Hermeneutics, as many know, is the theory of how to study and understand the Bible. There are "rules" that are somewhat standardized. Read the Bible as it was written. (For instance, poetry is poetry, narrative is narrative, doctrine is doctrine, etc.) Interpret Scripture with Scripture. That kind of thing. There is one that is never listed anywhere I've seen but seems to always be the common practice. That rule is to first ask, "How do I feel about this?"
"Oh, no," you'll say, "that will never do." And I would agree with you. Still, it seems to be unavoidable. Each one of us will have at least one passage of Scripture that we will interpret based on how we feel about it. Many people do this for a lot of passages. Think about it.
I knew this fine Christian woman who found R-rated movies offensive. She could cite several Scriptures that proved it. She also found it unconscionable that she should have to submit to her husband, so the unavoidable passages that said so obviously didn't mean it. Or look at the question of the morality of homosexual behavior. No one has questioned whether or not the Bible condemns it. There is no question that it does. Today, however, as homosexuals seek to gain acceptance and the label of "normal" from the Christian world, they've managed to reinterpret the obvious passages that say that sex between same-gendered people is a sin, not because the text demanded it, but because they preferred it.
It's obvious. Everyone does it to some degree. You find it offensive that God would order the death of the Amalekites, so it's simply a morality play, not an actual event. The notion that God would strike someone dead for simply touching the Ark is unacceptable, so you consider it a misinterpretation of the people of the time when this poor fellow had a heart attack due to his own training. The wife who doesn't like the idea of submitting to her husband will find reasons to reinterpret the passages that say so. The remarkable restrictions against divorce can be reworded to suit someone who wants to divorce ... or already did.
What would happen if we didn't do that? What would happen if we read a passage and simply took it as it was intended? Well, that could obviously be a problem. Things that we like doing may turn out to be things that we shouldn't. Things that we hate may turn out to be okay. Pet peeves may have to be released. Precious doctrines may be lost. No, no, that would never do.
Or would it? Are we doing God any favors by misinterpreting what He intended to say to us? Are we being good followers of Christ by making rules out of things He never intended? Are we reflecting God's glory by passing on things He asks of us because we don't like them? Maybe, just maybe, this is an extremely poor hermeneutic.
10 comments:
This is spot on as what's wrong with the Christian community these days. I've been excoriated many times for not towing the cultural line on homosexuality. And don't forget abortion. How could any Christian be for it yet they're out their defending it! Corrupted hermeneutics is probably the gravest sin of all.
The problem with mankind is still the same. "Don't eat from that tree!" "Doh, I think I'll eat from that tree!"
One question on divorce. I was married once in my pagan days and quickly divorced (she got her green card though :-). I was totally clueless back then. I see that Paul writes of this situation in 1 Corinthians 7 and it seems that non-believers are let go. What is your biblical interpretation on divorce? Flyguy seems to think it exempts me from being able to say anything with any authority.
Oh, and did that woman ever go to see the R-rated "Passion of the Christ"?
Actually, Eve is a perfect example. God said, "Don't eat from that tree." Satan said, "Did God say ...?" Eve looked at the tree, found it beautiful and likely tasty. She practiced preferential hermeneutics. "Oh, maybe God didn't actually mean what He said ..."
The real question in Scripture on divorce is not as much divorce as it is remarriage. Someone who divorces and remains single doesn't seem to be in peril. The best I can find for remarriage is if the divorce was for adultery (actually, sexual sin) or desertion. One thing that is abundantly clear in the Bible is that if the ex remarries, you cannot remarry your ex. The other thing you'll find in Scripture is that when you become a believer, you are a new creature. "Forgetting what lies behind, I press on toward the mark." You know how it goes.
The thing I have never understood is this attitude, "You made a mistake, so you never have the option to comment on it (or, often, anything at all)." What nonsense! What rubbish! People who make mistakes know better about those mistakes than people who never made them. And there is this idea -- revolutionary, I know -- that "all have sinned." If Fly was to be taken at face value, no one (including Fly) would be allowed to say anything at all with any authority. Utter nonsense! Completely ignores God's declaration of "justified", doesn't it?
I don't know if she saw The Passion of Christ. But inconsistency in someone who practices Preferential Hermeneutics would be a given, wouldn't it?
Thank, Stan. Fly is so off base that I feel like I'm talking to a dogmatic atheist. When he can't get around the fact that he is engaging in (extreme) preferential hermeneutics, he goes to the last resort that the Bible is far from inerrant anyway. He is mostly just immature, it's like talking to a child.
Stan: What would happen if we read a passage and simply took it as it was intended?
But can we stay consistent in that?
Further, the definition of “author” becomes a loaded question—by “author” do you mean God or the human author or both? For example, in 1 Cor. 7:1-17, the human author (Paul), taken at face value, intended for some of his instruction to be considered from God, and some to be from Paul. By declaring the letter to 1 Corinthians to be god-breathed, ALL of 1 Cor. 17:1-17 becomes instruction from God.
If we use what the human-author intended we get one response; the God-author intended a different response.
Or Psalm 22. A passage which was intended to be poetry in which the author depicted his/her state of despair, and God’s ability to take him out of that despair. Christians interpret it also mean prophecy.
If one is a Jew, they would come up with a very different answer as to what the author intended as compared to a Christian. (This is even more complicated by the lack of information as to the author of Mark’s intention. Was he recording history which Psalm 22 accurately predicted, or what he using Psalm 22 in a midrashic fashion to a historic event, or was he using Psalm 22 in a completely mythological sense around a fictional event? Each of those three (3) “intentions” produce different results as well.)
Do you believe women should be barred from wearing gold and pearls? 1 Tim. 2:9. Or do you practice a bit of “preferential hermeneutics” in this passage? Must a woman pray with her head covered? 1 Cor. 11:5. Must a woman submit to an abusive husband? (1 Peter 3:1; see 1 Peter 2:18-20). Must a Christian be anointed to be healed? James 5:14. Can a Christian sue another Christian? 1 Cor. 6:1. Can a Christian ask for restitution if they are a victim of a crime? Luke 6:30.
Due to the differences in knowledge and culture over the past 2000 years, I suspect everyone engages in a bit of preferential hermeneutics at some point. The question (as always) is what method to use to determine when it can be used and when it cannot.
Dagoods! How nice to hear from you again. I was afraid my comment elsewhere had alienated you.
First, I do not mean to imply that the Bible takes no thought. Stupid implication. Nor do I mean to imply that some passages require further examination. Without a doubt. And do people misinterpret the Bible? Absolutely! As a silly example from your questions, James 5:14 does not say a Christian must be anointed to be healed. Not that a person might not conclude that, but that's not what it says. It says that you can go get anointed; it doesn't say that this 1) manages to twist God's arm into healing you or 2) God ignores everyone who doesn't follow this procedure.
Sometimes it's not as clear as you are trying to portray it. 1 Cor. 11, for instance ... what is "long hair"? (That's the "head covering" in mind.) I asked this of my parents when I was a teenager and they didn't have an answer. What was "long hair" on a woman to suffice as "head covering" yet not too long on a man to be a disgrace? What is the point of 1 Tim. 2:8-10 (it is typically dangerous to take a verse out of context)? Is it "Don't wear jewelry" or is it respectable women? How does a reference to slaves (1 Peter 2:18-20) correlate to a reference to wives (1 Peter 3:1)?
There are tough passages. There are reasons to ask questions. (Example: If 2 Peter 3:9 says that it's God's will that everyone is saved, why isn't everyone saved?) What did Jesus mean in Luke 6:30? (How would His listeners have understood Him?)
My post wasn't about the less obvious. My post was about the obvious. And, I think I was abundantly clear that everyone (me included) does it sometimes (that is, preferential hermeneutics).
Can we stay consistent? I'd have to agree with you that we can't ... because we're fallible humans (at least I am). I'm not calling for perfection. I'm asking that we don't substitute careful reading and thinking for "how I feel about it to give myself the best advantage."
Stan, I am a difficult (but not impossible) person to alienate. I don’t have a clue as to what comment you think may have done so; must not have been too terrible. I often don’t post when you are blogging regarding Christianity because you are blogging to other Christians. Do you want an atheist barging in every time? Seems rude.
Although it is not clear the “covering” of woman was hair or clothe (Clement of Alexandria thought it was a veil) we are still left with the problem of women with short hair. (By the way, completely unrelated: from the depictions of men in the First Century, they kept their hair short. What we would call the equivalent of a “bowl cut.” Makes all those pictures of Jesus with long flowing hair kinda silly.)
The display of gold then was a display of wealth—an advertisement to the extent of the person’s prosperity. Whereas gold has become commonplace now, and seeing someone with a gold ring would not cause us to consider them ostentatious. I certainly appreciate the interpretive concept of viewing these verses in light of contextual history (what it meant for a woman to be covered; what it meant to wear gold or pearls) and due to the different culture facing us today, determine they need no longer be literally applied.
BUT…
The culture has also changed regarding divorce. Does this mean the Bible’s teaching on divorce should no longer be literally applied? That some principle should be derived from the passages regarding marriage/divorce/re-marriage? (In fact, this is commonly employed in the slave/master verses. Since our culture has changed dramatically in this regard, nowadays Christians use these passages for employer/employee principles—not to reinstitute slavery.)
Our economic culture is extremely different—does this change the meaning of worrying about tomorrow? Can we now have bank accounts?
And, to hit on a favorite hot topic, even cultural perception of homosexuality has changed. Marriage was not an option for homosexuals. Now it is. Monogamous homosexual relationships were unheard of. Now they are. Do we interpret Romans 1 literally, or derive principles from it?
I wrestled with these issues when I was a Christian. Much easier for me now, of course.
Personally, I think Romans 1 is condemnation of homosexuality. And when I hear the arguments limiting this to homosexuality as practiced within that culture, or in a certain manner…I find such arguments weak.
HOWEVER…
I then hear the arguments of how slavery was different during Biblical times, and how the verses supporting the institution of slavery refer to a different kind of slavery. I equally find such arguments weak. And isn’t that really the same argument those in favor of homosexuality use?
Or I hear how women wearing gold was culturally determined. Women having head covering was culturally determined. I find those arguments to be cut from the same clothe as the homosexual/slavery “culturally determined” argument.
Or arguments about going to a doctor instead of being prayed over, since medicine was not as proficient then. Or arguments about how stock portfolios are acceptable, since our monetary system is different than First Century Judea.
I guess that is why I wonder about the consistency. How can we say that the writings regarding slavery, women, healing, and lawsuits are no longer literal, but principles which modify with cultural change, yet then fall back on things such as homosexuality or divorce/re-marriage and say those writings must be literally enforced?
I wasn’t taking great exception to your blog entry—you are right. Every Christian employs some sort of preferential hermeneutic at some point it seems. From an outsider standpoint, I think the authors truly intended what they said (by way of doctrinal prescription) at the time. The author of 1 Timothy really did not want women to wear Gold. The authors had no moral problem with the institution of slavery.
The problem comes in attempting to apply 2000-year-old writings from a different culture and different knowledge base to today. It is hear that people begin to use their own perceptions to tweak and bend and twist those verses they want to be used non-literally.
(1 Peter 3:1 says, “Wives, in the same way be submissive to husbands…” What is “in the same way”? To determine that, we need look back to the previous reference to submission. A reference to slaves submitting to masters and [unfortunately] even a reference to slaves submitting to a beating from their masters.)
Dagoods: I often don’t post when you are blogging regarding Christianity because you are blogging to other Christians.
I am blogging to other Christians regarding Christianity here. I can't imagine why someone who doesn't believe the Bible would care how it was interpreted. No negative reflection on you intended. And I do appreciate your courtesy.
Dagoods: Clement of Alexandria thought it was a veil
I remember a church in Rapid City back in the 80's that required their women to wear veils to church. Clement, however, was mistaken. (That was intended to be a bold statement for the purpose of a chuckle.) Hair is the constant comment and "symbol of authority" is the stated intent (1 Cor. 11:10). And I still want to know ... what is "long hair"? No one has provided anything beyond a purely cultural or personal preference answer.
Dagoods: The culture has also changed regarding divorce.
I suspect I have failed to properly express what I was saying. We don't get to remove things when culture changes. The point is that there are principles involved. I always look for the principle. On the gold and braided hair thing, he states that the principle is modesty. In the "long hair" question, he states that the principle is "a symbol of authority." What is the principle involved in the divorce passages? "What God has joined together let no man separate." The culture may have changed, but has the principle? I agree with you that this creates extreme restrictions on divorce ... but that's what I read in the passages in question -- extreme restrictions on divorce. (I see it as one of the current failings of Christianity today.)
Dagoods: Marriage was not an option for homosexuals. Now it is.
No, it isn't. Marriage is defined as "a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5). Homosexuals have never had the capacity to marry and still don't. They may have been given the word "marriage" by the court in California, but they don't have the actual thing. Again, the principles remain the same. (And you made a fascinating statement: There was never a concept of a "monogamous" homosexual relationship before now? How odd! Really?)
I suppose I'm a little confused by some of the stuff you reference. Was money bad in Jesus day, but okay now? Was it wrong (immoral) to go to doctor's in Jesus's day, but it's okay now? I've heard some people make these kinds of arguments, but you and I both know they make no sense ... and you're not even a believer.
But here's my primary point. You are using the term "literal" in a different sense than I am. You reference that concept several times. You suggest that we don't take things "literally" today. (You even concur that we shouldn't.) And I'm saying that I disagree. When I use the term "literal" I mean "as it was intended." When Paul (for the sake of discussion) wrote to Timothy about wearing gold, it was the intent to get women to appear modestly. Gold wasn't the issue; the principle was. When David wrote, "Their measuring line goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun" (Psa 19:4), I have no reason to believe that David was intending to convey that there was an actual tent for the sun. He was conveying the idea in poetry that God has everything in order. And when the weather man says on TV, "Sunrise tomorrow will be at 6:35", I don't think "You idiot ... the sun doesn't rise!" I know what he is trying to convey and I take it as he intended it.
Scripture is always subject to scrutiny. Humans are always prone to error. People have always made mistakes with their handling of the Bible. Sometimes it's because it's hard to figure out. Granted. Sometimes it's because they're "Pharisees", hoping to use it for their own ends. Granted. Sometimes (way too often) it's because people just don't think. I'm just asking Christians to be more careful and try to see when they're injecting their own preferences.
Dagoods: What is "in the same way"?
I know ... I won't come across well on this, but, hey, what can I do? I need to be consistent, right? =) So, here goes. The "in the same way" doesn't refer to slaves. It refers to Christ (1 Peter 2:20-25). I cannot find in Scripture a valid license to allow an abused wife to divorce her husband because he's abusing her. Now, that being said, what Scripture is very clear about is this: "The wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife" (1 Cor. 7:10-11). So ... if a married person is willing to remain unmarried, I can't find any reason not to allow the divorce. The problem always occurs (in Scripture) with the remarriage, not the divorce. And I cannot find anyplace in Scripture that says, "Women, do not report your husband's abuse to the authorities." Having him locked up for spousal (or child) abuse is not "divorce" or remarriage. You asked originally, "Must a woman submit to an abusive husband?" Depends on what you call "submit", doesn't it? ;)
Stan,
Let me try it from a slightly different angle. Sorry for the history lesson, but it may shed some light.
Medicine, in the First Century, was nowhere near as sophisticated as today. (Obvious, eh? *grin*). There was debate over what caused diseases, what fluids were in the body, and the primary focus was on prevention. Swamps were seen as (somehow) causing disease, so they were drained. People who drank sewage water became sick—sewage water must be avoided. That sort of thing.
In Judea, diseases and sickness were thought to be caused by demons. If a person was sick, they were demon-possessed. Further, in an honor/shame society, disease and sickness were considered shameful. To “cure” a person at this time, two things were required—remove the demon, and re-establish the person’s honor. This was done by a variety of methods, but primarily though shaman and holy men.
They would both remove the disease (primarily through luck and the body’s ability to heal itself) AND just as importantly restore the person’s honor. Without this restoration, even though the person may become physically well, they would still be considered “sick” by society. A dangerous position being an outcast.
This is how “medicine” (in the loosest use of the word) was practiced.
The author of James was providing an alternative ceremony to that of the shaman or holy man in healing/restoring a sick person in James 5:14-15. If we look to the author’s intent (as best determined by the words themselves within the culture of the time it was written) it was a method to cure and restore the person’s honor.
Quite different from today—we no longer live in an honor/shame society. We also have far greater advances available to us in the field of medicine. More than a prayer and a hope. Hermeneutics will tell us what the author intended (as best we can.) However, the application is far different, due to the 2000 year difference in both knowledge and culture.
In the same way, women were treated far differently in the First century. Hence hermeneutics tells us the author of 1 Timothy really did intend women to not wear gold and pearls, because the wearing of gold and pearls meant something in that society. Gold WAS the issue, because gold had significance unlike leather or clothe or lesser medals. Something no longer applicable today. (And we can look for the underlying principle—but that is bringing our own interpretation into the text. To start claiming the words mean more than what they say goes outside hermeneutics and into interpretation.)
It is the same reason women are told to wear coverings, and men to not. That meant something within that society. (I could explain the economic/monetary differences as well, but hopefully the point is sufficiently made.)
Now turning to the homosexual issue. (By the way, I am not intending to turn this into a debate on homosexuality/marriage. It is just a good compare/contrast situation, and I see the same argument being used.)
In the first century, homosexual relationships were fairly common in the Roman society, but not in the Judean society. Often it would be a client/patron whereby the older man would have homosexual relations with a younger man. In exchange for this relationship, the older man would provide for the younger man, including an education. However, the same men would often be married to women, and provide progeny. Marriage was seen as a societal tool—both to continue one’s lineage, as well as for social status.
Even the Greeks figured out homosexual relations did not produce children.
That is what I meant by saying monogamous homosexual relationships were almost unheard of. (And I meant it at the time of the First Century when the Bible was written. I did not intend to imply “there was never a concept of a ‘monogamous’ homosexual relationship before now.”)
Homosexual relations would always be outside of marriage. Would always be an extra-marital affair. As I said, times change. In our culture, homosexuals can now marry. (While you may disagree with whether their relationship qualifies as marriage, I am focusing on cultural differences between the First Century and now. And there is more to the culture than just the United States. Canada provides for same sex marriage, as well as European countries.)
Look how the argument is the same:
1. Wearing gold meant something in the First Century. It was a sign of a sin (immodesty.)
2. Wearing gold no longer holds the same significance in our culture.
3. Therefore we look to the principle of the sin underneath the problem of wearing gold—i.e. modesty.
1. Having homosexual sex meant something in the First Century. It was a sign of a sin (adultery.)
2. Having homosexual sex in a monogamous marriage no longer holds the same significance in our culture.
3. Therefore we look to the principle of the sin underneath the problem of having homosexual sex—i.e. adultery.
Now, as I said before, I am not personally convinced by this second argument proposed. But equally I am not convinced by the first argument for the same reasons. How can we consistently say the wearing of gold requires us to look at the principle underneath, but the prohibition of homosexual acts we do not?
How can we say, “I get to look at the principle underneath; but you may not”? What method do we use, in determining author’s intent, to know when to look at the principle underneath?
I don’t mean to pick on you (much, he he he). I see this in all Christians. As I said, I struggled myself with attempting to align the various books with their various positions, and have at least the barest form of a methodology.
Since we are on 1 Peter 3:1—how does saying “in the same way” refer to the previous passage on Christ help you? It talks of Jesus suffering and being wounded. Is that any different than a slave being beaten by a master? (Personally, I think the passage is following a similar patter to Ephesians 5-6, and the submission in 3:1 within a relationship is referring to the same submission of a slave/master in 2:18, and the better hermeneutic is that “in the same way” refers back to 2:18. Not the parenthetical statement about Christ. Be that as it may, referring back to Christ doesn’t help any.)
I Cor. 7:5 says husbands and wives cannot deprive each other of sex. 1 Cor 7:10 says a woman must not depart from her husband. To leave is a sin. 1 Cor. 7:11 says if she does depart (has already sinned), she must reconcile with her husband. If she does not—that, too, is a sin.
Eph. 5:22-24 says a wife must submit to her husband the same way the church submits to Christ.
How can a woman divorce her husband and not violate 1 Cor. 7:5, 1 Cor. 7:10 and Eph. 5:22-24? If you say a woman is “allowed” to divorce and still be under submission to her husband, AND the submission is the same as the Church under Christ—can the Church divorce from Christ and still be under submission?
Makes no sense. (And this goes both ways. I don’t see how a husband could love his wife and divorce her at the same time. Ever.)
Good discussion.
Dagoods: "To start claiming the words mean more than what they say goes outside hermeneutics and into interpretation."
Hermeneutics is defined as "the study of the interpretation of religious texts." The goal is not to avoid interpretation, but to have rules and means of having a proper interpretation.
Having said that, you have to know that you are interpreting the Bible through your own lens. James wrote what he wrote because, well, he was wrong. He had a First Century understanding of medicine and demons and all and, well, we just don't need all that anymore. I, on the other hand, would say that James (and I believe it was James) wrote it because he knew what he was writing. God has the capacity to heal. Go to the elders and ask God for healing. The oil is a good touch. Jesus used mud to heal the blind man. We need concrete structures (then and now). God uses means to accomplish His ends. If you would like divine healing, go ask for it. (As an aside, I knew a great orthopedic surgeon. He was asked, "Do you believe in divine healing?" He replied, "I don't know any other kind." The assumption again is that if we have a secular explanation, it must be that God is not doing it. I think that's a faulty assumption.)
The homosexual issue is the same sort of thing. You interpret the Bible through a purely cultural, secular lens. I interpret it as if God had a hand in writing it. If He did, I'd assume that he's not stupid enough to include stuff that had no meaning later. "I am going to see to it that they write absolute prohibitions in the First Century. I just hope those 20th Century folks are smart enough to figure out that I didn't mean it." That doesn't work in my mind. Nor does the text support it. And that is the primary difference between your hermeneutic and mine. I look for the principle in the text, not the history book or the culture of the day. They can provide illumination, clues, information, but not principles.
Most of the time, the principle isn't hard to find ... because it's simply written there in plain text. I didn't rewrite the question of whether or not women should wear gold. It's written there. "I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly" (1 Tim. 2:9). Indeed, the sentence begins with "likewise". Like what? "Without wrath and dissension" (1 Tim. 2:8). The goal is to prevent wrath or dissension. This is best accomplished when women are not immodest. That's the written principle. I didn't make it up. It's there. Nor did I make up the prohibition against homosexual activity. "God gave them over to degrading passions" (Rom. 1:26). That includes sexual sin of whatever type, but is connected with "the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another" (Rom. 1:27). It is consistent with the prohibition of all sexual sin found in 1 Cor. 6:9-10. The principle: "Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?" (1 Cor. 6:9). I'm not making this stuff up or pulling it out of thin air. It's the text. My primary approach for finding out the principle in the text involved is to find it in the text involved. I know, hard to believe, but that's my simplistic approach.
Oh, on the "submit" thing, here's the deal. Sometimes it is necessary to help someone by hurting them, so to speak. Parents know this. They have to discipline their children -- do something the child won't like -- for the purpose of making them better. Since I believe that an abusive husband (as an example) is harming himself as well as his wife, his wife would do well for him to do whatever she can to make him stop. If that can happen through counseling, great! If that means having him arrested, so be it. If it requires leaving (and remaining single), okay. (Again, despite how you see it, I can only see a biblical problem with divorce when remarriage is involved. Of course, how many people imagine divorce without remarriage? Almost a moot point.)
Post a Comment