Despite knowing more today than many Christians in the past, we still need to be careful and humble when interpreting and applying Scripture. If we do not respect historical and cultural differences, we can inadvertently misread Scripture through our own modern cultural lenses. 

I vividly remember the time in my youth that I was in a Bible study with my pastor and we were looking at Luke 14:25-35. I got stuck on Jesus’ words in verse 26: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.” I was a new believer, and it was the first time I had read that passage. I was horrified by the verb “hate,” which today means to intensely dislike something or someone. As an Asian youth steeped in a culture that almost idolizes respect for one’s parents, how could I hate my parents or my siblings? I loved them!
At the time, the Bible passage seemed clear to me: If I don’t hate my parents, I can’t follow Jesus.  But I could not choose between the seemingly irreconcilable options, and I began to weep. After realizing why I was crying, my pastor quickly reassured me that Jesus did not mean for us to literally hate our parents but simply that we must love Jesus more than anyone or anything else. It was hyperbole, he explained.
Of course, it was still a radical and, to some degree, offensive claim. But it became less harsh when understood not as disliking one’s parents, but as loving them less than one loves Jesus.
My youthful self read our modern understanding of “hate” back into Jesus’ use of the word, making his claim more offensive than it already was. I now know that people in Jesus’ ancient Middle Eastern culture often spoke with colorful hyperbole to make a point. This was their custom, and Jesus’ original audience would have understood his statement to be an exaggeration.
That incident was an early lesson for me in this truth about biblical interpretation: The Bible, even though it’s for us, was not written to us, but to audiences greatly removed from us in time, culture, and language. We can never read Scripture plainly, if by “plainly” we mean ignoring our own cultural biases and the cultural and historical gaps between us and the text. If we do not respect the historical, cultural, and linguistic differences between us and Scripture, we are in danger of reading modern cultural ideas back into the Bible and distorting whatever insights we might get out of it.
Clarity of Scripture
I am not saying that the Bible is so obscure that only Bible scholars can understand Scripture properly.  Neither am I arguing against the Reformation’s doctrine of the clarity of Scripture, historically called the “perspicuity of Scripture.” That doctrine does not assert that everything in Scripture is clear and easy to understand. It only teaches that what is necessary for salvation is clear in Scripture. We see this in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646): “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them” (Ch. 1.VII).
Scripture itself shows that some parts of the Bible are not easy to understand: “(Paul’s) letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction,” the apostle Peter writes, (2 Pet. 3:16) and the Ethiopian eunuch needed Philip’s help to understand the prophet Isaiah (Acts 8:26-40).
So even without biblical scholarship, anyone can still read the Bible and sufficiently discern its main message of salvation. But not everything in the Bible is easy to understand, not even for first-century readers like the ones Peter wrote to. How much more difficult must it be for those who are centuries removed from the Scripture’s cultures, customs, and contexts?
Lost in Translation
Modern translations of the Bible, though generally reliable, are not infallible. Despite the translators’ best efforts, there are many cultural and linguistic nuances that cannot always be adequately translated into English or some other language.
For example, most of us know that ancient Greeks had multiple words for “love.” Agape means sacrificial love, philos means brotherly love, and eros denotes erotic or romantic love, to name the most common ones. All of these words are usually rendered into English from the original Greek of the New Testament as simply “love.” Readers of English translations can thus miss out on some linguistic nuances.
In John 21:15-19, for instance, Jesus asks Peter three times if Peter loves him. This is, of course, reminiscent of Peter previously disavowing Jesus three times. We can understand this story as Jesus gently reconciling with Peter and restoring him to his apostleship. What might be lost on us without reading the original Greek, however, is that two different words for “love” were used in that conversation.
Read More
Related Posts:

Commentaries are crucial when it comes to properly understanding a text. Preachers rightly spend a good bit of their prep time learning from experts through their commentaries. But there aren’t many occasions when the preacher should quote these experts. To read a quote from a commentary, and especially at length, is to radically change the voice of the person speaking—from his own voice to the voice of a scholar. It is to radically change the form of communication—from a spoken sermon to a written book. It is often difficult for the congregation to make that transition, and often difficult for the congregation to understand the point that is being made. It’s far better, on the whole, for the preacher to simply summarize in his own words.

I am closing in on my forty-third birthday and have been a churchgoer all my life. A bit of simple math shows that I’ve probably listened to somewhere around 4,000 sermons over the course of my life (which undoubtedly means I should have far more knowledge of the Bible than I do and should be far holier than I am!). I’ve also preached a few sermons of my own over the past 10 or 15 years. Recently, and largely for my own purposes, I found myself thinking about some of the elements that can make a sermon difficult to listen to. Having jotted them down, I thought I’d share them with you.
They have no obvious outline. Most people today are unaccustomed to listening to extended verbal communication. Preachers can assist listening and comprehension by providing some kind of an outline. It does not need to be a Lawsonesque alliterated masterpiece, but it is helpful to at least allow the congregation to know in advance how the sermon will unfold. A solid outline also helps pull them back when their minds drift. They can be pulled from daydream or confusion when they hear, “This brings us to the second great emphasis of this passage.” (I think it’s usually best to avoid using the word “point,” as in “My second point is…” Try to find a more interesting way of framing a sermon than through “points.”)
They include word studies. A sermon rarely improves from the point the pastor says, “In the Greek this word is…” I suppose there are select occasions when mentioning and explaining a Greek or Hebrew term adds to the congregation’s understanding, but that’s rare. Far more often than not, word studies are the kind of thing a pastor should do in his study and keep in his study. The preacher ought to do his preparatory work in such a way that his sermon shows clear evidence that he has put in full effort and mined the depths of his passage. But he doesn’t always need to explicitly show that work. (And yes, we all already know that dunamis is related to the English “dynamite.”)
They include extended quotes from commentaries. Commentaries are crucial when it comes to properly understanding a text. Preachers rightly spend a good bit of their prep time learning from experts through their commentaries. But there aren’t many occasions when the preacher should quote these experts. To read a quote from a commentary, and especially at length, is to radically change the voice of the person speaking—from his own voice to the voice of a scholar. It is to radically change the form of communication—from a spoken sermon to a written book.
Read More
Related Posts:

I believe a majority of those in most PCA presbyteries are opposed to Revoice and all that it represents.  The failure of Overtures 23 and 37 was not a vote for Revoice Theology. Those who denigrate the PCA with this line of thinking are ignorant of the PCA and her presbyterian procedures. I believe that anyone identifying as a celibate homosexual (SSA) would be rejected for ordination in most PCA presbyteries today.

As someone who voted against the Proposed Changes to the Book of Church Order (contrary to my Presbytery which voted heavily in favor of the changes), I would venture to suggest some reasons why the proposed changes failed to gain the necessary votes by presbyteries.
First, I believe a majority of those in most PCA presbyteries are opposed to Revoice and all that it represents.  The failure of Overtures 23 and 37 was not a vote for Revoice Theology. Those who denigrate the PCA with this line of thinking are ignorant of the PCA and her presbyterian procedures. I believe that anyone identifying as a celibate homosexual (SSA) would be rejected for ordination in most PCA presbyteries today.
Secondly, I believe that the battle is not over, but just beginning.  Numerous new overtures will come before the 49th General Assembly this year in Birmingham, Alabama.  Expect in the next few years a new look in regard to the membership of permanent committees and agencies.  Also, expect at least one overture to change the structure of the Standing Judicial Committee (SJC). The losing side has been knocked down, but this will only arouse their enthusiasm to recapture the PCA. They now know how the opposition (NP) works, and they are much wiser in regard to how to fight.
So why did the proposed changes fail?  Unlike presidential elections in the United States, we do not have access to “exit polls” that give us a clue as to why men voted as they did.  However, by following discussions on the Internet, and by looking at maps, three reasons can be identified.
First, the language of the proposed amendments was confusing.  The proposed amendments were in essence a distilled version of the PCA Study Committee on Human Sexuality.  The authors of the proposed changes tried to capture the nuances in this Study in short statements, but that is nearly an impossible task.  Many presbyters simply voted against the changes because the language was too confusing. The baffling meaning of the placement of commas and the impact of parenthetical statements became a stumbling-block for many voters.
Secondly, if the changes had passed, it would have made no difference.  Even with new language in the BCO, the ultimate decision resides in the courts themselves meeting on any particular day.  Men in the courts will interpret the BCO in accord with their own theological presuppositions.  Greg Johnson is already a teaching elder in the PCA and he will remain as one regardless of any changes in the BCO.
Thirdly, we’ve all seen those maps of recent national presidential elections.  The east coast (from North Carolina northward) and the west coast are blue.  Also, the large cities in the United States are generally blue.  Fly-over America (rural America) is red.   Here is a surprising fact.  If you were to create a map of the PCA presbytery votes, and place it as a template over a similar map of the United States presidential popular vote, then there would be almost a perfect match.
Indeed, the voting demographics of PCA presbyteries tended to follow the voting demographics in the recent elections for the president of the United States.  The connection is uncanny.  Progressive Presbyterian elders on the coastlines and in the big cities tended to vote like progressive politicians, and conservative Presbyterian leaders in fly-over America tended to vote like conservative politicians.
Theology and geography tend to be common bed-fellows. It’s similar to the old North-South geographical division of the Civil War.  The number of new presbyteries is growing, and these new presbyteries are being created in larger cities and outside of the southeast.  Most seminaries that feed the PCA are now much more progressive.  The younger seminary graduates, as the whole, are much more progressive than the older generation, and they tend to gravitate to the coastlines and to the larger cities. This is a third reason for the failure of the BCO changes.  Just look at politics in America, and you will understand what is happening in the PCA.
Conservatives in the PCA should not be discouraged. The battle is not over. They had only weak weapons with which to fight in this round.  They underestimated the power of their opposition. Actually, we still have the numbers to win.  They should remain in the battle long-term for the sake of the PCA and for the sake of our children’s children.  Hopefully they have learned a great deal, and will be ready to fight more wisely at the next General Assembly.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.