Interpreting the Bible

Unfortunately, many Christian leaders have offered a great deal of advice over the years relative to Biblical interpretation that is designed to lead the student to the same conclusions their teachers have reached! I'm thinking of statements like: "Remember, the Bible NEVER contradicts itself," "God has revealed to me what this scripture means," "The Bible should always be interpreted literally," "This scripture can only be interpreted this way," or "You must accept or reject the Bible in its entirety." To be fair, most of the folks who make these kinds of statements do not do so out of any malicious/nefarious motivation. In their minds, they are trying to guide Bible students into truth and/or away from error.

Nevertheless, ensuring that a student arrives at some predetermined understanding of Scripture carries the often unintended consequence of short-circuiting what should be a very personal, unique and positive experience for him/her. Indeed, the Bible itself makes clear that God intended for each person to arrive at their own conclusions/convictions about the meaning(s) of Scripture. In short, it is self-evident that God designed us to be seekers/explorers/questioners and to interpret the Biblical evidence which we discover/uncover with the assistance and guidance of God's Holy Spirit. Hence, whatever we do to assist each other in this regard, we must keep uppermost in our minds that each person must internalize those truths for him/herself.

The Bible Society lists four ways that the Bible has been interpreted by different people: literal, symbolic, ethical and mystical. As these labels suggest, each one of these methods/approaches to Biblical interpretation is unique and very different from the others. Of course, taking the Bible "at face value" or literally is probably the most popular approach among many Christians. Even so, the allegorical/typological/symbolic method also has much to commend it (i.e. the fact that it was frequently employed by Christ, the prophets and some of the apostles). The moral/ethical approach has also been used down through the centuries by many Jewish and Christian believers and has an obvious practical application for our daily lives. Likewise, the eschatological/mystical approach is a favorite of those who are very interested in or focused on understanding prophecy. Finally, it should also be noted that the various methods mentioned above often overlap and are not considered mutually exclusive by most students of the Bible.

It should also be noted that not all of the principles espoused by Christian ministers are self-serving or subjective. In fact, some of their admonitions/advice regarding Bible study is quite helpful. I'm thinking about things like: praying before/during/after Bible study, interpreting verses within their context, consulting the meanings of words in the language in which they were written (e.g. Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic), consulting more than one translation, using scholarly commentaries and not basing your conclusions on a single passage of Scripture - all of these constitute excellent advice in attempting to understand the Bible and doing so in a way that maximizes objectivity and minimizes the opportunities for error. And you could probably think of a few more principles of your own which you have successfully employed in guiding your own study of Scripture.

Finally, I think that we could all benefit from looking at the way that other writings/documents are interpreted. For instance, Bhanodai Pippala has identified The 4 Ways To Interpret The Constitution. These are identified as Originalism, Textualism, Pragmatism and Stare Decisis. An originalist attempts to discern the intent or meaning that the author intended. A textualist, on the other hand, focuses on the wording of the document itself. A pragmatist considers the consequences of his/her interpretation and attempts to arrive at an outcome that minimizes any negative consequences. Those who attempt to follow stare decisis look at the way the document has been interpreted by authorities in the past and attempts to reach an interpretation which is consistent with those views. It seems to me that all of these methods which have been employed by folks to interpret the Constitution of the United States have some merit and could also be applied as valid principles for interpreting Scripture.

In conclusion, it should NOT be considered to be a disaster or failure when different people employ different methods or arrive at different conclusions about the meaning of Scripture. The Bible itself makes plain that the interpretation of its contents is a very personal and individual exercise. That is NOT to say that we cannot or should not collaborate on studying the Bible or attempt to help/assist each other in growing in grace and knowledge - It is simply an affirmation of the fact that God can and does speak to each and every one of us, and we don't have to have anyone else up in the middle of all that!