Mis-Interpretation vs. Mis-Appropriation of Scripture

A quick post. (This is the week before finals, and I’m swamped.) Briefly, I think the misinterpretation of Scripture is less of a problem than the misappropriation of Scripture. I hold this opinion for several reasons, a few of which I’ll quickly enumerate.

(1) Due to our limitations and frailties, we simply cannot trust ourselves to find “the right interpretation” of Scripture. Of course, some readings of Scripture are so egregious we can easily discern them as mistaken. However, many, many interpretations of Scripture seem equally valid, as best as we can tell. We should accept this fact, and move forward modestly.  As Maimonodies said, “A written document, no matter how perfect, is always open to misinterpretation.” Not least because we are radically imperfect readers.

(2) We’ve all heard the exegetical mantra: “one interpretation; many applications.” Personally, I think that’s nonsense. That school of thought assumes the “one interpretation” is a reading of the author’s original intent. But the truth is we cannot – even the author himself cannot – get to that, whatever it is.

Given, then, the slipperiness of authorial intent and the inveterate infirmity of our meaning-making abilities, we should stop worrying so much about “misinterpretations” and concern ourselves more and more with misappropriations – especially our own misappropriations!   

By the “misappropriation” of Scripture I mean the use of Scripture to advance one’s own rhetorical agenda. Of course, we are all of us tempted to do just that, and most of us – perhaps all of us – rarely, if ever, overcome this temptation. And in the nature of the case, it is nearly impossible to know when we are wronging the Bible (and our opponents and our ourselves and God) in this way. Nonetheless, it is this – and not a “mis-interpretation” (whatever that might be) which is done in good faith - that is the greater problem. 

The crucial issue is not so much what one thinks Scripture is, but rather what does one think Scripture is for. What use does it have? The Bible, I would say, it is not to be “used” in any way at all. It is not an apologetic tool. It is not a collection of various proofs designed to be advanced against one’s opponents.Those who use it as an argumentative ace-in-the-hole violate it horribly.  We ought to approach not the Bible in the abstract, but the specific texts themselves, and treat them humanely – that is, we should read them as the words of certain human authors who were mysteriously “moved by the Holy Spirit,” but were nonetheless tragically flawed. We should approach these texts with a sense of awe, afraid of taking them lightly. There’s entirely too much Bible-quoting!  At this point, less is more.