Question: When does interpretation become misinterpretation?
Peter Gomes: That’s a very good question, and I deal with that in my preaching course when I say, “We must remember that it’s not about me. It’s not about you.” And therefore you have to ask this question: “What does the text permit me to say? What are the options available here? How may I … How may I …” and that’s the operative word. “How may I proceed?” Not, “How can I twist this into something that I wish to say?” Or, “How can I make this fit the agenda of the moment?” And there’s a certain humility – which may not seem to be one of my chief characteristics – but one actually facing the text, the longer one studies, one actually says, “What is here that I am allowed to . . . to deal with?” Which is very different from editorializing or expanding on a particular given point of an argument. You are really looking to see, “What is the subtext here? What is the life that is waiting to be called into being here? And how will it use me, instead of how will I manipulate it or manufacture it to do my bidding?” That’s the hardest thing in preaching, being what an old English … used to call “servant of the Word”. We preachers who take our task seriously are literally servants of the Word. The Word is there. We are in the business of trying to find what it wants us, permits us, wills us to say. Which is why preachers at their best are always dependent upon that third, most mysterious member of the blessed and undivided Trinity, the Holy Spirit. And we’re supposed to be listening, and we’re not supposed to speak until we have heard what the … what it is we are meant to say.
Discuss
Daniel Dixon on January 6, 2008, 7:54 PM
A very well articulated response. 90% of what is suggested here should be applied by most researchers (historian, scientist, etc.).
Daniel Dixon on January 7, 2008, 12:54 AM
A very well articulated response. 90% of what is suggested here should be applied by most researchers (historian, scientist, etc.).
Jefery Reid on January 10, 2008, 1:00 PM
I wonder how the Minister addresses this passage:
"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, [a] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money." — Exodus 21:7-11
If he advocates getting out of the way of the Word, does that mean he believes believers should follow this clear Biblical instruction?
Jefery Reid on January 10, 2008, 6:00 PM
I wonder how the Minister addresses this passage:
“If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, [a] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.” — Exodus 21:7-11
If he advocates getting out of the way of the Word, does that mean he believes believers should follow this clear Biblical instruction?
Jesse Akers on January 17, 2008, 12:54 PM
DEAR Jeffery Reid
old test. laws are addressed by jesus inthe new testment, please read the whole book thoroughly, discuess it with other believers, and surrond yourself with them, if only for a short time, meet new christians as often as you can, read book by christians authors, a lot of them. If you narrow your viewpoint down to only the negative in life of course your views will be negative.
Jesse Akers on January 17, 2008, 12:57 PM
also, remeber this, is it far easier to ask a question, thank to provide an answer, dont judge peoples answers without providing a better alternative on what to do and why.
Jesse Akers on January 17, 2008, 5:54 PM
DEAR Jeffery Reid
old test. laws are addressed by jesus inthe new testment, please read the whole book thoroughly, discuess it with other believers, and surrond yourself with them, if only for a short time, meet new christians as often as you can, read book by christians authors, a lot of them. If you narrow your viewpoint down to only the negative in life of course your views will be negative.
Jesse Akers on January 17, 2008, 5:57 PM
also, remeber this, is it far easier to ask a question, thank to provide an answer, dont judge peoples answers without providing a better alternative on what to do and why.
Jan C on January 20, 2008, 2:37 PM
Biblical interpretation becomes misinterpretation from the first entry. It's well known that a room of people witnessing a particular act will each have their own interpretation of what occurred. We have to assume that the writers are simple conduits with no emotional bias and are well schooled in the art of the word. Making this assumption adds another level of misinterpretation. Combine that with the readers own inevitable biases and comprehension skills; we again have yet another level of misinterpretation.
Jan C on January 20, 2008, 7:37 PM
Biblical interpretation becomes misinterpretation from the first entry. It’s well known that a room of people witnessing a particular act will each have their own interpretation of what occurred. We have to assume that the writers are simple conduits with no emotional bias and are well schooled in the art of the word. Making this assumption adds another level of misinterpretation. Combine that with the readers own inevitable biases and comprehension skills; we again have yet another level of misinterpretation.
Jesse Akers on January 23, 2008, 3:12 PM
dear blinkofaneye
I can agree with you on the readers aspect of interpretation, however with the writers I have to disagree. To begin with the four gospels were written by people who had no predispostion for a bias, Matthew was a tax collector, he of all people gave up everything when he decided to follow christ, Luke was a physician for wealthy greeks, and as far as the prophets of the old test. they usually were not welcomed with open arms by their people. Haggai told people to get off their butts and rebuild the temple, moses told his people to give up all that they knew to go to a land that they didnt know, and prophets like isiah and micah whos predictions wouldnt come true in their own lifetime, the idea that the writers of the bible had a bias to write it doesnt make sense.
Jesse Akers on January 23, 2008, 8:12 PM
dear blinkofaneye
I can agree with you on the readers aspect of interpretation, however with the writers I have to disagree. To begin with the four gospels were written by people who had no predispostion for a bias, Matthew was a tax collector, he of all people gave up everything when he decided to follow christ, Luke was a physician for wealthy greeks, and as far as the prophets of the old test. they usually were not welcomed with open arms by their people. Haggai told people to get off their butts and rebuild the temple, moses told his people to give up all that they knew to go to a land that they didnt know, and prophets like isiah and micah whos predictions wouldnt come true in their own lifetime, the idea that the writers of the bible had a bias to write it doesnt make sense.
Tony O'Brien on February 1, 2008, 9:39 PM
Exodus 22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" has been used to justify the persecution of thousands, including the users of herbal and other unrecognised medicines, yet in the original Hebrew it referred only to those who used curses.
In addition to deliberate misinterpretation is selective usage. How often do we hear the powerful preachers quoting Matthew 10:9&10 "Provide neither silver nor gold nor copper in your money belts.
Nor bag for your journey nor two tunics nor sandals nor staff. No mention of Lear jets in the bible.
Tony O'Brien on February 2, 2008, 2:39 AM
Exodus 22:18 “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” has been used to justify the persecution of thousands, including the users of herbal and other unrecognised medicines, yet in the original Hebrew it referred only to those who used curses.
In addition to deliberate misinterpretation is selective usage. How often do we hear the powerful preachers quoting Matthew 10:9&10 "Provide neither silver nor gold nor copper in your money belts.
Nor bag for your journey nor two tunics nor sandals nor staff. No mention of Lear jets in the bible.
Musycks on March 11, 2008, 9:55 PM
Such a charming and erudite gentleman is Prof Gomes, that it seems churlish to challenge his 'motherhood' staements… but here goes.. my issue with the religious, even the patently good ones, is that they give oxygen to the fundamentalists. How isolated and laughable would the fundies be if the moderates were not giving them a buffer just by existing… imagine?
" Let me get this right… You say you'll be rewarded in some etherial paradise by a couple of dozen virgins if you'll just blow to bits some people who don't agree that a sky-god with a brain the size of a cocoanut (we're made in his image remember) created the entire Universe just for us, on a lazy week some 6,000 years ago'? Please… it's a sketch from Monty Python if we were all able to see it for the pathetic, superstitious stone age twaddle it is.
Gomes believes in an interventionist deity I presume, otherwise prayer is just talking to yourself really.. and the basis of how and why Dog intervenes… total devotion to him?! how venal?! what kind of an evil entity, who could relieve suffering at the wave of a hand, would not do so? apparently the sky-god of choice of Jews, Christians and Muslims! But God is love, right Prof?
He can dress it up with all the metaphor and twists of logic he can muster, but at it's heart it's an empty and sadly wanting philosophy for the truly deluded. Next time you get down on your knees…
'pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space, 'cause there's bugger all down here on earth'!
Musycks on March 12, 2008, 1:55 AM
Such a charming and erudite gentleman is Prof Gomes, that it seems churlish to challenge his ‘motherhood’ staements… but here goes.. my issue with the religious, even the patently good ones, is that they give oxygen to the fundamentalists. How isolated and laughable would the fundies be if the moderates were not giving them a buffer just by existing… imagine?
" Let me get this right… You say you’ll be rewarded in some etherial paradise by a couple of dozen virgins if you’ll just blow to bits some people who don’t agree that a sky-god with a brain the size of a cocoanut (we’re made in his image remember) created the entire Universe just for us, on a lazy week some 6,000 years ago’? Please… it’s a sketch from Monty Python if we were all able to see it for the pathetic, superstitious stone age twaddle it is.
Gomes believes in an interventionist deity I presume, otherwise prayer is just talking to yourself really.. and the basis of how and why Dog intervenes… total devotion to him?! how venal?! what kind of an evil entity, who could relieve suffering at the wave of a hand, would not do so? apparently the sky-god of choice of Jews, Christians and Muslims! But God is love, right Prof?
He can dress it up with all the metaphor and twists of logic he can muster, but at it’s heart it’s an empty and sadly wanting philosophy for the truly deluded. Next time you get down on your knees…
‘pray that there’s intelligent life somewhere up in space, ‘cause there’s bugger all down here on earth’!
James C on December 3, 2008, 2:09 AM
If the care provided by radical Islamists in the developing world is “not a corrupt care”, then that makes replacing it with something better hard. Anyone who wants to try, needs to be very concerned about the possibility of evil ironies.
New Zealand is currently embedded in a (possibly non-evil) irony, where its troops can function in Afghanistan because Afghan villagers are prohibiting Mujahedin from attacking them. It’s funny how power works.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register