How To Argue about What the Bible Means
Some suggestions for fighting fair and fruitfully
Disagreements about what the Bible means—especially on social media—often go like this:
Somebody makes a claim about what a passage of the Bible “obviously” means. They might call their interpretation the “plain meaning” of the passage. They put their interpretation out there and assume that any reasonable person will agree with them.
Tweet sent.
Masses educated.
Welcome to my Ted Talk.
Everyone doesn’t agree, of course. When disagreements begin in the comment section, the discussion often turns to questions about motives and faithfulness. Anyone who can’t see this plain meaning I see must be ideologically compromised—so conformed to a worldly way of thinking—that they can’t see the plain truth when it stares up at them in black and white. Or maybe they don’t really believe in the authority of Scripture and are being willfully spiritually rebellious. Or maybe it’s both.
It’s probably both.
In other words, a common way we explain differences of interpretation is by appealing either to ignorance or disobedience, or both.
There’s a better explanation that’ll get us all closer to faithful interpretations of Scripture.
Whenever anyone reads the Bible—you and me and John Calvin and Joyce Meyer and everybody else—there are three dynamics going on at once. There is what’s happening in the text; what’s happening behind the text; and what’s happening in front of the text.
In the Text
In the text are the words on the page (vocabulary), how those words are arranged in sentences (syntax) and what those words mean in particular combinations (including idioms, figures of speech, proverbs, exaggeration, and more). It also includes literary devices like repetition, patterns, quotations, and the like.
In Luke 8:40-55, for example, Jesus responds to a request from Jairus, a Jewish official, whose daughter is ill. They strike off together toward Jairus’s house and are interrupted by a woman “with an issue of blood.” If we look carefully at the details in the text, we notice interesting parallels and repetition. Jairus is concerned about his “daughter.” Jesus refers to the woman as “daughter.” Jairus falls at Jesus’s feet. So does the woman. Jairus’s daughter is 12 years old. The woman has been bleeding for 12 years. First things first, we pay attention to the details in the text to understand what the passage means.
A key question to ask to catch what’s in the text when you read is, What clues does the author leave to indicate what details are important in this passage? In the case of Luke 8, an important clue is the parallel of details between the woman and child.
Behind the Text
Behind the text are the events, social systems (like form of government, economics, family structures), cultural dynamics, histories, geographies, and other assumptions the original author shared in common with the original audience. In the Bible, one thing that is very often behind a passage of Scripture is another passage of Scripture. These things often don’t show up explicitly in the text (the author doesn’t say “see page 1,342) because they went without being said. They aren’t worth mentioning if both the author and the reader took them for granted. Even so, what’s behind the text makes sense of what we see in the text.
Throughout the Book of Ruth, for example, our heroine is identified in the text not simply as “Ruth” but as “Ruth the Moabite woman” (or “the Moabitess”) almost every time she’s mentioned. Repetition is a clue in the text that a detail is important. So we’re safe to assume that the significance of Ruth’s story has something to with her being a Moabite. Something in the text (“Ruth the Moabitess”) points us to something behind the text (“What’s the deal with Moabites anyway?”).
What went without being said for the Israelites at the time is they detested Moabites. They had their reasons. The Moabites had questionable origins. In Genesis 19, Lot’s daughters get him drunk and have sex with him. Both get pregnant. The child of the eldest daughters is named Moab. His descendants are the Moabites. (The child of the younger daughter is named Ammon, whose descendants are the Ammonites.) The Moabites lead Israel into idolatry during their wilderness wanderings (Numbers 25). They fight against Israel when they try to inherit the Promised Land (Joshua 24). For all these reasons, Moabites and Ammonites were banned from worship in Israel’s temple: “No Ammonite or Moabite may enter the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation …” (Deuteronomy 23:3).
This history is behind the narrative of Ruth’s life. The author of her story expects us to know that she’s a member of a hated foreign tribe. The author expects us to be shocked when Ruth shows profound covenant faithfulness to her Israelite mother-in-law and God. The author expects us to be doubly shocked when God makes Ruth—who based on her Moabite-ness should not be allowed even to enter the Temple of God—a key part of the lineage of King David and eventually of Jesus, the Messiah.
A key question to ask about what’s happening behind the text is, What does the author think I know that would help me understand what’s going on? In the case of Ruth, the author thinks we know Israel’s history with the Moabites and share their disdain for them.
In Front of the Text
What’s going on in front of the text is essentially the mirror image of what’s going on behind the text. It’s the events, social systems, cultural dynamics, histories, geographies, and other assumptions that shape my perception of the world, often so profoundly that I don’t give them much thought. I call this dynamic “in front of the text” because it sits between us and the Bible when we read, like a screen or a filter or a lens. We can’t take it off. We can’t read around it. We have to read through it.
We can, however, become aware of it and account for it when we read. And this is a crucial step because if you’re a white, Western American man like I am, the world in front of the text is different in almost every way from the world behind the text of the Bible.
A key question to ask yourself about the world in front of the text is, What experiences or assumptions do I have that 1) connect with this text and help me understand it or 2) make it hard for me to understand or accept what the author is saying?
I’m spending a little more time here than on the other dynamics for several reasons.
For one, it’s my jam. I spend most of my time reading and writing about the world in front of the text for modern Western readers of the Bible.
Evangelicals don’t spend near enough time talking about this.
It has real consequences for how we interpret the Bible.
Our world in front of the text shapes what we see in the text when we read. In fact, it makes certain details leap off the page and others nearly disappear from view. Here’s a great visual illustration of what I mean from my friend Jackson Wu:
Second, our world in front of the text influences how we understand, assess, and prioritize what we discover behind the text. To take only one brief example, how important we imagine economic issues to be in the text will be influenced by how important economic issues are to us.
Fighting Fair and Fruitfully
When we disagree about what the Bible means, we may think we’re always disagreeing about what’s in a particular passage. Probably we aren’t. Probably we are disagreeing about what’s behind the passage or in front of the passage (or both).
Let’s take a highly controversial example, just for fun.
1 Timothy 2:11-13 says:
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
In the text we find words like “quiet” and “submission”; a reference to Adam and Eve; and the (presumably) clear commands, “I do not permit” and “she must be quiet.”
Someone will say that the “plain meaning” of this passage is that women should not be ordained as senior pastors. Others will say this passage “couldn’t possibly” be talking about women’s ordination. Whenever I see words like “plain” or “couldn’t possibly,” those are flags to me that both parties are assuming some information behind and in front of the text.
Interpreters of this passage point to several different things possibly going on behind the text that might influence our interpretation.
The most obvious is the reference to Adam and Eve, so behind this text, at minimum, are stories about creation (Genesis 1) and the fall (Genesis 3).
Others have noted that behind this passage is an assumption about who are appropriate candidate for learning at all. Paul says, “A woman should learn…” That was a pretty radical claim at the time, as we argue here.
Still others claim that Paul is using veiled language to reference the worship of Artemis, which elevated women over men. (Check out this helpful Twitter thread.)
In all cases, the relevant thing behind the text is connected to a detail in the text. And what we consider relevant information behind the text will determine what we think the text means.
Here’s where the third dynamic comes in: the details that stand out as relevant in the text and the relevance or feasibility of the options behind the text are highly influenced by what’s in front of the text for each reader. One reader will see “learn,” another “submission,” and another “teach.” One’s complementarian convictions will likely absorb this passage into the broader context of ordination. Another’s egalitarian convictions will likely absorb this passage into broader conversations about gender equality. These prior personal experience, social commitments, and theological convictions will further influence which of the explanations behind the text appears most likely and most relevant.
In my experience, people are quick to acknowledge the world in front of the text for someone else and very slow to acknowledge their own. (“You’re misreading the text through your post-modern identity politics! You’re misreading the text through your unacknowledged misogyny!”)
That’s why rules of engagement are so important for arguing about what the Bible means. The most helpful thing we can do in these disagreements is to ask questions that unpack these various dimensions.
Do we disagree about the definitions of key terms in the passage?
Are we putting emphasis on different details in the text? (I.e., I’m emphasizing “submission” and you’re emphasizing “learn”…)
Do we disagree about what factors behind the text are most likely and relevant?
Can we articulate the assumptions in front of the text for each of us that incline us to see and prioritize certain details over others?
If we can ask these questions—and answer them—sincerely, we all stand a better chance of interpreting the Bible faithfully. In the process, we can turn supposed adversaries into partners who can help us see things more clearly. I for one need all the help I can get.