed and in the time frame it is directed, with a specific meaning for those addressed.

(4) There is only one sense for a statement of Scripture. It is commonly and sensibly held that "when the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense." Tyndale advised that "the Scripture has but one sense, which is the literal sense. . . . And if thou leave the literal ense, thou canst not but go out of the way."

What Hayes apparently is not taking into account is that the Bible is, by and large, a book of books written by men writing literally what God has told them to write, but that the language consists of both literal and figurative-literal elements. As a Romanist, he will allow the Scripture to be twisted by allegorical, abnormal surmisings and explanations, yielding abnormal doctrines not imagined by the plain, ordered mind.

Sticking to these rules, one cannot go wrong because:

(1) Your interpretation will be truthful. But if, for instance, you fabricate a an allegorical meaning, you may get caught in a meaning that is not consistent with the context of the Bible. The Scriptures, being reliable, will find out your fallibility and proclaim you a liar.

(2) The literal method is a logical method. This is the normal way to interpret literature, or a letter from your Mom, or a memo from your boss. Framing it as allegory or foreshadowing or some other non-literal way makes nonsense to the reader/hearer until you give your explanation. And even that may still be nonsense. It might get you fired!

(3) The Bible always makes sense when interpreted this way.

(4) If the interpretation is not normal, communication of a Bible truth is impossible.

(5) Experience bears out the normal interpretation, and if you hear and do as God desires, your life is changed by the communication from God.

(6) Jesus interpreted Scripture that way: (Deut 8:3 vs Mt. 4:4; Mt. 22:43-45 vs Ps. 110:1).

(7) Paul interpreted Scripture normally: (Heb. 7:17 vs Ps. 110:4; Heb. 8:8-13 vs Jer. 31:31-34; 1 Tim. 5:18 vs Deut. 25:4; Lk. 10:7).

Of course, without abnormal allegorical interpretation and the traditions of fallible men. the Romanists have no defense against the plain interpretation of the Bible by the common-sense Bible student when their false dogma contradict Scripture, or demand a very convoluted construction to permit the misinterpretation.

(In the above, I have freely used quotations from the book "Here's How! The Bible Can Make Sense To You Today!" by Dr. Fred Wittman, the old retired Baptist missionary and Bible translator who discipled me for over 25 years.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.