Today, many Christians are avidly into their New Year’s resolution to read the Bible more often. The question I wrestle with is, “How are we reading the Bible?” A teaching I discovered this past year that has given me insight into this question is:

“the text has a primary claim on the reader, namely, to be construed in accord with its intended sense.”[1]

The above statement is by a fellow named Ben Meyer. He was a Jesus scholar who wrote a book called the Critical Realism. The basic thesis of his book is that we cannot know what the “intended sense” is by simply reading the text. In some places, it may be obvious, but in most places, the intended sense needs to be discovered by entering into a critical dialogue with the text and its context. We cannot simply read the Bible as if the language, culture and context are “on a seamless historical continuum” with our time and place. What Meyer is saying is that the text is "embedded" in an historical context. Thus we need to grasp what was going on at that time and place to help us better understand its meaning for today.

To make this even more simple, the question I ask myself when I read the Bible is -- what was the “groan” at the heart of the person who wrote the text? What inner tension needed to be resolved? What external forces were at play that generated the pressure that produced the “groan”? Once I get the "groan" I can better get how that groan does or does not relate to my situation today.

Some readers of the Bible think that it is not necessary for them to understand the context within which it was written or why the original author wrote it. To them, the Bible is "timeless truth" and the Spirit of God will reveal to the person what is or is not relevant for them today.  Once they have “the word of the Lord” for their situation, as my Pastor says, they are to “obey right away, all the way, with a heart filled with love.”

The principle that all sincere believers must recognize is that the meaning they discern from the Bible, “the word of the Lord” for their situation is subject to and governed by the original intended sense of why it was written. Otherwise, we make the Bible say whatever we think it says by constructing a subjective understanding of the text based upon what “rings a bell” intuitively as a “revelation” to our situation.  

Also, we often come to the text with our own pre understanding of what it says. This understanding is coloured by our life situation and what others have taught us. Thus, we read our own meaning into the text rather than reading the texts own meaning out of it.

There a number of problems with reading the Bible this way.

First, it disconnects the Bible from its historical real world context. This defeats the purpose for which we read it because often we are reading it precisely because there is a real world issue we need to address and we need the Bible to make sense for us in our real world context.

Second, instead of listening to the original author of the text, we end up listening to theologians who have turned what the original author has said into "timeless truths." What is worse is that we make these interpretations, “the revealed word of God,” instead of attempting to understand what the original author said and meant.

An example of this problem is the ongoing debate over the role for women in leadership. The RSV version of 1 Timothy states “Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.” 1 Timothy 2:11-12

You would think from a cursory reading of this text that Paul thinks women have an inferior position in the church with respect to leadership. Thus, numerous theologians have taught a "timeless truth" that subordinates the role of women in the context of ministry (e.g. Charles C. Ryrie).

This was my experience in the first church I attended. Women were not allowed to speak at all in our public assemblies and played an inferior role in the leadership of the church.

Also, the average Bible reader, who reads this text, could possibly conclude that Paul was a misogynist (women hater) unless they take the time to find out why that text is there. Either that or they selectively screen out scriptures like this one so as to make their Bible reading more pleasant, which begs the question of what other scriptures they are also screening out.

Yet, if one takes the trouble to do some background reading on the issue and consult a range of commentaries you would find out that there were specific problems relating to women in that particular historical context that probably precipitated that injunction. Overall, the New Testament teaches that women had an important role to play in the church and that a number of them were in positions of leadership (e.g. Lydia in Acts 16; Priscilla in Acts 18 & Phoebe in Romans 16:1-2)

In fact, N. T. Wright, one of the foremost New Testament scholars both in exegesis and first century history, has stated that Jesus’ acceptance of Mary’s position at His feet (Luke 10:39) was an implicit cultural affirmation that women were not only to be disciples but teachers as well, for that was what was expected of a disciple who “sat at the Lord's feet and listened to his teaching.” (See Wright’s 1992 audio series on Romans Disc 10)

Thirdly, in our very individualistic culture, there is a real danger that when we read scripture out of its context we will find warrant in it to conduct ourselves out of character with the heart of the gospel. For example, suppose we are in disagreement with our brothers and sisters in the way we do church.  Rather than follow the scriptural injunction to respect church leadership and “be at peace” with one another (1 Thessalonians 5:13), we can find warrant to be at odds with one another by an individualistic reading of 2 Corinthians 6:17 which states “Therefore come out from them, and be separate from them, says the Lord...” And thus we rationalize the division and disunity that our disagreement has precipitated. This verse has engendered many church splits. It has been the cause of much relational division in the church body and tragically brought shame on the name of Christ.

[1] Ben F. Meyer "Critical Realism and the New Testament" (San Jose, CA: Pickwick Publications, 1989). 24.

[2] I have lifted this phrasing from the preface of John Stott's book Christian Mission in the Modern World: What the Church should be doing now!
.