Bible Interpretation
By F. L. Lemley
[Page 87] |
The time is past when anyone can say, "The Bible needs no interpretation." The claim that "We do not interpret the Bible" cannot be taken seriously. All language has to be interpreted. If you do not believe this try translating modern speech into another language. One finds all kinds of difficulty, not only with selecting the proper words with the right shades of meaning, but with the idioms which defy literal translation. There are books published on "the untranslatable riches" of the Greek New Testament.
This creates two obvious questions. (1) If parts of the Greek New Testament cannot be accurately translated into English (to say nothing of thousands of other languages), how can we be sure that we know what the will of God is? (2) If we do not translate correctly, how will this affect our salvation?
In answer to Number 1, any man (uneducated as well as educated) can learn enough from any translation in any language to know Jesus Christ, to fall in love with him, to determine to obey him to the extent of knowledge and ability, and to love his fellowman. It is obvious that salvation does not depend upon ability to read and translate a foreign language.
In answer to Number 2, our salvation does not depend upon a hundred percent accuracy in translation, therefore, such errors made by translators will not affect our salvation at all. God's grace will cover errors of the intellect, but not errors of the heart. Thousands of people who cannot read or write and who have never possessed a New Testament in any language will be saved by faith in Jesus Christ just as the intellectual who is expert in all languages must be saved. We are not attempting to glorify ignorance of languages, but to show that salvation is not dependent upon knowledge of language, but upon knowledge of Jesus Christ.
It is observable that those who cannot read are to a great degree dependent upon those who can. Someone must be able to communicate the message of Jesus Christ, and the talents of an educated man (such as Paul) were of greater value in evangelizing the world than the limited talents of several uneducated men. Translation is good and education is good, but the salvation of an individual does not
[Page 88] |
It is agreed by many scholars that Jesus must have spoken on many occasions in the language of the common people of Palestine in his day, a form of Aramaic. Now if God had been as interested in technicalities, idioms, and preservation of the exact shade of meaning as are some modern scholars, he would have proceeded differently in preserving the text for us. Surely he would have had the words of Jesus copied down in Aramaic, provided us with a dictionary of exact meanings, frozen the language so it could never change, and examined very carefully every scribe who copied. This way the words of Jesus could have been preserved as they were spoken, to the exact jot and tittle.
This is not a criticism of the way God preserved the text, but an observation that God is not as technically careful with the preservation of his word as are some men. When men transfer this extreme care in translation (which in itself is good) to application in actual life, we are likely to see a rather strict form of legalism. The ancient Pharisees came under criticism from Jesus for so placing themselves in the seat of Moses (Matthew 23:1).
We must also observe that if Jesus spoke in Aramaic, the very first Greek transcript was a translation. Matthew, in recording the sermon on the mount, which was probably spoken in Aramaic, had to translate it into Greek. The original autographs from which manuscripts of later date are preserved, are actually translations if this be true.
It does no harm to our purpose to freely admit that these translations were "inspired" translations in the beginning, but the point is that inspiration does not coin new words, define technicalities, transpose idioms, or otherwise remove the difficulty of translating from Aramaic to Greek. Inspiration used the tools at hand. This could account for many difficulties in the New Testament which baffle even scholars today.
This can also explain some sayings which are difficult to interpret, for example, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Some who are familiar with the Aramaic tell us that the word for "camel" and "rope" in Aramaic are very similar. We have to admit that it makes more sense to say that it is easier for a rope to go through the eye of a needle than to say that about a camel. "Rope" fits better in the context as well as with the custom of women in referring to coarse thread as rope. This is but one example of the difficulty of idioms. It may shed some light on Paul's thorn in the flesh, too. Idioms make for interesting study.
Every person should do his best to discover the exact meaning of every word of scripture, but at the same time, we have no reason to become anxious if, through imbecility of mind, defect of logic, or cultural background, we make a mistake in interpretation. God's grace provides for man's defects in this area.
If we may go one step further and apply this reasoning to our modern "issues" we may well render all of them non-essential to salvation. Every one of them is dependent upon the wisdom and interpretation of men. But, if one's conscience gets involved in any of our modern issues, it becomes necessary for that one to follow his conscience and for the rest of us to permit him this privilege. Our salvation does not depend upon the wisdom of men but upon faith in Jesus Christ and in the grace of God. The gospel is God's power to save the wise and the foolish, provided both believe in Jesus Christ and implement their faith by obedience.