Sensibly interpreting Biblical commands

A very good friend of mine once gave a detailed talk on this subject; I’ll try to relate it as best I can:

When applying scriptural commands to ourselves, it is necessary to appreciate:[ul][li]The prevailing culture of the original addressee[/li][li]The mindset of the writer[/ul][/li]
As a result of this, it may be necessary to perform a ‘two-pass’ translation of commands; the first pass to strip away the cultural and personal peculiarities of the original passage, the second pass to render the core meaning into terms meaningful to us today.

Take for example the instruction “Greet one another with a holy kiss” - instructed by Paul several times in the New Testament.
Does this mean that we Must greet each other with a kiss? are we disobedient if we don’t actually do this?

Taking the view that greeting people with a kiss was a completely normal everyday behaviour in the first century in the middle east; it was simply the way to warmly greet somebody, we could infer that underlying message of the passage is to ‘warmly and sincerely greet one another’.
Translating this again into (in my case) modern British behaviour (all jokes aside), where kissing is generally perceived as a more intimate action than it might have been in Bible times, the instruction to warmly and sincerely greet a person makes more sense when interpreted as ‘eye contact, a genuine smile and a firm shake of the hand’ - in fact we could very plausibly argue that in my country, greeting someone with a kiss actually goes against the spirit of the instruction.

I would welcome responses from anyone on this subject, however, if all you have to say on the matter is “it’s all nonsense because your ridiculous sky deity is imaginary”(caricature), please would you be kind enough to place your post somewhere else.

That’s one of the reasons that I like the New Living Translation so much. It’s a translation based on paraphrase. Another is Today’s English Version.

The NIV, for example, gives 2 Corinthians 13:12 as “Greet one another with a holy kiss.”

The NLT gives the same verse as “Greet each other in Christian love.”

Well, there’s something I just cannot grasp about a Christian metaphysic. If it is a given that we need to interpret text, how do we know our reading is any better or more sensible according to God than the original text?

Just follow the advice of Jesus Himself: refrain from straining gnats and swallowing camels.

I would opine that since the Bible was written between 2000 and 2500 years ago, in different languages, and cannot be understood without translation, it pretty much requires a degree of interpretation.

The example quoted by Mangetout shows the effect of the differences in culture between then and now.

Books like Leviticus, which IIRC is all about law making, describe how a tribal society living over 3,000 years ago managed its affairs. It does not work for modern society.

For example:*

All very amusing, but there is a point to it – that interpretation is required and some parts of the Bible have no relevance to 21st century life. IMHO, the difficulty is getting the right interpretation and determining the degree of relevance. From such difficulties, religious differences, disputes and wars arise.

*Sent as an unattributed email to me.

That whole Dear Dr. Laura piece was trashed by me two and a half years ago in this thread.

Zev Steinhardt

Just read your post in that thread. Sorry, wasn’t a member then. I assumed that the argument was selective; I only quoted it to show that interpretation is required. Specifically that the age of the Bible and the original audience create problems of interpretation.

**

WHAT?? You don’t go back and check the archives before every post you make?!? :smiley: :stuck_out_tongue:

That’s OK. I just wanted to bring up that it was already addressed and is totally bogus…

Zev Steinhardt

And you do? No wonder the hamsters have hernias! :smiley:

The technical term (as I think Lib is aware but for general information) for this sort of paraphrased translation is “dynamic equivalence,” and it’s one of the most hotly debated issues in Bible studies today. In essence, the translator tries to identify the concept that most closely conveys to members of 20th Century Western culture what the original concept did to Middle Eastern culture as practiced by the Jews of Old Testament times and by the early Christians in the first century A.D. For example, as a witness in court I would place my hand on a Bible and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, where Boaz appearing before a judge would place his hand on the judge’s private parts to make a similarly binding oath. The judges of my acquaintance would be somewhat upset if I followed the original Biblical custom in affirming that I will give true testimony! :slight_smile:

There is, of course, one final point to make in this regard, and it’s one that has been repeated (often by me) numerous times in various threads in this forum – “Biblical commands” are capable of a legalistic or a humanistic reading, and it appears clear that Jesus commanded the latter. When the particular Pharisees whom He was disgruntled at would cite Torah or the nascent Mishnah as grounds for their expectation of a particular behavior, His judgment regarding that Law was on the basis of whether it conduced to human benefit and love of God – and He formally commanded His followers to apply a sort of “constitutional criterion” to the Law – does a literalistic following of this particular commandment advance the love of God and of one’s fellow man, or not? If not, do what does advance that love instead. This teaching led Paul to say that we are free from the Law, not to sin but to show agapetic love.

Hence randomly dredging out a given Bible verse that appears to be commanding a particular behavior or commanding the refraining from another behavior, as though it were an excerpt from a penal code which stands alone validly, is not appropriate for Christians. Clearly practicing Jews will have a quite different perspective, and I do not presume to criticize their stance on this issue – but if one is committed to follow Jesus, the least one can do is to do what He says. Those who do not believe in God from either a Jewish or Christian perspective have no dog in this fight, though their readings of the pertinent texts as disinterested parties may be welcome.

So, why read the bible anyway?

Because the bible is the story of some people who came to know God. If you wish to come to know Him, it can help you, in the search for Him.

Don’t forget to seek the Living God. The spirit of God lives in our hearts.

Tris