Expository (Part 2)

The First Awareness

“I don’t know that the goal is to get rid of our modern filters, but I think it’s to become increasingly aware of them and temper them.” (O’Brien) (Brandon speaking; timestamp 10:42–10:50)

As in most other subjects, our western custom believes that we are entitled to pass judgment on cultures different than our own, putting on them the same expectations we live under. As westerners, we have tightly grasped the belief that our interpretation is correct and as Torah-observant believers, we tend to grip tightly our position (as right) to the point of dis-fellowship if others choose not to comply with our rigid ruling. In essence, the one who claims to be right and demands complete compliance is the one who causes the initial division. Those who choose not to conform to the supposed correct interpretation — but choose to study and understand Scripture at a deeper level — are ostracized; in addition, they are labeled as causing division, and slandered for taking a stand. It doesn’t stop there.

Our cultural blind spots (mores) also have a subtle influence with how we relate with others when we interpret Scripture. Perhaps, in the end, after the shreds of relationship drift in the wind (as silence and space fills around us), we may realize that we all need a deeper awareness of our own inconsistencies, ignorance, and intolerances that are ingrained in us. Not one of us is “right” in our own standing, but every one of us has a Judge, and it isn’t our fellow Bible believers.

“The people who use their religion to police the world around them become some of the most unhappy and dangerous people on earth.” (Bolz 75)

Ongoing Opposition Over Scriptural Passages

While we may all believe in the Scriptures, we all have different perspectives, attitudes, and opinions that affect how we read. Many of us have walked through several factions mentioned below, but we also have chosen to stay or move on, growing in understanding and character.

There are several groups of thought that fall under opposition to Scripture. Each may overlap the others. In this section, we look briefly at five kinds of opposing groups. These groups of thought are open-mindedness neglect, the patriarchal position, gender roles, pharisaical surface studiers, and cultural close-mindedness.

“Granted any ideology that is espoused by any humans anywhere is going to have their ‘Pharisees’, people who are simply finding a Scriptural excuse for their personal biases, and prejudices. And we can find that in any denomination, in any local congregation; we can find that in this room, probably. We might be able to find it in each of us.” (Richter 3:30)

Open Mindedness Neglect

Generally, most of us have walked this path, where we chose to take Scripture at face value, English only. We may have enjoyed imposing our modern lifestyle views into the biblical stories we read. The impressions that evolve can become a fantastical brew of ideological opinions. Eventually we implemented these into our daily life and forced others to accept our view in exchange for fellowship. Or, we kept to ourselves most of the time.

A quick search on the Internet reveals people who are satisfied with the English translation they read. They decline to take in any Hebrew/Greek study of words, any historical setting surrounding Scripture, any possible thought that would encourage an open mind. As guest speak on Heated Convo, Mike Erre, put it:

“I ended up doing some work in Genesis because to me all the references came back to creation and I was doing some work. I wanted to do a series and I realized, Oh that Genesis thing, it’s a bit more complicated than all of my complementarianism friends suggested. … No, I really think there’re — and I need to say just for the sake of intellectual honesty there are — some really good people who were disagreeing, gonna disagree of course with everything we say. And it’s not that they’re bad or not that they don’t love Jesus [(Yahshua)]. Some of the people I know who are really wrestling through this want desperately to honor the Bible and the view that they’ve been given of the Bible was represented by the last complementarianism speaker we had who got to first Timothy and just said, ‘Well, there it is, in English.’ And literally that’s what he said.” (Erre) (Mike Erre speaking; timestamp 20:08 to 21:35)

“And I’ve heard this said from several people that we do not need these outside references, dictionaries, histories to help make sense of the text, we have the text. And I think that’s a big point of disagreement about it. So, this is bigger than just male or female. This is about how you approach the Bible too.” (Erre) (ibid; timestamp 1:39:51–1:40:18)

The Patriarchal Position

This group encapsulates some study, but mostly in their favor. A male dominated group that strongly believes any description in the Bible is also a prescription for modern society. In a subtly manipulative manner, they twist the Scriptures into a male-domineering territory that upholds them in a favorable light. A similar attitude echoes from the Dead Sea Scrolls Document, The Community Rule, with all its restrictions and protocols. Although, only a handful of men latch onto this ideological setting, the supposed power they believe they have extends from their family life to the world that is around them.

“We somehow have the narcissistic idea in the church that we are the voice of God [(Yahweh)], that we are the source for people to hear God, and if we don’t speak, he will never be heard. God himself is the one who is speaking through creation, through people, through seasons, through industries, through Hollywood, and more. Many times he speaks through sources a Christian would have run from (in love).” (Bolz 118)

Patriarchal attitudes insist that they lead and females follow. Suppression and oppression become their tools; subtle manipulation and abuse become the norm. When applied to Scripture, all descriptive passages become prescriptive. Repeatedly, they point out how it is Scriptural to exist in a patriarchal society and do what they can to recreate it in our modern society. Bonnie Lewis explains further:

“Does everyone feel like they understand when we say ‘patriarchy’? What we mean by that? Yes? No? It literally means ‘father rule.’ So, everything is in favor to the male. So that’s literally everything, everything you do, everything inheritance, anything like that and so it’s in favor to the men in the family and then continuing that line. So we actually see that in other cultures, really alive and well today. A lot of times there’s like firstborns in another culture and we say, like, … ‘What is it like to be the firstborn?’ and it was a very prideful, like, ‘it’s amazing’ because that is a position that they still operate (their culture still operates under). And so when we say, like the default is patriarchy, that’s what we mean is that we’re still living under this idea that the men is in charge and everything should default to them and to making sure they stay in charge.” (Erre) (Bonnie Lewis speaking; timestamp 40:19–41:18)

Traditional interpreters also fell into this category, as David W. Odell-Scott explained, “assuming a male dominated hermeneutic with respect to scripture, tradition and church polity, were incapable of hearing the text in any other voice.” (Odell-Scott 93)

Gender Roles

A strong underlying attitude that follows the patriarchal system, subtly influences us into gender roles. Among Bible believers, the constant debate of the Fall has been over-simplified with Eve’s “mistake” of eating from the tree of knowledge. And this “mistake” cost her, and all her female descendants, to forever be patronized and subjugated from this attitude’s point of view. Those that persist in the concept of Eve’s “mistake” tend to point out since Eve was deceived, so every woman is naturally easily deceived. Erre offers a different perspective, turning the tables.

“What I always read, Eve was deceived. I read that as Eve made a mistake, but the text doesn’t say that. The text says Eve was deceived. The reason Adam is held responsible is that Adam was disobedient. So that’s the contrast: Adam was disobedient. Eve was deceived. Do you understand the difference? But that’s not how it’s portrayed. … This is a really big deal that, that when it says Eve is deceived, it’s not saying it was Eve’s fault, it’s saying the exact opposite. Okay, that she was deceived, that it was not her fault. The reason Adam is held responsible is because he was disobedient. Now, that is like, blew me away. … Why isn’t it taught? … Some of it is fear, for sure; some of it is traditionalism, for sure. …” (Erre) (Mike Erre speaking; timestamp 1:26:04–1:27:27)

(Author’s note: For years, I believed — without ever studying it — that because Eve was deceived, no woman could ever be trusted.)

My spiritual father pointed out “that’s what we’re taught, what we’re led to believe. We believed women were the weaker vessel, easily deceived. ” He also noted that “Scripture doesn’t specify male or female when it says, ‘By Yahshua’s [(Jesus’)] stripes, ye are healed; you are the righteousness of Yahweh [(God)]; you have the mind of Messiah [(Christ)].”

Strong gender role impositions that arise from this attitude insist that a woman was made for childbearing and therefore cannot lead. Likewise, a man’s natural instinct to protect makes him the candidate for leadership. (If we follow this line of thought, then, we would conclude that just as a woman was never meant to lead, also a man was never meant to nurture his children, his wife, or be kind and gentle to any female. He simply doesn’t have “the parts” for it.) Gender roles dangerously put limitations (or exceptions) that conclude Yahweh’s masterpiece — humankind — is faulty and other humans need to adjust the problem.

Pharisaical Surface Studiers

An extended group of sorts, pharisaical surface studiers pick and choose what they want to study. Pharisaical surface studiers borderline between close-mindedness and open-mindedness, pride being one of the high fences that set their boundaries. They may quote historical references and split words into letters to prove their point, but only in their selected portions. They may take it one step further and approach each passage with their predisposed lens of study, thereby manipulating what they read and study to fit what they know to be right.

“I don’t know if I’m right on this at all, but my suspicion is that the concepts of biblical manhood and womanhood are absolutely tyrannical in the way that they’re weaponized against people who don’t fit those norms.” (Erre) (Mike Erre speaking; timestamp 1:34:41–1:34:55)

It doesn’t matter if they never looked into the historical aspect of a passage, they will declare modern thought as a viable explanation for ancient actions. Misreading and misinterpreting the Bible is an easy mistake, though it can be corrected with an open mind. After all, none of us knows everything, all the time.

Cultural Closed-Mindedness

Being aware of our blind spots and presuppositions when we approach Scripture can help us to read more accurately because we aren’t predisposed to think we hold the right to determine the environment, social customs, and circumstances of another culture from another time. As scholar NT Wright puts it,

“I then want to say, what are the forces in our culture today, particularly I have to say in America, which are forcing some churches and some people to fasten on one or two verses from elsewhere to say, ‘oh no, no, we can’t have women doing this, that and the other’ — because that’s a highly, highly selective reading of Scripture. And as with all other theological answers, the best place to start is with the resurrection of Jesus [(Yahshua)] and then everything flows after that.” (Wright 3:52–4:19)

It is good to affirm the final authority of Scripture, but when we decide the ruling of a passage, as a blanket command, we complicate other passages that contradict that ruling. Isn’t all Scripture inspired? Yes, it is, and especially so when the passage is left inside its context. While we may think we have the authority to decide what is and what isn’t Scripturally binding, we certainly do not have the authority to pull verses or passages outside of their context to mold them into our desired outcome. When we do that, we become guilty of twisting the Scriptures, manipulating interpretations, and even worse, violating biblical principles.