After my first entry on The Bible, a friend of mine asked me
about my statement regarding our “interpretive differences.” His comment was
that does not Scripture have only one interpretation and many applications. It is
a good, honest and worthwhile question. Here is a part of my response to him
along with some further discussion.
First, I have heard (as you have) the “one interpretation –
many application” thing for as long as I remember. What I have found often is
it is a hermeneutic ploy used quite often when someone wants to trumpet their
particular interpretation of a passage. While “technically” it is a very true
statement, and I agree with it, the fact is, quite often it is not as easy to
determine what that “one interpretation” is. I cannot tell the times I have
gone into a passage with my one interpretation, only to have someone suggest,
“Have you thought about it this way?” It has often caused me to reexamine my
“one interpretation” as truly accurate to what God was actually saying. This to
me is not a lowering of Scripture but a raising the standard of the text. I so
believe that the Scriptures are “God breathed,” to quote Paul, that it behooves
me to be sure I really am getting at what was being said, and not allowing my
western eyes or my evangelical eyes or my male eyes or whatever to influence me
from the truth being taught in a particular passage.
Secondly, and more to the point in this discussion, most of
the “interpretive differences” that occur in a video or television series such
as this one are from narrative passages. They are not depicting the letters of
Paul, Peter or John for example because . . . well, how would you? They are
depicting what 85% of what the Bible actually is . . . narrative. The many
narratives are given to us to show how faith in God is played out in real life experiences.
In these narratives we have different views (or interpretations, although as I
think about it, perhaps “interpretations” is not the best word) as to what may
have happened. For example, in the account of Isaac, they surely omitted some items
in the television production. Some quick examples: They did not depict clearly the
three days travel of Abraham and Isaac and the servants were not with them.
Another would be that Moses wife and children never appeared on the screen. A
final example would be the number of Israelites in the Exodus. There were
possibly as many as 3 million persons who crossed the Red Sea. That would be
difficult to show on screen I imagine.
But here is where our difference can get in the way. Take
two examples. Abraham, Isaac and his servants traveled for 45 miles from
Beersheeba to the region of Moriah. In that entire time, Genesis 22 only records
two one sentence conversations. One was Abe to the servants and the other was
Abraham answering Isaac’s question. Surely in a three day journey there was
more said than that. Surely in the 2-3 hours it would take Abraham and Isaac to
build the altar more was said than the one sentence that is recorded. Yet we
are left to our own to think what that discussion may have entailed. It does
not take away from believing in the text just because what I think may have
been said and what someone else thinks is different. The narrator who wrote the
passage (Moses?) is only giving details that support his main point, which is “Abraham
was tested.” A second example is the crossing of the Red Sea. There was no
image of the pillar of fire/cloud that separated the Israelites from the
Egyptians and the parting of the waters was done in very dramatic fashion. That
is to be expected. However, all Scripture says is that a strong east wind blew
all night and dried up the ground for them to cross. How it looked, we do not
know.
Those are some of the types of differences I am referencing.
They are just different ways of looking at the same event, while both lenses
may give equal credence to the accuracy of Scripture.
0 comments:
Post a Comment