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.