Language in Scriptural Interpretation

(Engaging the book "Treasure the Word: A Layperson's Guide to Interpreting Scripture," Joseph Coleson, ed. (Wesleyan Publishing House, 2009))

In his chapter “Language,” David Thompson relates the various ways language and culture are interconnected. In order to understand and intuitively interpret the language used in Biblical writings, the student must pay careful attention to the meanings of the terms. These terms, however, cannot be divorced from their social and historical context. In his first two sections, “Language and Intentional Interpretation” and “Playing by the Rules: Language Games,” Thompson deals with these exact issues arising in Biblical language.

The ability to read Biblical text in its original language does not mean a person is intuitively interpreting it. By having a whole host of resources, history, and other information (especially stored in our minds) helps a person to gain mastery over the text. Thompson says that “the extent of our capacities to enter the thought-world of the text” better enables a person to intuitively interpret in ways faithful to the original intent and to the original culture (pg. 162).

The broader the gap between the culture of the text and the culture of the reader, the more difficult the process can be.  This is particularly true when referring to the study of words. Thompson refers to the “game rules” each culture has in its language. Each culture has its own way of relating words to the things or concepts to which they refer. These language rules are typically learned in childhood and include pronunciations, composition, sentence structure, and how certain terms are differentiated from other terms. By analyzing terms, language rules, and the culture within which they are established, a person is able to more clearly understand the language.

This section of Thompson’s chapter is critically important to the study of Biblical text. In fact, it is some of the most difficult work required for intuitive interpretation. This is why it ought to capture our attention. For many who desire to understand Biblical passages, there is a temptation to jump straight to the summaries regarding the contemporary meaning and applications of the text. This is a great error. Looking at the terms alone misses the critical import of the cultural context within which the terms are used. Since words have meaning, and that meaning is culturally derived, a critical study of the words should not be performed without a critical study of the culture. This can lead the student to rather unfortunate misinterpretations. The result of developing a more clear understanding of the original language and culture will help the student to more faithfully interpret the text. It is from a faithful interpretation of the text, then, that the student is then able to draw more faithful applications when relating the text to a modern day audience. Therefore, this is work that should not be skipped when attempting to interpret Biblical text.

Thompson takes the reader through this process within the chapter by focusing on interpreting Deuteronomy 6:5 and comparing it to Mark 12:30, which has a slightly different interpretation of the same verse. By first addressing the terms used (love, Lord, God, heart, soul, and strength, along with the repeated qualifier “with all”), he shows the importance of understanding the terminology of each.

These terms also exist within a contextual framework – a time, place, purpose, and people. He helps the reader to understand that Deut. 6:5 serves as a general summary of the ten commandments given at  Horeb and a reaffirmation of the covenantal history between Yahweh and His people. At the same time, however, it serves to anchor the forthcoming future exhortations by Moses in Moab.

Without a proper understanding of the book of Deuteronomy being written as a political treaty between the suzerain king Yahweh and His vassal people Israel, a student would wrongly interpret terminology within Deut. 6:5. Specifically the word love, has the biggest potential for misinterpretation. The sense in which it is used here is in keeping with the political/covenant setting that means to preserve the treaty. To love, then, involves faithfully keeping the covenant without any other political allegiance.  It is a love that is obedient and can be commanded. This is a very different understanding than our contemporary usage of the word. This word “love” is then applied to loving with all the heart, soul, and strength.

When love is applied to the “heart” here, it refers to the obedience of a person’s thinking, planning, and reflecting, amongst other intellectual matters. It also includes attitudes, emotions, and feeling. The inclusion of “mind” in Mark 12:30 would help to explain and differentiate between another culture’s understanding of the heart as being primarily emotional and attitudinal versus the mind being primarily cerebral or intellectual. The term in Deut. 6:5 includes both aspects whereas our contemporary culture would separate them. For Mark, then, this seems to be a necessary distinction to make.

There are other aspects of Thompson’s work with Deut. 6:5 that help the reader better understand and interpret. It was a fascinating work to follow, and, as he admits, a still incomplete process toward a fully orbed understanding of the Shema. The paraphrase he constructed was enlightening and clearly empowers the reader to be able to make a well-informed bridge from Biblical text to contemporary culture. 

Effective Leaders

For a long time I have believed the statement that success is very tolerant. Many people find success in a variety of ways – just look at infomercials. One fitness program works better for one person than it does for another. Or we may look at business and Network Marketing industries. Some people succeed very well in one company or industry versus others. These success stories come in all varieties of shapes, sizes, backgrounds, and strategies. One of keys, I believe, are implementing the behaviors consistently. People can find success in both Zoomba and Chuck Norris’ Total Gym because of the set of behaviors they have committed to in order to get the results they desire.


In terms of the effectiveness of pastors, I do not see any difference. Pastoral leadership requires a definitive and unique set of behaviors. As a result, to achieve ‘success’ or to be an effective pastor means we must commit to employing those sets of behaviors.


I think it is important to remember from the research that the information gathered in the table are averages. The average age of the effective pastor was 42. This means there possible would be some very effective leaders in their 50’s or 60’s as well as in their 20’s or 30’s. We should not think that we have to wait until we are in our 40’s that we will somehow attain effectiveness. In similar fashion, we ought to consider the other elements contained within the table (tenure, years of experience, etc.).


In the business world, I have met some effective leaders of every age and background. One of the basic mantras I have heard is “Know what works; do what works.” This speaks directly to skills and behaviors. We have to know what skills it takes in order to be successful and effective in our particular realms of vocation. We then have to commit to the behaviors – to work the plan, so to speak.

Effective Pastors vs Less Effective Pastors

Yes, I think it is very healthy to talk about the differences between effective pastors and less effective pastors. First, it at least causes self-reflection and introspection. From reading this article, I must ask myself, “Am I being an effective leader?” and “How many effective behaviors am I employing?” Asking these questions of ourselves is important for our own personal and professional growth.


Secondly, it is challenging. Though it may sting to think of ourselves as being less effective, it ought to reveal those places where our leadership is weak(er) and need to be addressed. Inviting others to judge our effectiveness is never easy, but necessary. I recently went through my first annual review at my new church. Those who were impacted by my areas of ministry responsibility were involved and they confirmed some things that I already knew were lacking. It also exposed a couple of areas that I did not realize needed to be addressed. Even more, it helped me to further define and clarify what the people I am leading and working with need from me.


Thirdly, and closely related to challenging, it ought to be humbling. The intent is not humiliation, but rather a sober judgment that none of us is perfect, that we all have blind spots, and we all can and should be willing to grow. My recent review was not enjoyable – they never are for me. I realize, however, that they are at the same time helpful. I was able to see that I was not performing to the best of my ability and make the best utilization of my team. We will, of course, do best when we serve within our strengths and empower others to serve within their strengths – especially when they complement our weaknesses.


This distinction doesn't necessarily concern me. Like anything, humans are capable of misusing and abusing. There will also be opportunities for manipulations and power-plays. However, I believe there is more good to come from this than there is evil.