Missing the Point

An Examplary Interpretational Method from the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture

In my continuing series on interactions with the church fathers via the Ancient Christian Commentary on the Scripture volume IV I have found an interesting interpretational method. When seeking a life of ease whether in ancient Christendom or modern, citing Scripture may be a supremely effective technique for getting your way. In order to accomplish this you will need to become skilled at interpretational methods overlooked by many so-called leading theologians. To complete the commercial cliché: these are methods the leading theologians don’t want you to know about. They provide great power to the self-important, and since that is what we are all about here at Theoblogian.org, I will describe one of these methods for you.

Missing the Point

This method has significant advantage over the much-maligned method, “proof-texting.” Primarily it takes into account the context of the passage you use. This provides room for your eloquence to shine as you weave together multiple layers of non-sequitor. You must be careful, however, to lead your audience away the idea that your ideas are bad. An excerpt  from Constitutions of the Holy Apostles provides an example for us.

Account bishops worthy to be esteemed [as] your rulers and your kings, and bring them tribute as to kings; for by you they and their families ought to be maintained. As Samuel made constitutions for the people concerning a king in the first book of Kings [Samuel], and Moses did concerning priests in Leviticus, so do we also make constitutions for you concerning bishops. For if there the multitude distributed the inferior services in proportion to so great a king, should not the bishop, therefore, all the more now receive from you those things which are by God for the sustenance of himself and of the rest of the clergy belonging to him? But if we may add somewhat further, let the bishop receive more than the other received of old: for he only managed military affairs, being entrusted with war and peace for the preservation of people’s bodies; but the other is entrusted with the exercise of the priestly office in relation to god, in order to preserve both body and soul from dangers. (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles 2.4.34))

This is pure genius. You may see in this brief passage a beginning foundation of the Papacy. I want to draw your attention to the key elements contributing to the success of this interpretation. First you have the allusion to 1 Timothy 5:17 “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor” in the first sentence. It isn’t stated explicitly for that provokes the hearer to active discernment, and provides occasion for questions about “how these passages relate” or “how do you tell if an elder is ruling well?” Left as an allusion, the hearer who remembers the double honor will be proud of his Biblical knowledge and be favorably disposed toward your whole topic. Only the occasion that someone actually does challenge you on matters from 1 Timothy, they may be dismissed as being off-topic or beside the point.

The second key element is our main focus today: missing the point. In 1 Samuel 8, Samuel is telling the Israelites what a king will be like rather than what he should be like. The taking of  horses and menservants and maidservants and sons and cattle are the high cost of having a king. These are the negative results not the rightful due of a king. Verse 18 drives this point home “And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day” (1 Samuel 8:18).

The down-side aspect of having a king is carefully avoided throughout this interpretation even while the passage is used to reinforce the idea of making bishops wealthy. And lest anyone have a niggling question in the back of their mind, the focus is quickly shifted to Moses and the priestly instructions given in Leviticus. Though Leviticus is the passage with explicit commands for the support of the “clergy” Samuel’s speech is the main support for this idea. Not only is it the main support, it is even the launching platform for more egregious demands on a hapless congregation. Note the line, “should not the bishop, therefore, all the more now receive from you…” and “let the bishop receive more than the other received of old” followed by an irrefutable assertion that this is only fitting since the bishop cares for your souls as well as your bodies. In this the triumph of this interpretation is completed in application. Any restraints that may have applied to the king of ancient Israel should not be applied to the bishop for he is more worthy of more than the king.

Do you see how smoothly the transition may be made when you skillfully miss the point? This takes particular skill since the point is often as large as the proverbial side of the barn. Other passages that have provided similar opportunities to miss the point include 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Chronicles 4:9. In a final note: the above example should not be imitated without serious care for the Catholic church has nearly perfected its execution  in the form of the papacy. Even if your congregants are unaware of this specific example they may recognize its similarities to Catholic tradition. So take care and have fun missing the point. Please leave a comment to let me know how you faired using this “secret” interpretational method.

Login to add comments