Tag Archives: interpretation

Goats and cheeseburgers

Years ago, my family and I were in Buenos Aires. While there, we went to the Abasto Shopping Center. There we saw something we’d never seen: a Kosher McDonald’s. (It’s the only one outside of Israel)

What makes a McDonald’s kosher? Well, among other things, there are no dairy products on site. Exodus 23:19, 34:26 and Deuteronomy 14:21 say, “Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.” Broad interpretation of these verses forbids all mixture of meat and dairy.

The prohibition about cooking a young goat in its mother’s milk seemingly had to do with a fertility rite that was common in Canaan. The Law was addressing a specific practice from a specific historical context. It really wasn’t written to keep you from having cheese on your Big Mac.

As we look at biblical texts, we need to remember that they have a context, they have an original purpose which may not be identical to our purposes.

We need to remember that laws about not cooking baby goats in their mother’s milk shouldn’t be applied to cheeseburgers.

God’s Law

The first five books of the Old Testament are known as the books of the Law. Among other things, they contain the commands of the Law which Moses gave to the people. It wasn’t just Moses, of course. This was God’s law for His people.

The Law addresses everything from routine matters of daily life to specific ordinances for worship. We see an example of this in Leviticus 2:

“When anyone brings a grain offering as an offering to the LORD, his offering shall be of fine flour. He shall pour oil on it and put frankincense on it and bring it to Aaron’s sons the priests. And he shall take from it a handful of the fine flour and oil, with all of its frankincense, and the priest shall burn this as its memorial portion on the altar, a food offering with a pleasing aroma to the LORD. But the rest of the grain offering shall be for Aaron and his sons; it is a most holy part of the LORD’s food offerings. “When you bring a grain offering baked in the oven as an offering, it shall be unleavened loaves of fine flour mixed with oil or unleavened wafers smeared with oil. And if your offering is a grain offering baked on a griddle, it shall be of fine flour unleavened, mixed with oil. You shall break it in pieces and pour oil on it; it is a grain offering. And if your offering is a grain offering cooked in a pan, it shall be made of fine flour with oil. And you shall bring the grain offering that is made of these things to the LORD, and when it is presented to the priest, he shall bring it to the altar. And the priest shall take from the grain offering its memorial portion and burn this on the altar, a food offering with a pleasing aroma to the LORD. But the rest of the grain offering shall be for Aaron and his sons; it is a most holy part of the LORD’s food offerings. “No grain offering that you bring to the LORD shall be made with leaven, for you shall burn no leaven nor any honey as a food offering to the LORD. As an offering of firstfruits you may bring them to the LORD, but they shall not be offered on the altar for a pleasing aroma. You shall season all your grain offerings with salt. You shall not let the salt of the covenant with your God be missing from your grain offering; with all your offerings you shall offer salt.” (Leviticus 2:1–13)

No guesswork is involved here. No reading between the lines. No necessary inferences. No Encyclopedia Brown hermeneutic.

When God wants to specify something, He knows how to specify.

I can do all things…

(Hmm… no discussion about citizenship yesterday. Maybe we’ve said all there is to say on the point on this blog, at least for now.) On Facebook yesterday, I had a discussion with Keith Brenton about Philippians 4:13. He had posted a clip from the upcoming movie “Soulsurfer,” and I made the snide comment: “I can quote all texts out of context through Christ who strengthens me.” Keith pointed out that, despite being misused, that verse has helped a lot of people. [Edit, 9:20 a.m.: I should note that Keith expressed no disagreement with any of the points presented in this blog; his post was merely a springboard for these thoughts.]

I’ll concede that point, yet I’m not sure that the end justifies the means. Quoting words from the Bible because they support some idea we already have seems like a dangerous practice.

Let’s look at Philippians 4. In this part of the chapter, Paul is talking about money, about dealing with abundance and dealing with hardship. Verses 10-12 read

I rejoice greatly in the Lord that at last you have renewed your concern for me. Indeed, you have been concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it. I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want.

Then in verse 13 he says, “I can do all through Christ who gives me strength.” The problem, of course, is that just saying “all” in English doesn’t make sense. We have to do something there.

But before we look at that, let’s get the rest of the context, verses 14-19:

Yet it was good of you to share in my troubles. Moreover, as you Philippians know, in the early days of your acquaintance with the gospel, when I set out from Macedonia, not one church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving, except you only; for even when I was in Thessalonica, you sent me aid again and again when I was in need. Not that I am looking for a gift, but I am looking for what may be credited to your account. I have received full payment and even more; I am amply supplied, now that I have received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent. They are a fragrant offering, an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God. And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus.

It’s obvious, isn’t it, that verse 13 is about being able to deal with difficult financial circumstances. So how have different versions translated this verse?

Wycliffe gave it this shot: “I may all things in him that comforteth me.” Yeah, I can see why the KJV revisers saw fit to make that a little more readable. They gave us the famous: “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.” That phrasing became so popular that it was copied time and again, from translation to translation, particularly the “all things” part, even though “things” isn’t in the original.

That’s not an unreasonable way to translate this verse. The problem arose not from the translating but from the use given to the words themselves. Stripped from context, the verse came to be an inspiration to mountain climbers and wannabe millionaires, to pregnant moms and fearful soldiers. The fact that Paul was talking about being able to face financial hardship was ignored by the vast majority of the people quoting that verse.

A few translations have tried to help us:

I have the strength to face all conditions by the power that Christ gives me.” (GNT)
Christ gives me the strength to face anything.” (CEV)
Whatever I have, wherever I am, I can make it through anything in the One who makes me who I am.” (The Message)
I can do all this through him who gives me strength.” (TNIV)
I can do all this through him who gives me strength.” (NIV 2010)


Personally, I think that the last two translations are on to something. Using “this” instead of “things” directs people back to the context. It lets them see that Paul has something specific in mind: enduring hardship. It’s not meant as a self-motivation phrase. It certainly wasn’t coined to be used in multilevel marketing seminars. It’s not a pick-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps aphorism.

It’s about being able to be content with whatever life sends. I can be content with abundance or want, because Christ gives me strength.

When your nephew is going to bat in Little League and his mom says, “Remember, you can do all things through Christ,” don’t feel that you need to stop and have a theology lesson. But now and again, you can remind your friends that this text, like all biblical texts, has a context. Without that context, it’s just a bunch of words.

Not worth the fight

I guess it’s no secret that the topic of music is a highly-charged one in our brotherhood. I don’t plan to get into that argument per se; you can look at the discussion going on over at Jay Guin’s blog if you don’t know what I’m talking about (I would send you directly to Wineskins.org, but there is a brother there who insists on completely dominating the discussion. If you can’t be coherent, be loud).

Something that concerns me about the historical view held within our brotherhood are the multiplicity of arguments used to support, many which actually contradict the others. I can’t help but wonder if, when pressed on the matter, if these brothers would insist that others hold exactly to their view or is belief in the same practice enough?

The typical assertion about baptism is that the act isn’t enough, that you need to hold to the proper understanding. Does the same hold true about music? If one believes that all use of instruments in the Bible was sinful while another holds that the Old Testament allowed instruments but the New Testament doesn’t, do they believe the same thing? If one believes that the Greek word “psallo” excludes the use of instruments while another believes it refers to instruments, but that our instrument is the heart, do they believe the same thing? I could go on and on.

My fear is that we are starting from a conclusion, then working backwards to support it. If not, why the wide variety of opinions to support our practice? Many of these beliefs, might I add, are virtually unique to the person holding them.

I’m an a cappella guy. My roots are in the a cappella church, and unless I can see something of real substance to be gained by bringing in instruments, I’m not interested. But I’ve read the arguments that try to make this a critical issue, from the bizarro world of Piney to well-reasoned arguments by men like Everett Ferguson and Jack Boyd. I’m just not convinced.

It’s not worth the fight. Not worth the fight to make people use instruments, not worth the fight to make them stop. God is quite capable of expressing himself clearly on important issues. And he chose not to on this issue. Because it’s not worth the fight.

When original isn’t good

Photo by Ove Tøpfer; from Stock Xchange

I got a message on Facebook the other day, asking me to look at some Bible studies someone had prepared concerning Jesus’ return. This person told me: “I show things completely differently and in a different way than you have seen before…”

When I hear something like that, little alarms go off in my head. When it comes to Bible study, originality is not a good thing. When I reach a conclusion that I’ve never heard before, I try to find someone else who has reached that same conclusion in the past. Failing that, I show my tentative interpretation to others (sometimes here in this blog), asking them to show me where I’m wrong.

The fact is, it’s hard for me to believe that so many godly people could have studied God’s Word for years without someone arriving at the right interpretation. If I come up with a truly original interpretation, odds are that I’m truly wrong.

When it comes to Bible study, originality is not a good thing.