The question arises: What difference does it really make if the majority of the Bible preaching/teaching I have been exposed to over the years has been out-of-context? Isn’t it good enough that the preachers/teachers I have encountered have preached good Christian messages from the passages, even if they failed to really get at what God was really saying there? And, furthermore, who is to decide what a passage “really says?” Isn’t it between the preacher/teacher and God what that messenger “gets out of a passage?” All of this sounds good, and seems to leave the way open for “interpretation.” But, there are “problems” with holding such a view, serious ones.
First of all, the Truth as God gives it in His Word is His, and not subject to mere human interpretation. God specifically states: [Isaiah 55:11]
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
Is God saying that as long as a messenger gives what he believes to be a good interpretation of God’s words, that will be enough? Don’t the underlined words seem to suggest that His word(s) as they come out of His mouth will be fruitful? When men change His words, suggesting they mean something different than He intended them to mean, they no longer fall under the promise of fruitfulness.
Misunderstanding the words of a mere human being can be catastrophic. The nuclear bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 were dropped because a team of American interpreters misinterpreted the Japanese word used by the Japanese Prime Minister in response to an ultimatum given to Japan by America. He responded using the Japanese word mokusatsu. His intended meaning was that he would give serious thought to the warning. But, the interpreters took the word to mean that he would “contemptuously ignore” the warning. Even Japanese words can have more than one meaning. As a consequence, ten days later Hiroshima was bombed.
Misrepresenting God’s words is far worse, even when such a thing is done “accidentally.” It is essential, not optional, that a preacher/teacher of the Bible only preach or teach what the passage under consideration is actually saying. How much damage has been done over the centuries since the New Testament was completed due to preachers/teachers proclaiming things, even good things, that passages they have spoken from never intended?
Consider an example. Suppose a preacher has settled upon presenting a message from 1 Samuel 17 on David and Goliath. His overall message is that God is greater than any “giant” that may stand in the way of a Christian. But is this genuinely supported by the passage? When God inspired this portion of Samuel’s writings, was He wanting to suggest to the ordinary Christian that God would give victory over every “giant” that may confront him/her? Suppose the preacher is addressing a youth group in June. He makes the application of the young people in his congregation “going away to college.” He assures them that the Lord will surely enable them to have victory over all of the challenges they will face away at school. Or suppose the preacher is addressing the man at a men’s retreat near Father’s Day. His message is that God will enable the men to have victory in their calling as husbands and fathers. Or, perhaps the preacher is addressing a group of recovering addicts. His message to them is that in the same way that God enabled David to defeat Goliath, God would also enable them to have the victory over whatever their specific addiction is.
But, you see, although there is biblical truth to these assertions…that God can enable a person to face difficulties in life triumphantly…that is not at all what this passage is about. That is taking it entirely out of context. Sadly, if I were to now identify the real truth revealed in this passage, taken in its full biblical context, most of my readers would prefer the errant interpretations over the Truth intended to be revealed by God. I will leave that for the next post.
Comments