From time to time I have pondered the question of how we should best interpret the Bible, and what principles work the best for understanding the Bible well, including an awareness of the importance of both near and whole biblical context, the structure of the Bible (which often follows a chiasm), principles like that of continuity, charity, and non-contradiction [1], and so on.  Sometimes, though, it is as important to know what not to do as it is to know what to do, and recently a group of amateur exegetes who for some reason are on my Facebook friends list have provide some great examples of some of the ways that biblical interpretation can go seriously wrong, and without naming any names I think it is worthwhile to profit from their example, given the widespread potential copying of these bad techniques for biblical interpretation.

As is often the case, a bad method of biblical interpretation is often a good one taken too far.  As someone who takes the Bible seriously, I find it worthwhile to seek analogies to situations that one is dealing with, to seek wisdom in the examination of situations that are similar to what one is dealing with.  To the extent that one can examine one’s own behavior or one’s times and the situations one has to address and can see others that are a parallel, then recognizing similarities and analogies is quite useful.  In that way we can see an example that is similar enough to provide us with insight in how to handle our own times and our own experiences while also recognizing that the fit is not an exact one but is rather a parallel that has contrasts as well as comparisons that can be made.  Analogical reasoning is an important aspect of learning from history, but at the same time it behooves us to recognize that our times are in some ways different from what came before and our situation is not identical, and so we must be aware to ways in which the differences might also influence the way we respond based on historical insights we can gain.

It can be very tempting, though, to move beyond analogical reasoning to seek to equate people with biblical figures.  In so doing we move beyond an analogy to say that someone is like Gehazi because they appear to be greedy, and then claim that they are Gehazi, often to the exclusion of other layers of meaning for the identification that we make.  It is very tempting for people to identify themselves in biblical history as particular important figures, while identifying their rivals and haters as less flattering biblical personages.  At times obscure prophecies can be given an elaborate reading where some sort of tempest in a teapot is given a cosmic significance by being compared to one or more selected incidents from biblical prophecy, so that people can view their own petty intramural strife as being filled with eternal importance, rather than seeking insight through an understanding of the Bible and an application of eternal and evergreen principles to the specific situations that we have to deal with from time to time.  One may, for example, think of the way that God can replace those servants of His who are not faithful to His ways without equating them to Judas, even if one feels betrayed by their conduct.  Doing so, though, requires a sense of restraint, and not everyone has that sort of restraint when it comes to understanding oneself and one’s place in biblical history.

After all, the Bible has a far larger scope than the soap opera drama of our own lives or our own institutions.  If we happen to live in an area that has been cursed with terrible weather that appears to carry with it the heavy hand of divine judgment, and we can see our physical lives mirroring that of, say, Leviticus 26 or Deuteronomy 28 as far as the curses for disobedience are concerned, it is helpful if we can distinguish between being punished as part of a collective whole, like being part of a rebellious society that suffers along with the ungodly despite our own personal godliness.  There are biblical warnings, after all, that even conspicuously righteous people in persistently rebellious societies will only deliver themselves from God’s judgment, and not their neighbors, and the first three plagues that the Israelites suffered while they remained enslaved in Egypt remind us that those whom God is delivering do not always escape from those plagues and judgments that are laid upon a rebellious nation in the hopes that the nation will turn and repent and return to God’s ways.  We should not beat ourselves, or others, over the head if it so happens that they suffer alongside a sinful people who is receiving just compensation for widespread ungodliness.  Nor does the fact that we suffer trials necessarily mean that we are irredeemably wicked and corrupt as individuals, for God has many motives when it comes to bringing trials and suffering upon people.  Again, though, to view others charitably requires a sense of restraint in not writing ourselves into the Bible story and not doing violence to the distinction between ourselves and our experiences and that which is written in scripture.  We can very often find a great deal of insight in studying scripture and in discerning the signs of our own times, but inserting ourselves willy-nilly into the Bible only tends to make ourselves look foolish when we are shown to be unsuccessful at prophesying based on misguided and mistaken identifications of ourselves and others with specific Bible stories and prophecies.  As is often the case, a bit of humility and restraint goes a long way in delivering us from folly and error.

[1] See, for example:

Five Basic Principles Of Biblical Interpretation

On Clear And Unclear Scriptures

A Hermeneutic Of Charity

Matthew 5:17-20: A Hermeneutic Of Continuity

A Hermeneutic Of Continuity

The Desert Island Test