HONEST INTERPRETATION?
In discussions with some who do not believe in the
existence of a literal, physical Hell, I have been told that it is a
serious mistake to take literally such references to and descriptions
of post-expiration torment such as are found in Luke 16:1931 (the
rich man and Lasarus), Matthew 13:40-42, or Revelation 20:11-15. On
the other hand, the same people said, it is just as serious an error
to take as only figurative such
passages as those which refer to the battle of Armageddon, to the
thousand year reign of Christ, or to the number 144,000 as mentioned
in Revelation 7:4-8. The criterion for such discriminating
interpretation seemed to be a prior commitment to viewpoints which
require such interpretation. To one who does not share their
viewpoint, their interpretations do not seem entirely foolproof, to
say the least, and their way of switching from the literal to the
figurative application does not seem entirely logical.
A similar experience has been afforded me through study
with members of the denomination with which I have been long
associated, and it makes me wonder whether we are not all to some
extent guilty of the same type of improper rationalization. Allow me
to quote some examples.
A couple of years ago I became convinced that in the
instruction of Paul to the church at Corinth regarding their gift for
the famine-stricken saints of Judea, there is actually no implication
that the practice of “laying by in store” was to be
continued after his arrival. He speaks of his coming in terms of
picking up their gift for delivery to Jerusalem. Furthermore, there
is no instruction for any collection other than this one for the
benefit of the Judeans. It thus occurred to me that, if this indeed
were only a temporary practice, Christians would be under no
obligation to continue in it today. I have, upon further study —
private and public — concluded that this is the case. However, when
discussing this matter with some Christians I find that they are not
inclined to receive my idea favorably; and, while they do not oppose
my reasoning in actual argument, they continue to maintain publicly
that “we are commanded to lay by in store upon the first day of
the week.” Thus they deny the validity of my interpretation of
this scriptural matter, and in effect deny my right to thus
rationalize.
The same reaction occurs whenever the doctrine is
challenged which says that weekly observance
of the Lord’s Supper, on Sunday, is mandatory for Christians,
or is “the only safe way.” It is denied that one has the
freedom to rationalize upon the silence of the scriptures in this
matter and thus judge for himself as to the essentiality of it.
The principle of consistency would lead one to expect
the same Christians to reason similarly in other matters, but not so.
Like the people mentioned in the introduction of this matter, these
brethren arbitrarily rationalize in interpreting some New Testament
commands, while determinedly opposing such rationalizing in the
matters already mentioned.
As examples of New Testament commands from which some
Christians excuse themselves, please consider the following:
1. 1 Corinthians 11:6 (Revised Standard Version) “For
if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair;
but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her
wear a veil” The instruction has to do with worship, and
explicitly teaches that the woman should be veiled. This commandment
is not taught, much less enforced, among those who maintain rigidly
that weekly, first-day communion and contribution are bound upon us
today.
2. 1 Corinthians 14:34 (RSV) “... the women
should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to
speak . . .” 1 Timothy 2:11, 12 “Let a woman learn in
silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to
have authority over men; she is to keep silent.” In every
church with which I have ever been associated
during the eighteen years of my Christian existence, there have been
women who learned not in silence, but with free speech; who did
speak, often; and who took occasion to teach lessons on the subjects
under consideration in adult Bible study classes. Furthermore, I do
not recall a single instance in which they encountered any
interference from either preachers or elders.
3. James 5:14,15 (RSV) “Is any among you sick?
Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over
him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer
of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and
if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.” What a valuable
service for the elders to render a member of the flock! Yet I have
never known of a single case, within the denomination with which I
have been associated, of this command being observed in practice.
Every time one of these commands is brought into
discussion, the brethren rationalize their way around it. Ancient
“customs,” no longer in practice, are mentioned as having
helped to inspire these commands, and so the commands are no longer
appropriate, etc. So the reasoning goes.
I am not suggesting that these commands should be
observed today — I feel that they had mainly a contemporary
significance. But the point is that there is no justice in reserving
for one’s self the privilege of reasoning one’s way
around a commandment while denying that privilege to someone else.
The same authority which enabled Paul to write the command of 1
Corinthians 16:2 enabled him to write the commands of 1 Corinthians
11:6; 14:34; and 1 Timothy 2:11, 12; and enabled James to write the
command of James 5:14. The same liberty which permits other
Christians to rationalize about the last four passages cited permits
me and anyone else to judge (for ourselves) how to interpret and
apply 1 Corinthians 16:2 and 1 Corinthians 11:26.
QUESTIONS
Truth Seekers’ FORUM is
different in that it does not try to answer questions raised by
readers. It only passes the questions along for other readers to
consider, who in turn may send us their comments for this column. By
means of such an exchange all may be stimulated to further study.
Here are some of the questions we have received:
Does the New Testament teach
that a murderer must give his life? Does it teach capital punishment?
I have been taught that after the flood, the Lord laid down capital
punishment to preserve mankind. Is it wrong if we do not have capital
punishment? — M. B.
John and Joe are both Christians, sharing a common hope
and faith. But they differ on some matters: John believes in tithing
while Joe does not; and Joe objects to Bible classes and does not
attend them, though he attends worship with John. Moreover, Joe
supports orphanages while John objects to this. While neither
endorses everything the other does, they can nonetheless enjoy
fellowship with each other.
Is there anything unscriptural
about their relationship or anything wrong with this view of
fellowship? — M. Friendly
THE INDIVIDUALITY OF UNDERSTANDING
How utterly impossible is the suggestion of some that unity may be achieved by trying to “see the Bible alike.” One who has paused to contemplate the nature of human life should know better. If the world should last another million years, and if men should surpass anything formerly accomplished in the realm of human relations, so that sympathy and mutual understanding flourish, there will still be no two humans who react identically to anything.
Walt Whitman wrote that “There was a child who
went forth every day, and the first object he look’d upon, that
object he became, and that object became part of him for the day or a
certain part of the day, or for many years or stretching cycles of
years.” Whitman perceived that each individual is the result of
all his experience, which begins in the womb and continues through
every year of his life. His unique experience is one of the clearest
reasons for his individuality. Two people may share an experience,
but in a very important sense it is a different experience for each.
We appreciate differences in background and make
allowances for them in matters where these differences are obvious,
but we need to understand that for every obvious difference there are
possibly a hundred subtle differences. These also have their effects
upon our relationships, especially in communication.
Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote of the complications of
communication and pointed out that when John and Peter are in
conversation, there are actually six individualities involved. There
is the person John thinks of himself as being, and there is John as
Peter sees him. Then there is the true John, which neither Peter or
John fully understand. Then there is Peter as conceived by himself,
as conceived in the mind of John, and finally Peter as he really is,
understood by neither.
The difficulties of successful communication are easily
appreciated if one accepts this analysis as true. We must remember
that in the scriptures communication is between divinity and
humanity. There is also the difference made by the passing of
nineteen hundred years. Add to this the many problems of translation,
especially the subtle variation of meanings It so many words can
have, and it becomes apparent that “seeing the Bible alike”
is not so simple after all. — FORUM Editor
ON FELLOWSHIP AND ENDORSEMENT
All parents surely disapprove of numerous acts of their
children, but they do not disown them for these. Neither do we need
to disown our brothers and sisters in Christ because we do not
approve 100% of what they believe and practice. We may accept people
without endorsing everything they do. God censured the Jews without
abandoning them. Paul called the Corinthians brothers and
fellow-saints while denouncing their behaviour. He also denounced
Peter’s behaviour at Antioch, but their fellowship was
unaffected. David did not endorse the hatred of Saul, but persisted
in regarding him as “God’s anointed,” and would not
cut him off. — M. Friendly