I must confess that my knowledge of Old Testament history is not quite on a par with 1066 and All That, but is still more than a little bit shaky. What always used to puzzle me was how the twelve tribes of Israel became the one kingdom of Judea in the time of Christ and of course it is quite a long tale, extending over many centuries. The unification of tribes occurred when Saul was crowned king and his kingdom was subsequently extended by David. But the kingdom proved to be difficult to hold together, particularly under the autocratic rule of Solomon and it fell apart after his death with the formation of the two kingdoms, of Judah and Israel, Judah in the South and Israel in the North. After many invasions of both kingdoms and after the Babylonian captivity, it was Judah which eventually became Judea and Israel which became Samaria. Our Old Testament reading is set in Israel, which would become Samaria, at the time of the prophet Elisha, who followed on from Elijah before him, both very significant players in Jewish history. So the Jews and the Samaritans had a common origin and shared a common history – and of course they hated each other.
Isn’t it strange how closeness seems to engender hostility? The more we have in common, the easier it seems we find it to quarrel. The Jews and the Samaritans had a common origin and parallel histories of invasion and exile and yet they could find no sympathy for one another. This was something that Jesus hated. Think of the Samaritan woman at the well; and the parable of the good Samaritan; and the point of this morning’s gospel is not only about being thankful to God, but also to bring home to the Jews that the Samaritans were human too. And this message is for us today: it is not just Jews and Samaritans who fall out, but Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, Sunni and Shia in Iraq, Hindus and Moslems in India and many other places where closeness has provoked hostility. What can we do about it?
Division seems to be inherent in human nature: it occurs in religion but it even occurs in science, which is supposed to be objective. Controversy is inevitable where there is uncertainty and where results are subject to interpretation and this is very proper because it is part of the process of getting at truth. The difficulty is to engage in controversy without also provoking hostility, something which we are finding very difficult in the Anglican church at the moment.
How to deal with controversy seems to have been behind the letter to Timothy and Paul’s advice is to stick to Christ, the central message of the gospel; not to get hung up on words; and above all, to understand how to interpret scripture. In fact these three themes hang together: we interpret scripture in the light of the gospel, not letting a literal understanding become a stumbling block, and it is this topic of interpretation I would like to dwell on today.
Of course, the first thing I do when I go through the lessons for example, is to try and understand what the scripture meant to those who first heard it and to those who wrote it. And often, one of the first things you find when you investigate it, is that who wrote scripture is not always clear. When I read the letter to Timothy, I was struck by how different the style was from the other Pauline epistles, even in translation. Looking back now for 2,000 years we cannot really know whether this epistle was written by Paul or not and to some extent, it does not really matter. Scripture is inspired not because of who wrote it, but because of what it contains. But the context does matter because you do need to know why scripture was written if you are to truly understand it. The date, the motive for writing and the situation of those who are to receive it are all important in understanding scripture today. You need to know when you have poetry in your hand and when that poetry is in the form of a national epic. You need to know when you have a business letter and when you have history. The bible has been written over a period of centuries by many different people and for many different reasons, but never, as far as I can see, as a contribution to something called, The Bible.
So how do we interpret it for today? The first thing to say is that we are dependent, or should be, on the work of the Holy Spirit. It is important to take the words and our situation today and place them before the throne of grace, to come closer to what God would have us do. Without that, we won’t get anywhere. But it is also important to understand the changes which have taken place between when the bible was written and now. It is not the same world, we are not the same people and our understanding has grown enormously. It is not that we are cleverer than the prophets or the apostles, but many, many people have thought about what they have written and our understanding has developed.
So we must interpret scripture according to our current knowledge, but for some, this is a very worrying idea for it seems to open the floodgates to all sorts of ideas and who is to say whether or not they are right? Unfortunately, that is the reality. We can’t take Leviticus and apply it today without doing a dramatic reinterpretation. Even the Roman Catholic church, which make great play of its continuity with the apostles has changed its doctrine and continues to change its doctrine. Re-interpretation is a fact of life, even for the most conservative of organisations.
So how do we control this process? For myself, I find the most useful principle in the sayings of Jesus:
“Do not suppose that I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to complete.”
I interpret this to mean that we must be able to see how the changes we are proposing join on to the law and fit into the whole process of change: is it a natural outgrowth of what has gone before? And does it agree with the gospel and with Him who said, Love your neighbour as yourself? We really can’t go around stoning people for adultery, even though that is explicitly written in the Law.
But in presenting the gospel for today we do run the risk of getting it wrong, so I think a certain amount of humility is required, something which is often lacking in ecclesiastical debates. The only thing we can be certain of when talking about God is that our knowledge is incomplete and some of the things we believe will be wrong. The future may prove this, but unfortunately we don’t have time to wait for it. The choices we make govern our lives now. Now is the time of our salvation: tomorrow is usually too late.
So our life is a journey of faith, a step into the darkness but with the ideal of Christ as a goal. And in that journey of faith, the Bible can be a guide. Understanding and interpreting the bible is important for us all, not just the clergy. So these words to Timothy apply to us all, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved by Him, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly explaining the word of truth.” May God give us the grace to do this.