Leave Yourself at Home

One of the greatest challenges in our pursuit of understanding is the tendency to bring ourselves with us as we embark on the journey to know things. We bring our culture, our background, our bias, and what we already accept as true into whatever it is we read and research. The challenge is pervasive and actually quite difficult to overcome. We often fail to realize or are unwilling to admit that we even have any bias. Obviously what we believe is true or we would not believe it. None of us would intentionally hold to what is not true. This unfortunate reality touches almost every area of life and carries us unwittingly into potential error or a measure of divisive, albeit unintended, arrogance.

Your view of the War Between the States may differ if you are from Georgia or New York. Your appreciation for a particular president will be tainted by your conservative or progressive ideology. This is true in everything from sports to science, from history to archeology. If you believe the earth to be millions of years old, the fossil records will support your view. However, if you hold to a young earth the fossil records reveal just the opposite. If you support the Yankees, they are a great team; if you don't, they are pampered and cheat. Chevrolet is either a government owned piece of garbage or they make the greatest car on the planet. Speaking of the planet, it is either warming, cooling, following a cycle, fragile and being destroyed or resilient and ours to harvest. Being objective is what we think we are as opposed to those who disagree who are obviously blinded by their own preconceived and misguided notions. The greatest challenge to the study of anything is to leave yourself at home and just observe what is there before you.

As one who has studied the Scriptures and theological systems and ideologies for most of my life, it is a challenge to not drag what I think I know into what it is that I study. My understanding of God's Word has remained fairly consistent over the years, but the finer points have certainly evolved a bit. I am also far more comfortable with not being sure of the "right" answer. I am far more accepting of the tensions and paradoxes that are woven through the pages of God's Revelation. I have come to see His book as being far more relational in it's instruction rather than a manual for the "do's and don'ts" for life. I still struggle to leave myself at home and place myself into a Jewish culture with all it's nuances and traditions that are true of the Biblical text. I must admit I also struggle with those who see no need to make that attempt and treat the Bible like it was written in English to Americans so there is no need to consider the original culture, author, or audience to which the book was written.

Much of the time there is little consequence, for the application is often the same in both cultures. However, this is not always the case. There is danger is allowing our personal bias to color what the text actually says. Let me share few examples.

I am currently teaching through 1 Thessalonians on Sunday mornings. In reviewing the background of the book I read several introductions to see what different  scholars had to offer. All find their way to Acts 17:1-10. "Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures" (Acts 17:1-2). The text seems pretty clear. Paul and company come to the city of Thessalonica and, as was their custom, went to the Synagogue and for three Sabbath days Paul reasoned with them from the Old Testament Scriptures. (There was no New Testament) The passage goes on to tell us Paul's message was that Jesus, Yeshua, was the Jewish Messiah who died and rose again. Opposition to this message arises and they are forced to flee the city. A few of the commentaries go on to say that after three days of being in the synagogue and the rejection of the Jews, Paul went to Jason's house and started a church. Paul was there for an undisclosed time and then, due to continued opposition, moved on to Berea. There is nothing in the text to support this. The addition to the text comes only from the commentator's belief that there was a distinct entity called the church fully separate from Judaism at the time of Paul. Neither the text or history bear this out. However, you can find it if you carry your bias with you into your study of the passage.

One of the more fanciful things I heard a number of years ago was the account of  the coin and the fish. "“Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth, you will find a piece of money; take that and give it to them for Me and you” (Matthew 17:27). I have heard a message on "The Other Fish". The preacher explained that there is no way Peter would have stopped with one fish and one coin. He would have kept fishing until he filled his pockets with coins. First, the text does not suggest this at all. Second, I do not think the cloths at the time had pockets. This passage is not about God providing for your every need or for giving you all the money you might want. God does not promise prosperity and wealth from this passage. It does not support that premise unless you bring it with you from your own preconceived understanding of God's promised prosperity.

Mark 7:19 says, "For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)." This is the NIV translation of this passage. Most other translations read much the same. However we find something different in the KJV. "Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?" Both translations point out that food goes into the stomach or belly and then out of the body. The KJV simply says this is how the body digests food and then purges the waste. The NIV tells us that "In saying this Jesus declared all foods clean". The difference is that the translators of the NIV added the words "in saying this Jesus declared" and use an alternate meaning for the word "purge" as "clean". Why would anyone add words to the text that God had not placed there? Why go with "clean" rather than a equally valid translation "purge"? It is because the translators brought themselves along with them as they made the translation. They believe the Jewish dietary laws are no longer in effect so they add to the text to "clarify" what Jesus must have meant. Not based on the text or the teaching of Jesus, but on the basis or their own preconceived notion of an end to dietary laws. This is why it is important to read a variety of translations when we study God's Word. Even the translators are not immune to bringing their own bias to their translation efforts.

 It may be that you have determined, as the year has begun anew, to read through the Bible this year. That is a great goal and objective for the new year. However, remember that you and I are immersed in our own American culture. We live in it every day of our lives. This is not the Jewish culture that the Word of God was written in. I encourage you and myself as well, to try to leave yourself at home. Take the time to travel back in time to the time of Samuel or David or Messiah in Palestine some 2000 years ago. It will not be easy; however, it can be very rewarding to see those early times with more Jewish eyes. You could pass up watching a TV show and pick up a book about the culture of the times of Jesus. Do a little searching on the web to try to learn a bit about Biblical traditions. If you do, remember that they may well bring themselves with themm as we all tend to dom so read a few different sources. I know this sounds like a bit of work, but isn't knowing the word of God and His Son worth a little extra time and effort?

Enjoy your time in the Word of God. Just leave yourself at home.