Expert: Hoyt Roberson - 8/30/2008

Question
QUESTION: Hoyt,

In regards to Biblical interpretation and Truth, is truth/interpretation subjective or objective.

Let me clarify what I mean by those two terms.

Subjective - Interpretation is based on my situation, feelings, and personal experiences.

Objective - Interpretation is based only on scripture and does not allow for exceptions based on situation, feelings, or personal experiences.  The only exceptions, if such exist, are provided within scripture.

Thank you for your time and answer.

Ernie

ANSWER: Ernie,

Objective truth is truth.

Interpretation, by definition, is subjective.

The attempt to make this question one that requires bi-polar answer is to create a dichotomy that doesn't exist.

It is clear in Scripture that Christians are called to apply Christian standards as the situation dictates. So for instance, Paul will have one disciple circumcised and not another. Paul will say some honor some days, others don't with the implication that it really doesn't matter which answer you pick as long as you have some integrity in the answer.

So what are we to do? We study God, we look at how He lived while on this earth, we read what he has written, and we come to know the standards and expectations that God has of His followers. Then we live as though we know that human life is more important than not working on the Sabbath, or that human hunger is more important than not eating show bread. In normal circumstances, not working on the Sabbath is appropriate. But when a higher standard is presented, we go ahead and work on that day. It may be true that only priests are supposed to eat the bread in the temple, but if someone shows up who is famished, we break the rule.

Or again, we abide by the speed limit under normal circumstances, but if someone is bleeding in the back seat, we get to the hospital as soon as possible.

It is amazing that in maturing in the Christian life, our choices begin as black and white, then progress to shades of gray, and then become black and white again as we intuitively know what the highest course of action is. When we get there, we don't have to gnash our teeth and debate about what is "right." We know automatically that in this case, breaking the "normal" rule is the most appropriate thing to do.

One last example. I think we could conclude that the Bible indicates that lying is not something Christians ought to do. However, if we were hiding Jews in our attic and an SS soldier asked us if we were, it would be appropriate to say "no, wouldn't even think about it." Why? Because the value of human life outweighs the prohibition against lying. We might then go on to realize that the Bible does not castigate a single case of lying, but actually speaks against "being a lier," one who's normal behavior is to tell untruths to protect himself or cause others harm.

Let's get closer to home. Some of our more conservative brothers say quite often that we only do what the Bible says. And yet, they allow several "expediencies" to make their lives more comfortable. Who is it that gets to determine what is an expediency and what isn't? Is it not possible that an expediency in one place may not be one in another, or vice versa? If so, would the two locations have different practices, and would that difference be a problem? I think they would have different practices and no, it wouldn't be a problem even if they both argued that only what the Bible allows is permissable.

Is there room for different reactions to different situations? I think clearly there is. Does the Bible give us every example that we might come across in life? I think not. Therefore, it is up to us to apply Christian principles to various situations that might arise. Your choice might be different than mine, and we may not see every situation the same. We may apply "the rule" 98 percent of the time, and still be able to make exceptions when the situation dictates.

Did you have a specific example or situation in mind, or just this general question?

Thanks for asking,

Hoyt

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Yes, I had several examples.  You've already said that lying is okay given certain situations and how you feel about it in your heart.  

1. What about divorce for any other reason than that your spouse committed adultery?  (Matt. 5:32; 19:9)
2. What about theft? (Eph. 4:28)
3. What about immersion in water for the remission of sins? (1 Pet. 3:21; Romans 6:3-18; Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16)

Is there room for different reactions to different situations for these?  Can a person in certain situations be saved without water immersion and make it to heaven without ever being immersed?

Thanks for your time and answer.

Answer
Man, I feel like I've applied to be preacher at your church ;)

1. Scripture is clear that the original plan does not include divorce at all. God expects us to live with the commitments we make. However, given the situation that presented itself to God, he decided that if your spouse cheated on you, you could divorce them. While allowable, it isn't the preferred option.

However, the discussion of divorce is essentially with a bunch of guys that apparently have the habit of trading wives if their wives burnt their toast. It is in this context that we have the discussion essentially presented, and it is this context that we must understand the answer. This answer does not apply (or, based on my earlier response, this rule may not be the most appropriate one to enforce in every situation) if for example the husband is beating his wife up every Friday night. In that case, the most appropriate course of action is for the wife to divorce her husband. In this situation, we are not presented with folks divorcing for petty reasons; human safety and dignity are being flaunted. Those, as Jesus has indicated, are more important than the standard rule.

However, if we want to argue that the absolute rule applies in every circumstance, then we can agree that the divorce itself may be a sin, but that does not make one unforgivable or removed from God. All sin can be repented of, and one's otherwise Christ-centered life, continued.

2. Theft, like divorce, is a no-no. But, like divorce, the general rule is applied within immediate circumstances. The gathering of grain on the edges of fields is technically theft (it doesn't belong to you), but God says the needs of humans take precedence over the general rule. The same remains true; while taking someone else's property is generally wrong, if you're going to die if you don't, go ahead and take it.

The comparison in Ephesians is a contrast between someone who steals for a living rather than being a responsible and contributing member of society.

3. Immersion. Again the general rule, apparently, is that baptism plays a part in someone's returning to God. However, the conversion process isn't a simple event but occurs over time. God's allowed to accept whoever he wants, whenever he wants. Again, the general rule is allowed exceptions as appropriate.

How's that? Would I pass the screening?

Have a great weekend, Ernie!

Follow-up------------------

Ernie, thank you for your kind and generous comment to my responses. While I had expected a self-righteous and virulent response, you exceeded my expectations considerably. Thank you for demonstrating the grace and compassion of our God.

May you enjoy years of blessing and comfort, and may you come fully to understand the love our God has for the creation.

I look forward to exchanging future notes with you in the future.

With much Christian love and care,

Hoyt