Interaction with any literary source is based primarily on the perception of the person themself. While there are some objective measures for assessing the quality of a text, some concepts are complicated to assess from an objective point of view. This is especially evident in those moments when the written text can have several interpretations. In this case, the existence of entirely different points of view based on subjective perception is possible. However, while such disagreements are common in popular literature, the differences may be more significant in the case of the Bible.
Controversy over its interpretation often arises because of the different contexts of the society that interacts with this source. For example, a marginalized society will interpret the Bible differently from those close to the church, relying more on pressing issues (West 2015). The use of biblical texts as a basis for building one’s ideology was one of the reasons for the formation of various Christian movements. Turning to the case study, it can be noted that Daniel takes a similar position, motivating himself not with the original intention of the author but with the meaning that he sees in these words.
From my perspective, both Daniel’s Sharon’s positions have a right to exist. On the one hand, Daniel rejects the original meaning of the Bible, not wanting to think about exactly what John wanted to say. From the point of view of the traditional church, such an attitude towards the sacred text is unacceptable. In addition, Daniel goes against the principles of hermeneutics, believing that he can handle interpretation without additional effort, although the Bible was written in a different culture and time (Kaiser and Silva 2007). However, his personal perception cannot be considered an accurate, factual interpretation. The facts that the writer communicates to the reader must be taken in a historical context. Otherwise, details necessary to understanding may be lost. On the other hand, one cannot rely only on historical summaries, as Sharon did, since strict adherence to old texts can lead to disagreement with the existing order of things.
Therefore, from my point of view, the correct course of action is a combination of both approaches. Undoubtedly, it is necessary to know and understand the historical context of the studied text. Such an analysis will better understand what events in the author’s life could affect the writing. To understand the text of the Bible, you need to understand the lives of the people who wrote it. However, it is also necessary to understand that the world of that time and today are fundamentally different. The obtained understanding of the text can only serve as a basis for building one’s own opinion. The more information a person has about the source text, the more accurately one can conclude what the author wanted to say. Nevertheless, even fully aware of the context, a person can still draw different conclusions following their perception, since this allows them to find in the Bible those thoughts that are close to them.
Reply to Sheryl
The text presented for discussion is remarkable because of the contrast between the point of view of Daniel, who does not want to delve into the context, and Sharon, who deeply studies it. However, from my perspective, the essence of this post is not to analyze the words of Jesus directly but to understand the big picture. The question before us is much more general – can we interpret the Bible the way we want, do we need to be strictly attached to the original message, or can we combine these approaches?
You’ve noted some interesting details to better understand the author’s original message and context. For example, knowing that the people in Laodicea were overly focused on material goods instead of faith clarifies Jesus’ reaction to lukewarm water (Beale and Campbell 2015). Facts like these highlight the need to apply hermeneutics and explore the original context. However, from my point of view, you paid too much attention to the interpretation of the biblical situation rather than the importance of interpretation. Because of that, the topic of the importance of interpretation was not sufficiently developed. It seems to me that you have strayed somewhat from the initial task of the assignment, although your bright faith is commendable.
Reply to Walter
The original post is extremely curious because there are no wrong points of view. Although Daniel’s approach to Bible interpretation is somewhat ambiguous, it has a right to exist. On the other hand, an in-depth study of the details of the historical context makes it possible to understand the writer’s motives and culture. However, given that a Bible study is being carried out, a text that carries God’s word to the reader, one cannot focus only on material elements.
In this context, I agree entirely with your opinion. Taking someone’s point of view on this issue means deliberately limiting oneself in the interpretation tools. Adhering to one of the extremes, it is challenging to analyze which words of the author should be analyzed literally and which – figuratively. And of all the existing factors, the most important for consideration, from my perspective, is culture, since the Jewish context of that time imposes a massive number of additional elements (Stacy n.d.). In addition, it seems to me that the correct translation of the language in which the Bible was written initially is a crucial aspect as well. Since these texts are now prevalent, they can be significantly simplified. Such simplifications can make it challenging to understand the writer’s original meaning due to the lost details. In addition, the analysis of culture simultaneously includes the analysis of the corresponding time and language since they are interconnected.
Reference List
Beale, Gregory, and Campbell, David. 2015. Revelation: A Shorter Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Kaiser Jr., Walter, and Silva, Moisés. 2007. Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic.
Stacy, Robert. n.d. “Jewish Setting of Early Christianity.” Liberty University. Web.
West, Gerald. 2015. “Reading The Bible with the Marginalised: The Value/S of Contextual Bible Reading.” Stellenbosch Theological Journal 1, no. 2: 235-261. Web.