Who Will Tell Me What the Bible Really Means?

March 10, 2024

One of the most well-known lines from the Gospel of John comes in today’s Gospel reading: For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. This is a line that has been used for centuries to comfort Christians, particularly during periods in history when being a Christian was a dangerous affair. And it is indeed a very consoling line.  

But how do we interpret this powerful line? For instance, we could ask: Can God have a son in the sense that we  human beings have sons/daughters? And as a ‘Son of God’ did Jesus have the limitations that all human beings have? Or again, can just believing in Jesus be an assurance of salvation?  After all, some of the most brutal dictators and other cruel humans in the world have professed a belief in Jesus, while there are many who do not believe in Jesus who have lived extremely holy lives.  

So yes, this line from John’s Gospel is indeed a powerful line, a very consoling line, and yet it is a clear example of how Scriptural texts often can lead to so much confusion.  And so over the centuries, Christian scripture scholars (especially in all mainline traditions/ denominations) have made many efforts to learn how to correctly interpret the Scriptures. This effort to know the correct interpretation of Scriptural lines is known as Biblical Exegesis.  And the principles used for Biblical Exegesis are collectively known as Hermeneutics. And we are indeed fortunate that today, at least, there is no accusation of blasphemy hurled against those trying to make these studies, even when they come up with conclusions that may not be very palatable to the average Christian or even to those in authority. Of course, it is never easy to accept when a certain understanding of the Bible that we have held for so long is challenged. But maybe some examples of how scripture is studied and how it is interpreted by scholars may help us.

Textual Criticism attempts to find the original text of the various books of the Bible. As the Christian community expanded there was need for various copies of various New Testament texts, and the only way to share a manuscript with a wider range of people, was to make copies  by hand.   And  human error meant that sometimes such copying would not be completely accurate. So, for example, while some copies of Mathew’s Gospel do not include Barabbas’ first name, using textual criticism most mainline scholars have come to accept that the most reliable rendition of Mathew’s narration of the Passion story (which we hear only once in three years on Palm Sunday) includes the first name of Barabbas and reads thus: “Now they had then a notorious prisoner, called Jesus Barabbas. Therefore when they had gathered, Pilate said to them, ‘Which of the two do you wish that I should release to you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus the so-called Christ?’” Incidentally, the name Barabbas means, ‘son of abba’ or ‘son of the father’.  So the irony of the question was that the Jews had to choose between Jesus the son of the father, or Jesus the Son of the Father?? One can see how textual criticism has helped infuse much meaning into a simple question put before the Jews and before us today - for these two represented two quite different ways of bringing about the kingdom promised by God. Barabbas was offering a kingdom on this earth that would be achieved through political upheaval and violence, while Jesus was offering a kingdom that would come about through an inner change of heart.  It would seem that the Jews at that time, and Israel today, and many other religious groups when they have power (including many in Christianity) seem to have chosen the way of Jesus Barabbas, just like the Jews chose when Pilate asked them that question.  

Philological Criticism explores the language used.  First of all the reality is that Jesus spoke in Aramaic, which was more an oral rather than a written language, which meant that his words had to be translated as all the early narratives that made up the Gospel stories were written in Hebrew or Greek.  To take an example from theology, the term ATONEMENT, which is today understood as meaning a ‘making up for, or paying for, one’s fault/sin’ originally just meant ‘reconciliation’ (at-one-ment).  Jesus dying to atone for our sins is often understood today as Jesus paying our ransom to God for our sins, which is quite different from saying that like a counsellor may try to reconcile a husband and wife who are at odds with each other by helping them create a new relationship with each other, Jesus too reconciled us with God by creating a new relationship between us and God, from a relationship of subject and King, to one of child and Abba/Father.  In the same way, Philological Criticism is trying to help us understand the language used originally in order to find the meaning intended by the writers.

Literary Criticism is an approach that first tries to identify the literary style and/or genre, in which a particular passage is written and then tries to interpret it. A study of literary style has shown that the Letter to the Hebrews, which was originally thought of as a letter written by St. Paul, is no more considered as one of his letters. Such literary studies also tell us that the Apostle John could not have himself written the fourth Gospel because the fact is that he was unschooled or illiterate (Acts 4:13) and certainly did not know Greek in which the Gospel was written. Secondly this kind of exegesis tells us to be careful to first find out the genre of a particular passage, whether it is a hymn/poem, a parable, a teaching, or something else.  Thus when we read the genealogy of Jesus in Mathew and Luke, once we understand the particular genre of those genealogies, then we will not be dismayed to find out that the ancestors of Jesus as listed in these two Gospels actually do not tally, though both are considered the Word of God, for we will realise they are not historical records as we understand them today.

Redaction Criticism:  While the former type of criticism breaks down Biblical passages into their ‘original units’, redaction criticism studies how these different units were combined together to form the different stories in our Bible. So if one takes Jesus’ teaching about not putting new wine into old wineskins, redaction critics would point out that it is surprising that according to Mark’s context, Jesus says this while responding to a question as to why his disciples did not fast, whereas the challenge ought to have been made against Jesus himself, as his disciples were just imitating him. So the redaction critic would suggest that while the statement may have indeed been Jesus’ own, the statement has been put by the Gospel writer in this particular context in order to respond to the concern of the early Church as to  whether they should follow the Jewish law in the matter of food and fasting.

Historical criticism is another type of Scriptural study, which focuses on the interpretation of biblical texts in the light of their contemporary environment. Thus, using external sources scholars try to get a more accurate estimate of the year of the birth of Jesus and the Crucifixion, by checking the time of the Roman census and the time when Pilate was Governor of Judea, which are data that can be found in non-Christian sources. The discovery of the Qumran (Dead Sea) scrolls which date from 3c BC to 1c AD, and discovered between 1946 and 1956 gave Scripture scholars a huge amount of valuable information on the historical environment in which the new movement started by Jesus emerged, as well as insights into the way the Aramaic and Hebrew languages were used at that time.

As one can see these several ways of studying the Scriptures (and there are others too) do tend to overlap and cross lines.  All of them together help us interpret the Biblical texts in ways that bring us closer to what the original authors intended, which is very crucial if we must not superimpose our own current understandings and biases on these same texts.  

However, when one becomes aware of these many ways that contribute to understanding and interpreting the Bible (and this list is certainly not exhaustive), it is quite understandable why most Catholics/Christians prefer NOT to spend energy trying to interpret the Bible, and prefer to use it for devotional purposes, - and if they have a doubt or a question, they are quite satisfied with listening to chosen religious authorities.  

This, according to me, is a significant dilemma for the adult Christian.  It is obviously impractical to ask the average Christian to be relatively knowledgeable  in even one of the above forms of Biblical exegesis, much less in all.  On the other hand, if one hands over one’s responsibility to think for oneself,  then one becomes a child, a sheep, who is easily pushed this way or that, according to the dictates of those who claim to know more and are put in positions of authority. And frankly, as we  may all have experienced at different times ourselves, many of these ‘authorities’  are ill-equipped to interpret the Bible themselves and therefore expect a blind belief. And even among many competent authorities, there is the reality that perspective or the lens through which we see things, significantly influences our interpretations, as the  Liberation and Feminist theologians and others have shown us. 

Perhaps  one possible way out of this dilemma - and of course there may be other ways too - may be found if we compare this situation to what we are faced with when there is a serious health issue with one who is in our care.  In this medical situation too we do not have expertise and cannot be expected to develop the same overnight.  And so what we normally (or ought to) do, is that we ask around - perhaps even exploring other systems of medicine  (allopathic or “western’ medicine, homeopathy, acupuncture, ayurveda etc). Additionally, we read up on the net about the issue, and check with others who have faced a similar issue.  And finally, we choose for ourselves, always keeping ourselves open to new input.

I would suggest that this is exactly what we should do when we are faced with questions regarding the meaning of specific Scriptural passages. We need to try to explore alternative explanations offered by alternative theological viewpoints.  Incidentally, official Church teachings are also a source of much help.  However, these must not to be confused or replaced by popular understandings of Church teachings or with what the local priest tells us is the official teaching. I remember when a close relative of mine was getting married to a non-Catholic, the local parish priest told her that according to Catholic law, she had to get her intended husband to sign a commitment that any children would be brought up as Catholics. In fact according to Canon Law such a signing by the non-Catholic partner is not necessary.  

So we do have a responsibility to explore Biblical passages that are of importance to us, and at the end of such an exploration, if we have asked the right questions as I mentioned in my earlier blog (Finding Truth in the Bible - A Lesson in History), and if we respect our own intelligence as a gift of God to each of us, then we may begin to move in the direction of truth.  

First Reading: 2 Chronicles 36:14-16, 19-23

All the leading priests and the people also were exceedingly unfaithful, following all the abominations of the nations, and they polluted the house of the Lord that he had consecrated in Jerusalem.

The Lord, the God of their ancestors, sent persistently to them by his messengers, because he had compassion on his people and on his dwelling place, but they kept mocking the messengers of God, despising his words, and scoffing at his prophets until the wrath of the Lord against his people became so great that there was no remedy.

Therefore he brought up against them the king of the Chaldeans, who killed their youths with the sword in the house of their sanctuary and had no compassion on young man or young woman, the aged or the feeble; he gave them all into his hand. All the vessels of the house of God, large and small, and the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king and of his officials, all these he brought to Babylon.  And these burned the house of God, broke down the wall of Jerusalem, burned all its palaces with fire, and destroyed all its precious vessels. He took into exile in Babylon those who had escaped from the sword, and they became servants to him and to his sons until the establishment of the kingdom of Persia, to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had made up for its Sabbaths. All the days that it lay desolate it kept Sabbath, to fulfill seventy years.

In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, to fulfill the word of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah, the Lord stirred up the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom and also in writing, saying: “Thus says King Cyrus of Persia: The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Let any of those among you who are of his people—may the Lord their God be with them!—go up.”

 

Second Reading:  Ephesians 2: 4-10

But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— not the result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we may walk in them.

 

Gospel: John 3: 14-21

And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned, but those who do not believe are condemned already because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgement, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.