As a follow up to a previous post let me give one example of how a “good” reading of a text might be better than a “right” reading of one. In order to keep this post short, I’m going to omit some details and paint in broad strokes.
Let’s take a look at Matthew 25:31-46. This is Jesus’ oft quoted teaching about the sheep and the goats. The traditional interpretation is that at the final judgment we will be evaluated based upon whether or not we took care of the “least of these” who were actually Jesus in disguise (so to speak). This interpretation of the text has inspired countless acts of compassion and benevolent work among the poor.
But there is another way to read this text. In Matthew 10:40-42, as Jesus is sending out the twelve he says,
“He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me. Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man’s reward. And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward.”
Jesus refers to his disciples as “these little ones.” Anyone who gives them a cup of cold water because they belong to Jesus will be rewarded. This is very similar to what he says in Matthew 25. Furthermore, in Matthew 12:48-50, Jesus describes his brothers as those who hear his message and obey it. In Matthew 25:40, Jesus describes the “least of these” as his brothers. You see where I’m going with this? To accept or reject Jesus’ disciples is to accept or reject him. “What you did or didn’t do for the ‘least of these’ you did or did not do for me.”
It seems more probable that based upon the the larger context of Matthew that in Matt. 25 Jesus is talking about how non-Christians will be judged based upon their treatment of Jesus’ disciples rather than being about how we are judged based upon our treatment of the poor.
(Of course, I’m not saying that God doesn’t care about how we treat the poor. There are plenty of other passages that make that point. I’m simply suggesting that this is not one of those passages.)
Could it be that those who quote this text to explain their work among the poor are basing their activity upon a misreading of this text? Their reading is wrong, yet their interpretation is good. In this sense, those who are transformed by seeing Jesus in the eyes of the poor have discovered a kind of truth that my “right” reading of this text doesn’t deliver.
Which one do you want to go with in this case?
Telling Stories, Asking Questions, Learning Lessons
Wade,
I want to thank you for this great series. I totally agree with everything you are saying. Why waiste your time on books that don’t help. We must be wise in choosing what we read because our time is so precious and valuable.
Keep up the great blogging.
I hope you and your family have a great week! 🙂
In Him,
Kinney Mabry
I think you are right in that transformation can occur even through the wrong reading of a text. Transformation comes, not from the text and what we do with it, but comes from the one who wields it as His sword. Even your misreading of Matthew 25 has led you to a good conclusion, receive those who are of Christ. I like it!
Adopting this is a positive step for us, especially for some of us cofc’ers who were always told “and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free” meant you had to have all our church doctrine figured out correctly, and once you did figure it out, then you could be saved and be free. Jesus is the truth, plain and simple. Holding on to Him by faith is primary. What we do with a text is secondary. He’ll know our hearts.
I read this with a sick feeling. I never thought about Matthew 25 in that way, and the context seems to suggest what you are saying. It makes sense. Even though there are other texts for helping the poor, this is the big one. Unfortunately, some will read this and say we don’t need to help the poor anymore because Wade’s right and that is not what it is saying. So you are right maybe a bad reading that transforms is the best. I’m not a scholar so I’m not in my element, but, I’m not so sure it’s the reading that matters so much as the attitude or perspective you take the the text. If your view of the text is such that you must have a “proof text” for everything that you do, can any reading be good at all. If you are helping the poor just to keep the law, dot your “I’s” and cross your “t’s” will any reading transform?
I know that, traditionally, this is oneof the key texts for Latin American and Black liberation theologians. They read the ‘person in need’ as any person in need. Their support of this reading is too complex to roll out here. But a few items they mention are the recurrence of “I desire mercy not sacrifice” in Matthew 9:13 and Matthew 12:7. Secondly, this is the kind of business that Jesus is involved in, and as the narrative centers around his teachings, and his exemplary model of those spoken teachings, an ‘imitatio’ reading makes that one the upfront choice.
I have mixed feelings about all this. It’s not that I disagree with the idea presented; I agree that a believer being transformed into the image of Christ is better than the alternative — regardless of their interpretation of a particular scripture. But I don’t know that we can then say their interpretation is “better than a right reading.” I feel the Holy Spirit is capable of even turning misreading and poor interpretation into catalysts for spiritual transformation — but I don’t believe that makes the interpretation good and certainly not better.
When you write about bad interpretation, Philippians 4:13 immediately comes to mind. Paul is speaking to his ability to be content in all situations, though it seems most Christians (especially those I see running marathons or playing teams sports at Christian schools) interpret “can do all things” as Christ giving me the strength to accomplish my physical goals or even to win a game or a championship. That’s odd, because it seems a better reading would be that even win we lose, Christ gives us the strength to be content. HOWEVER, if through their misreading, Christians learn to rely on God for more of anything, then all praise be to God for changing their hearts and their minds. But I still would not call their interpretation a good one…
Great (mind-stumbling) post; I guess I would say I believe that there can only be one truth for a passage (dual- messianic prophesies are another conversation) but multiple spirit illuminations of that text. Perhaps the “little ones” were the disciples, but the Spirit has illuminated another aspect of the text that has done a lot good. However, I don’t think this creates multiple truths’ just multiple interpretations from one truth. I hope that makes sense. So I guess another question would be: can the Spirit illuminate a meaning from the text that is not 100% accurate? Any thoughts?
Within limit, my brethren, do not be afraid to spiritualize, or to take singular texts. Continue to look out passages of Scripture, and not only give their plain meaning, as you are bound to do, but also draw from them meanings which may not lie upon their surface. Take the advice for what it is worth, but I seriously recommend you to show the superfine critics that everybody does not worship the golden image [tight historical/grammatical interpretation] which they have set up. I counsel you to employ spiritualizing within certain limits and boundaries, but I pray you do not, under cover of this advice, rush headlong into incessant and injudicious ‘imaginings,’ as George Fox would call them. Do not drown yourselves because you are recommended to bathe, or hang yourself on an oak because tannin is described as a valuable astringent” (Charles Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students, pp. 97-98).
I love it when Spurgeon agrees with me!
Wait a minute … did someone prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is only one “right” interpretation of a given scripture? So that it either has to be “right” or just “good” – or “bad”?
Did I miss that someplace?
(Sorry. My critical thinking skills drop to unplumbed depths when I’m on cold medicine.)
Seems to me like most scriptures of value have at least a couple of layers of depth to them. You know, kinda like Shrek’s onion. Or Donkey’s parfait.
But you know me. I always like to add a new level of sophistication to any argument. (Even if it’s in the “below” rather than the “above” category.)
i like your take on matt 25.
there’s something to it.
to quote the bible, “it seems right”.
Hi Wade,
In my reading of your post and the comments that have followed, it seems to be a lively discussion of (and this is probably an oversimplification) semantics.
When I read the Bible, I am looking for the facts or, true information, then I am looking for application, how I can make my life “true” to the text. I can’t help but think that even with the same facts people are going to find themselves in different contexts and thus, a different type of application.
We can all read the Matthew 25 text and get the same facts, but the way we internalize the truth is going to vary from person to person. For the person who is struggling with the need to be more generous to the poor – the “truth” is going to reach his conscience with that particular application. For the Christian who needs to be encouraged about how the unbeliever is treating him, he may find what is needs from the same set of facts.
But that said, I found myself thinking of the time Jesus rebuked some because they searched the Scriptures thinking that from them they would gain eternal life, but they had missed a crucial point – that the Scriptures were pointing to Him – a person, the embodiment of truth.
I think then, that I agree with your generalization. That when we read the facts, we may gain a “right” reading, but a “good” reading is when we internalize those facts so that our lives become “true” to what the Word is teaching us in our context.
Well, I’ve probably muddied the waters adequately.
So basically what makes a reading “good” is how the reader reacts? It seems like it has less to do with the interpretation than the heart of the interpreter.
There are many who take the end of Matthew 25 and use it to say that The acceptance of Christ isn’t necessary for salvation, only service to the poor. There are those who use it to shame those who think differently. They may be helping the poor, but I don’t think the reading is good, because it’s incomplete.
It seems that what’s true is true, and whether we allow ourselves to be transformed by it is more about us.
I just realized that I used some painfully vague terminology (“many”, “there are those”). I’ve talked to and read some of them, but I won’t pretend to know how many of them are out there. So take that with a grain of salt.
Linked to you just now at this post, for reasons that I hope are apparent!