Here’s a follow up to yesterday’s post.
It is easy to succumb to the temptation of reading secondary sources (dictionaries, commentaries, etc.) before you have had the time to absorb the text for yourself. In the endeavor to interpret the Bible, especially some of the more difficult passages, we might be moved to grab that commentary to help us figure it out. Resist it, standing firm in the text!
It is much, much better for all readers—students, preachers, and other serious readers—to learn the habit of first reading the text largely on their own. Even the most sophisticated advocates and practitioners of the most complex historical-critical methods emphasize this:
Before reaching for the secondary sources, such as the commentaries, one should try to formulate a provisional analysis of the text.
In other words, spend time with the text by itself. Look at it over and over again. Ask questions, even basic questions you think you already know. Meditate on the passage when you’re standing in line at the grocery store or sitting in a waiting room. Listen to it on audio. OWN THE TEXT for yourself. Then, and only then, can you handle secondary sources responsibly.
Here’s a suggestion which I have written about before and one that was recommended by Dr. Nijay Gupta on his blog.
“WORD WALL: Print out the Scripture text in super-large font and plaster it on the wall. I use colored pencils and mark up the text with notes and thoughts, prayers, impressions, highlighting important words, etc. I suggest keeping it “up” all week and spending time each day (maybe twice a day) marking it up more.” [he’s addressing pastors here, but this can easily be adapted for personal use]
Don’t be owned by commentaries; Own the text first. Then make responsible use of those commentaries that can help you refine your interpretation and guard you against going down some rabbit hole.
 Michael J. Gorman, Elements of Biblical Exegesis: A Basic Guide for Students and Ministers (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010), 28.
Translations can be frustrating.
We tend to forget that when we read our English, Spanish, French, German, or whatever Bible, it is only a translation of the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic text. These translations were done by groups of scholars (and sometimes individuals) that were looking at the original languages and trying to figure out how best to translate words that were used in a different cultural context than our own. This is difficult work.
One of the reasons it is difficult is because of the nature of language. Language is not stagnant. It changes over time and how words are defined changes with it. Here’s an example. Let’s look at the word “nice.” According to the Oxford English Dictionary, “nice” means:
1 giving pleasure or satisfaction; agreeable.
▶ good-natured; kind.
2 fine or subtle: a nice distinction.
▶ requiring careful attention. 
But that was not its original meaning:
The word nice entered Middle English in the sense ‘stupid’, from Latin nescius, meaning ‘ignorant.’ It developed a range of senses, from ‘wanton and dissolute’ to ‘strange or rare’ and ‘coy or reserved.’ It was first used with a positive connotation in the sense ‘fine or subtle’ in the 16th century, and the current main meanings, senses 1 and 2, are recorded from the late 18th century.
That’ll make you think twice before you call someone “nice.”!
On top of this issue, Greek and Hebrew words have what is called “semantic domains.” A semantic domain is a range or area of meaning related to a specific word. And the word’s sense is dependent upon the surrounding context (i.e., the sentence, paragraph, document.) “For instance, English has a domain ‘Rain,’ which includes words such as rain, drizzle, downpour, raindrop, puddle. We use these words to talk about the rain.”  So, the translators have to determine what sense the author of the text was trying to communicate to their audience.
Words alone do not determine meaning; we interpret them based on the context that they are in, namely their genre. The same words will be interpreted differently if they are found in a different genre or context. 
[Semantic Anachronism] occurs when a late use of a word is read back into earlier literature. 
What does this have to do with how we interpret the Bible? There is an overarching tendency amongst Christians to import our 21st-century meanings into the words we read in the Scriptures. We think that the translated word means the same thing back in its ancient context as it does today. When we do that, we end up doing violence to the text and rendering an interpretation that can be far off from what the original author intended. In other words, we make it express something that it does not signify.
One of the struggles that we have as individual interpreters is that we have traditional readings that have been handed down to us by our family, pastor, or favorite teacher. We think we understand how a passage or word is to be interpreted because we have been told how to interpret it. In other words, we do not do the work ourselves and just accept a reading because it came from an “authority” we trust. This is just plain laziness on our part and one of the root causes of mishandling God’s word. This not only does damage to the Scriptures, but it can really hurt other people that you share it with.
We have some great translators that have done a great job giving us very accurate renditions of the Bible. Some of the best are those like the NASB, ESV, NRSV, and others that seek to stay as close to the original language as possible. But that still does not solve the problem about how to interpret individual words.
Here are a couple of suggestions that will set you on the way to interpreting words and passages will greater accuracy:
 Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson, eds., Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
 Marc Zvi Brettler, How to Read the Bible (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 2005), 13.
 D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Carlisle, U.K.; Grand Rapids, MI: Paternoster; Baker Books, 1996), 33.
Pay attention to how the video describes “meditation.” This slow, methodical, vocal reading of Scripture is a key absorbing the text into your mind and heart.
I was skimming through a book I had read a while back and rediscovered this quote that adequately sums up my perspective on the importance of reading the New Testament through “1st-century eyes” before we seek to apply it to our current context.
“New Testament interpretation is a dialogue, simply because any twentieth-century attempt to inquire into first-century writings is bound to be a dialogue. A dialogue that starts by recognizing the inescapable distance between the first century and the twentieth, which begins with the recognition that a first-century text is bound to be in some degree or other strange and foreign to us. For if it is not, the likelihood is that we have assimilated the one to the other too quickly; we have allowed the voice of the twentieth century to drown out the distinctive tones of the first century; or the word of the first century to drown out the questions of the twentieth century. If the former is the temptation of the too critical, the latter is the failing of the too uncritical. But if we want to hear the distinctive voice of the New Testament writings, whether in terms of what marks them out from other first-century writings, or in terms of hearing the otherliness of the word of God addressing us now, some sort of dialogue is unavoidable: a dialogue in which we find our own questions being clarified and redefined and in which we allow ourselves to be put in question.” – Dunn, James D. G ( The Living Word)
This evening has been taken up by some deep reading in the field of hermeneutics. I have been working through Thiselton’s Hermeneutics: An Introduction. The first couple of chapters were a bit challenging, but I am now getting into the flow of his thought. What a ride! He has provoked me too much thought and challenged my own “settled” views on interpretive theory. But the following statement caused me to put the book down and think for a moment. This is what he says:
“…hermeneutics is not an instrumental discipline used supposedly to support theological or Christian doctrinal conclusions at which some have already arrived. We are looking for ‘integrity’ rather than Kant’s ‘autonomy'” (pg. 124)
It has me wondering how often I, rather unconsciously, do this when studying the text. How often do you do this? Ideally, we would want to approach the text of scripture and allow it to say what it has been saying all along or even allow it to speak to our particular context and culture. But we do the text a disservice and do not act with “integrity” when we only go to the Bible to prove a point that we have already settled on. I know I’m guilty of this and sometimes it is hard to differentiate between what I need to “hear” to make me feel better about where I am theologically and what the text is saying.
Just a thought to keep in mind when you study the Bible. We all do this. But it helps tremendously to be aware of it.