One day, I was talking with someone at work and I got into an interesting debate. This person told me that the Bible can be interpreted so many different ways, that it is pretty much irrelevant. I smiled politely and thought of my next move. Knowing that he was an atheist, I wondered how strong his knowledge was of the Bible.
“How well do you know the Bible?” I asked. After a moment, he replied that he never had a desire to read it. Perplexed, I wondered how he knew that it was false if he had never read it before.
“Well, how familiar are you with Greek?” I asked. The answer was predictable. I then went on to explain that the Greeks had multiple interpretations for love, and I rattled off three of them. I then explained that each of those types of love are mentioned in the Bible, and that there is sometimes no distinction in the text, and we lose that in the English translations. He nodded and told me that it was interesting and that he did not know that. I am sure it did nothing to convince him to think differently, but this illustrates the thrust of this post: Christians need to improve their biblical literacy.
When I mention “bible literacy”, I am not referencing having a seminary education or anything of that sort, but rather being a student of what you are learning. If you view the Bible as something you have to read, then you will never glean the life from it. I am guilty of that, and I am doing my best to read it actively instead of reading it as an obligation.
Let’s do a quick exercise. Read 1 Corinthians 14:33-35. It is super-controversial and when taken at face value is really dangerous. Before you disregard my post… know that I am trying to prove that women should be allowed to talk, and that this was a response to an event, not Paul creating doctrine. These are the reasons why…
1. Who was this letter written to? The Corinthians. They had many issues in their church and Paul was writing them to clarify the issue. The issue at hand is the disordered nature of worship.
2. What is the section about? As I just mentioned, the section around it is about disorder during the time of worship (especially with prophecy). After this group of verses (33-35), Paul goes right back into discussing orderly worship, which means this is directly tied to the rest of the chapter.
3. Anything special about the word usage? The word for “silent”, sigao, I have read that it implies a stillness in the face of disorder. We lose that in the English translation.
4. What about the culture of the people? Women in the Roman Empire were not always educated or free to express themselves the way men could. This being said, there are a few theories on what the “disturbances” were.
The men often times went to the forums and knew more about recent theories and religions, where the women were not always free to move about. This would mean that the women would have likely been in the dark when it came to some of the ideas being tossed around. Knowing that the service at times took place in a synagogue, women and men would be on separate sides of the synagogue. This would create disorder as the women would either have to yell across to their husbands to answer questions, or interrupt the speaker to get the proper answer, thus slowing the progress of the group.
It is also believed that the women were abusive of their newfound freedoms in Christianity. They were allowed freedoms that they did not have before, and Paul was trying to temper that. Just like a kid from a strict home going away to college, sometimes people do not do what is right with their new freedoms and abuse them.
It could be one of these issues, it could be all of them. But the important thing is that when this is taken into consideration, it clarifies that it was not doctrine that Paul was creating, but he was creating a temporary remedy for a certain problem.
5. What about Paul’s track record with women? He supported women in leadership. There are numerous women mentioned in the Epistles to the Corinthians and Romans. Chloe and Phoebe are two that come to mind. This showed that he appreciated and encouraged participation from women. It was just that the time was not right in Corinth for them to enjoy total freedom. It might have hurt more than helped.
I am giving this example because it is a debated subject that gets lost when the proper context is not established. That is why it is important for us to understand what it is that we are reading, rather than just taking everything at face value or turning it into something that moves towards our agendas. Instead, we should try to understand why it was written and figure out how it helps us today.
Another example I would like to give is the exchange between Peter and Jesus in John 21:15-17. Jesus asks Peter if he loves him three times. Three times, Peter replies. What often gets lost in the English is that the Greek words used by Jesus the first two times is agape. This God’s love, true love. Meanwhile, Peter responds that he philos loves Jesus. This type of love is brotherly love. Finally, Jesus asks Peter if he philos loves him, and Peter responds that he does. Does this make the complexion of the verse that much different? I hope that it would.
I would like to encourage everyone who reads this to actively engage what they are learning, and not just take it at face value. Yes, it requires effort, but the rewards outweigh the risks in this case. Christians get called ignorant enough, so I try not to give people another reason to use that insult. Ignorance in this case is not bliss, and I hope you feel the same way!
