Making sense of Scripture - Part three

Interpretation and Context

OBJECTIVITY AND SUBJECTIVITY

     The great danger of private interpretation is the clear and

present danger of subjectivism in biblical interpretation. The

danger is more widespread than is often immediately apparent. I

see it manifested very subtly in the course of theological

discussion and debate.

     Many times after discussing the meaning of a passage, people

rebut my statements by simply saying to me, "Well, that's your

opinion." What could such a remark mean? First, it is perfectly

obvious to all present that an interpretation I have offered as

my own is my opinion. I am the one who just gave the opinion. But

I don't think that is what people have in mind.

     A second possible meaning is that the remark indicates an

unspoken rebuttal employing the guilt by association fallacy. By

pointing out that the opinion offered is mine, perhaps the person

feels that is all that is necessary to rebut it, since everyone

knows the unspoken assumption: any opinion which comes from the

mouth of R.C. Sproul must be wrong because he never has been and

never could be right. However hostile people may be to my

opinions, I doubt that is what they mean when they say, "That's

your opinion."

     I think the third alternative is what most people mean:

"That's your interpretation, and that's fine for you. I don't

agree with it, but my interpretation is equally valid. Though our

interpretations are contrary and contradictory, they can both be

true. Whatever you like is true for you and whatever I like is

true for me." This is subjectivism.

     Subjectivism takes place when the truth of a statement is

not merely expanded or applied to the subject, but when it is

absolutely determined by the subject. If we are to avoid

distortion of Scripture, we must avoid subjectivism from the

beginning.

     In seeking an objective understanding of Scripture, we do

not thereby reduce Scripture to something cold, abstract, and

lifeless. What we are doing is seeking to understand what the

word says in its context before we go about the equally necessary

task of applying it to ourselves. A particular statement may have

numerous possible personal applications, but it can only have one

correct meaning. Alternate interpretations which are

contradictory and mutually exclusive cannot both be true unless

God speaks with a forked tongue.

   Hence, we are concerned with setting forth the goals of

sound biblical interpretation. The first such goal is to arrive

at the objective meaning. of Scripture and to avoid the pitfalls

of distortion caused by letting interpretations be governed by

subjectivism.

     Biblical scholars make a necessary distinction between what

they call exegesis and exegesis. Exegesis means to explain what

Scripture says. The word comes from the Greek word meaning, "to

guide out of." The key to exegesis is found in the prefix "ex"

which means "from" or "out of." To exegete Scripture is to get

out of the words the meaning that is there, no more and no less.

     On the other hand, eisegesis has the same root but a

different prefix. The prefix eis, also coming from the Greek,

means "into." Thus, eisegesis involves reading into the text

something that isn't there at all. Exegesis is an objective

enterprise. Eisegesis involves an exercise in subjectivism.

All of us have to struggle with the problem of subjectivism. The

Bible often says things we do not want to hear. We can put

earmuffs on our ears and blinders on our eyes. It is much easier

and far less painful to criticize the Bible than to allow the

Bible to criticize as. No wonder Jesus frequently concluded His

words by saying, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear" (e.g.,

Luke 8:8; 14:35).

     Subjectivism not only produces error and distortion, but it

breeds arrogance as well. To believe what I believe simply

because I believe it or to argue that my opinion is true simply

because it is my opinion is the epitome of arrogance. If my views

cannot stand the test of objective analysis and verification,

humility demands that I abandon them. But the subjectivist has

the arrogance to maintain his position with no objective support

or corroboration. To say to someone, "If you like to believe what

you want to believe, that's fine; I'll believe what I want to

believe," only sounds humble on the surface.

     Private views must be evaluated in light of outside evidence

and opinion because we bring excess baggage to the Bible. No one

on the face of this Earth has a perfectly pure understanding of

Scripture. We all hold some views and entertain some ideas that

are not of God. Perhaps if we knew precisely which of our views

were contrary to God, we would abandon them. But to sort them out

is very difficult. Thus, our views need the sounding boards and

honing steel of other people's research and expertise.

THE ROLE OF THE TEACHER

     In the Reformed churches of the sixteenth century, a

distinction was made between two kinds of elders: teaching elders

and ruling elders. Ruling elders were called to govern and

administer the affairs of the congregation. Teaching elders, or

pastors, were responsible primarily for teaching and equipping

the saints for ministry.

     I am convinced that now, as much as ever, the church needs

an educated clergy. Private study and interpretation must be

balanced by the collective wisdom of the teachers. Please do not

misunderstand. I am not calling the church to return to the

pre-Reformation situation in which the Bible was held captive by

the clergy. I am rejoicing that people are starting to study the

Bible on their own and that the blood of the Protestant martyrs

was not shed in vain. What I am saying is that it is wise for

laymen involved in Bible study to do it in connection with or

under the authority of their pastors or professors. It is Christ

himself who has ordered His church so as to endow some with the

gift of teaching. That gift and that office must be respected if

Christ is to be honored by His people.

     It is important that teachers have proper education. To be

sure, occasionally there arise some teachers who, though

unschooled and untrained, nevertheless have an uncanny intuitive

insight into Scripture. But such people are extremely rare. More

often we face the problem of people calling themselves to the

role of teacher who are simply not qualified to teach. A good

teacher must have sound knowledge and the necessary skills to

unravel difficult portions of Scripture. Here the need for

mastery of language, history, and theology are of critical

importance.

     If we examine the history of the Jewish people in the Old

Testament, we see that one of the most severe and abiding threats

to Israel was the threat of the false prophet or false teacher.

More often than by the hand of the Philistines or the Assyrians,

Israel fell to the seductive power of the lying teacher.

The New Testament bears witness to the same problem in the

primitive Christian church. The false prophet was like the

hireling shepherd who was concerned more for his own wages than

for the welfare of the sheep. He thought nothing of misleading

the people: leading them into error or to evil. Not all false

prophets speak falsely out of malice; many do so out of

ignorance. From the malicious and the ignorant we should flee. We

need teachers who have sound knowledge and whose hearts are not

set against the Word of God.

     Private Bible study is an important means of grace for the

Christian. It is a privilege and a duty for all of us. In His

grace and kindness toward us, God has provided not only gifted

teachers in His church to assist us but His own Holy Spirit to

illumine His Word and search out its application to our lives. To

sound teaching and diligent study God gives blessing.