Biblical Interpretation

[wil]

Namaste all,

I posted this previously in another thread right after I had written it.

Ruby's thread on how we read conflicting passages in the bible, it made me think of it.

I'd really like your opinions on interpretation, on the various levels of interpretation. This is only a couple interpretations, both in a similar vien. I'd love to hear if you accept these as plausable, acceptable, useful. I'd love to read your interpretations, contemplations on the same passages. I'd also appreciate knowing if you prefer another bible version to start with. I used NIV here, but it isn't normally my favorite.

This is Mathew 10:34-39, I broke my interpretations down line by line for convenience of comparison...but did not number them.


A Hip Hop rendition

If you thought I’d make it a breeze
you’ll find I didn’t come to ease
but to bring you to your knees

You gotta shake off the notion
That you can make a potion
Or your honey has the lotion
Cause the answer ain’t in the ocean

It’s you that’s causin’ the commotion

If you can’t see the forest for the tree
You’ll never be your best
If you refuse to learn to be

Be prepared to drop all your bling
Or I don’t owe you a thing

Quit chasin the golden ring
And find out what life will truly bring.


Another understanding

Don’t for a minute imagine G-d expresses as human to do it all for you, for this path is a challenge.

I have come to separate your true self from your intellect, your desires from your emotions, and seemingly rebellious ideas from the old ways.

You will find all your troubles are in your head, of your own doing.

If your intellectual and emotional ego ties are strong you are actively refusing the grace and glory of spirit and don’t deserve it.

If you don’t untie your bonds, pull up the stake, and seek a higher consciousness, you are creating your own hell.

If you wish to stay in the material world, you will – forever; but if you choose to grow from it, you will discover you have access to everything.


New International Version

34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

35 For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—

36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'

37 "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;

38 and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

 

[Jeannot]

Doesn't sound like Jesus was very big on family values, does it?

 

[wil]

Namaste Jeannot, while I didn't take it as a family values issue at all, I found others that did. And they expressed valid reasons as to why the literal makes sense as well.

Someone else online was revieiwng an old thread where these exact same verses were contemplated a little over a year ago named:

Was Jesus being a nut case when he said:

a variety of valuable interpretations and discussions on same are found in that thread...

funny thing about this ask and ye shall receive stuff....

 

[Quahom1]

Namaste Jeannot, while I didn't take it as a family values issue at all, I found others that did. And they expressed valid reasons as to why the literal makes sense as well.

Someone else online was revieiwng an old thread where these exact same verses were contemplated a little over a year ago named:

Was Jesus being a nut case when he said:

a variety of valuable interpretations and discussions on same are found in that thread...

funny thing about this ask and ye shall receive stuff....

Seems to me Jesus is describing today's family. Everyone doing their own thing, can't help but bring discord. "I want what I want, when I want it"...doesn't bode well for a familial unit.

my thoughts

v/r

Q

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Well, it seems to me that the NIV is a perfectly servicable translation. Rather than a reinterpretation, I think what we need is wider context. If you scan back to the beginning of Matt. 10 you'll see that the twelve disciples are being sent on a mission. They are given the power to cast out unclean spirits and heal, and sent off to preach. So what follows in the rest of the chapter is kinda like what soldiers would hear as they're coming in to hit the beach. " It's gonna be hell out there, some of you men won't be coming back. Remember what we're fighting for..." Remember, at the end of the apostolic saga each of these guys is going to get a glorious martyr's death.

There's somethign interesting here:

Mat 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. (KJV)

Now, these are red letter words but Jesus hasn't been crucified yet, so how would the disciples know what he's talking about?

Chris

 

[Quahom1]

Well, it seems to me that the NIV is a perfectly servicable translation. Rather than a reinterpretation, I think what we need is wider context. If you scan back to the beginning of Matt. 10 you'll see that the twelve disciples are being sent on a mission. They are given the power to cast out unclean spirits and heal, and sent off to preach. So what follows in the rest of the chapter is kinda like what soldiers would hear as they're coming in to hit the beach. " It's gonna be hell out there, some of you men won't be coming back. Remember what we're fighting for..." Remember, at the end of the apostolic saga each of these guys is going to get a glorious martyr's death.

There's somethign interesting here:


Now, these are red letter words but Jesus hasn't been crucified yet, so how would the disciples know what he's talking about?

Chris

Interesting analogy here Chris. I suppose it was a battle of sorts in the beginning as a new "beach head" was being established. Afterall they were trying to "win" the hearts and minds over to Christs way.

As far as the term cross being used here: During that time the coloquial term for carrying a burden was to carry one's cross, derived from the practice of making the condemned carry the cross piece of their instrument of execution to where they were to be hanged. Two reasons, one was the weight was meant to wear the condemned down (take any fight out of him), and the second was to give the public a chance to make sport of the condemned as he passed through the streets in parade to his place of death. It was an attempted to strip him of any dignity or arrogance he might have.

Crosses lined the road to the city much more prevelant than our current telephone poles.

v/r

Q

 

[wil]

Quote:
Mat 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. (KJV)
Now, these are red letter words but Jesus hasn't been crucified yet, so how would the disciples know what he's talking about?

I had that same question Chris, and Q the answer still doesn't sit. Throughout the 'red letters' Jesus is speaking of leaving your worldly baggage and taking an new road. Seems funny in this instance he is indicating to bring your baggage with you. Everyplace else it is drop your nets...

Where do you get that there were so many crosses? Guess that is why it is all desert now?

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

Now, these are red letter words but Jesus hasn't been crucified yet, so how would the disciples know what he's talking about?

Now then Chris, you know as well as I do that the disciples weren't running after Jesus with a sound crew making a documentary. This was written years after he died, and the writer is trying to give an impression of everything that he took in during the years of Jesus' ministry. There are bits that must have been written with the benefit of hindsight, but that doesn't make them any less valid.

I'm in favour of reinterpretation provided that the purpose is to convey the original meaning and not just play with the text, or make a new statement. If you leave the text untouched it becomes antique and arcane, then it loses its impact.

 

[wil]

I'm in favour of reinterpretation provided that the purpose is to convey the original meaning and not just play with the text, or make a new statement. If you leave the text untouched it becomes antique and arcane, then it loses its impact.

Namaste VC, now tell me...do you think I conveyed a level of meaning is contained in the words..or just played with the text?

 

[Quahom1]

I had that same question Chris, and Q the answer still doesn't sit. Throughout the 'red letters' Jesus is speaking of leaving your worldly baggage and taking an new road. Seems funny in this instance he is indicating to bring your baggage with you. Everyplace else it is drop your nets...

Where do you get that there were so many crosses? Guess that is why it is all desert now?

lol, you know quite well it isn't our personal burdens Christ is talking about. To become a Christian meant (and means), there will be suffering and persecution for Christ's sake, by those of the world who would see Christianity destroyed. Becoming a Christian isn't a free ride.

As for crosses lining the road...that is secular history. In fact the annals of Rome are rift with descriptions of hanging criminals lining the roads to towns as reminder to others not to cross the empire...

v/r

Q

 

[wil]

lol, you know quite well it isn't our personal burdens Christ is talking about. To become a Christian meant (and means), there will be suffering and persecution for Christ's sake, by those of the world who would see Christianity destroyed. Becoming a Christian isn't a free ride. \

put down your yoke and take mine, for yours is heavy and mine is light...I know that is in there someplace...

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

Namaste VC, now tell me...do you think I conveyed a level of meaning is contained in the words..or just played with the text?

That's put me on the spot. I think they are both valid interpretations, but they each convey one angle, one part of a big truth. They simplify in order to communicate.

I think this demonstrates the whole problem with translation: that it's impossible to recreate exactly the same shades of meaning that obtained in a different time and culture. You can only approximate and then explain. I have a book (I forget the name) composed entirely of translations of The Lord's Prayer, each emphasising a different aspect of the original.

Was it Kierkegaard who said that even if people could converse in animal language they still wouldn't comprehend each other, because they inhabited different worlds?

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Now then Chris, you know as well as I do that the disciples weren't running after Jesus with a sound crew making a documentary. This was written years after he died, and the writer is trying to give an impression of everything that he took in during the years of Jesus' ministry. There are bits that must have been written with the benefit of hindsight, but that doesn't make them any less valid.

I'm in favour of reinterpretation provided that the purpose is to convey the original meaning and not just play with the text, or make a new statement. If you leave the text untouched it becomes antique and arcane, then it loses its impact.

Well, what's interesting to me about the reference to taking up one's own cross is that it gives us a clue about who Matthew's contemporary audience is. Sure Jesus is telling this stuff to the disciples in the story, but Matthew is having this dialog play out to make a point to his audience about the difficulties they should expect to face. So we know from that that there are tough times afoot for Matthean Christians, and we can see the beginning of what will become a larger emphasis on, and evolve into a near obsession with martyrdom and martyrology later in the second century.

Chris

 

[Quahom1]

Well, what's interesting to me about the reference to taking up one's own cross is that it gives us a clue about who Matthew's contemporary audience is. Sure Jesus is telling this stuff to the disciples in the story, but Matthew is having this dialog play out to make a point to his audience about the difficulties they should expect to face. So we know from that that there are tough times afoot for Matthean Christians, and we can see the beginning of what will become a larger emphasis on, and evolve into a near obsession with martyrdom and martyrology later in the second century.

Chris

Matthew considered himself the least of the Disciples Chris. He was afterall, a former "tax collector", the bane of the people. Just becuase he changed, didn't mean the people would all of a sudden, accept him and those like him...and he knew that. He was also quick enough to realize that there were others suffering the same type disdain by the people, who would not "believe" such could change. He knew they would think there had to be a "catch", and would react accordingly (in the beginning). Yet he was willing to set an example, at the cost of his comfortable life...

just a thought

v/r

Q

 

[enton]

Namaste all,

I posted this previously in another thread right after I had written it.

Ruby's thread on how we read conflicting passages in the bible, it made me think of it.

I'd really like your opinions on interpretation, on the various levels of interpretation. This is only a couple interpretations, both in a similar vien. I'd love to hear if you accept these as plausable, acceptable, useful. I'd love to read your interpretations, contemplations on the same passages. I'd also appreciate knowing if you prefer another bible version to start with. I used NIV here, but it isn't normally my favorite.

This is Mathew 10:34-39, I broke my interpretations down line by line for convenience of comparison...but did not number them.


A Hip Hop rendition

If you thought I’d make it a breeze
you’ll find I didn’t come to ease
but to bring you to your knees

You gotta shake off the notion
That you can make a potion
Or your honey has the lotion
Cause the answer ain’t in the ocean

It’s you that’s causin’ the commotion

If you can’t see the forest for the tree
You’ll never be your best
If you refuse to learn to be

Be prepared to drop all your bling
Or I don’t owe you a thing

Quit chasin the golden ring
And find out what life will truly bring.


Another understanding

Don’t for a minute imagine G-d expresses as human to do it all for you, for this path is a challenge.

I have come to separate your true self from your intellect, your desires from your emotions, and seemingly rebellious ideas from the old ways.

You will find all your troubles are in your head, of your own doing.

If your intellectual and emotional ego ties are strong you are actively refusing the grace and glory of spirit and don’t deserve it.

If you don’t untie your bonds, pull up the stake, and seek a higher consciousness, you are creating your own hell.

If you wish to stay in the material world, you will – forever; but if you choose to grow from it, you will discover you have access to everything.


New International Version

34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

35 For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—

36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'

37 "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;

38 and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

We can interpret any piece of literary genres, but we don't have any right to interpret privately the Bible as an authoritative book on values formation and facts about life beyond this temporal life. It is written in II Peter 1:20.

 

[Quahom1]

We can interpret any piece of literary genres, but we don't have any right to interpret privately the Bible as an authoritative book on values formation and facts about life beyond this temporal life. It is written in II Peter 1:20.

It is written: 20 "knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation."

It specifically states no "prophecy" of scripture can be interpreted...

v/r

Q

 

[iBrian]

What's interesting is when you look at apparent cultural nuances that would have been understood by the audience, but are re-interpreted by a modern audience unfamiliar with it. The "camel through the eye of the needle" is one example that comes immediately to mind - understanding the concept seems so much more enriching.