The Critical Error Most Bible Students Miss

And how it is creating a new age modern theologian and student of the Bible...

The Bible was written for us, but not to us.

I recently watched an interview that Lecrae had with Larry Sanger (co-founder of Wikipedia) where they discussed the Hebrew term "elohim" and how Christians should understand it. In the clip, Larry was adamant that we should not understand the term as God, and if we do translate it, it is only appropriate to do so within quotation marks (e.g., "gods") as an indication that these beings do not exist.

Needless to say, I have lots of issues with this statement.

I created a brief response video if you guys want to check that out.

Then, the other day I saw a video of Doug Wilson in a CNN interview where he stated, "Women are the kind of people that people come out of." I watched the extended 30-minute interview, and there is more than I have time or energy to address. But the comment about not having women in submarines because of an example of what would happen if you had three women trapped in a submarine for 30 days with 40-some "horny men" had me speechless.

In response to that video I posted a clip in an attempt to relocate our anthropology away from starting at Genesis chapter 3 and instead opting for Genesis 1 and 2. In the clip I point out the difficulty of the Hebrew ṣēlāʿ and how it is a better option to translate the word as an entire side of a building or pillars of stability and not the popular “rib” translation which is problematic on a number of levels.

(Source: John the Theologian and Prokhor by Andrey Mironov (b. 1975))¹

In response to this post, I received an interesting comment, "In some secular Greek texts, boēthos can be used for assistants, attendants, or even servants who respond to a call. Does theologian mean that you can ignore semantic range? I'm sure the first hearers recalled visions of women as a 'miLiTaRy ALIY.'" The full quote ends with a passive-aggressive and odd comment about my walk-and-talk airport videos, which is... honestly... whatever.

But the accusation of ignoring semantic range got my attention. I responded to that with the following:

I’d love to know how you’ve come to the conclusion that I’m employing a semantic range fallacy? Cause it’s not a Semantic Anachronism. And it’s not Semantic obsolescence. This is the first time we find the Hebrew ṣēlāʿ and typically there are at least 6 interpretive methods. Sadly, most of these methods presume ṣēlāʿ means “rib” and according to Driver this may be due to imposing an Arabic word meaning curved which relates to a curved bone like a rib - however, as one Hebrew scholar noted, “The only certain thing, however, is that if ṣēlāʿ does mean “rib,” it does so only in this one passage. This semantic singularity, of course, suggests that one seek a different solution.”²

Therefore, I’m theologically and linguistically unconvinced of the “rib” interpretation. Thus, I’ve opted for a version of the “sacral architecture” interpretation that fits with the usage of ṣēlāʿ and correlates with “ezer” and the unusual verb in this context bānâ which means to “build” which contextually reinforces an architectural reading and interpretation. As one scholar notes, “The verb built by its very definition implies beauty, stability, and durability.³

What makes this also interesting is that the LXX opts for pleurón generally meaning “side” all leading to my view.

Both of these instances really reminded me of the fundamental challenge modern readers of the Bible have when it comes to the Biblical text. It is something so unassuming and yet can be devastating: our own modern context.

It is so easy to try to fill in interpretation and application based on our modern understanding of science, culture, art, and language. We can try to take modern philosophical ideas and read them back into the Biblical text. The problem is, while the Bible was written for us, it was not written to us.⁴ There were real human authors who were directed by the one divine author. There was an original intended reader/audience who were situated in a specific historical, social, and cultural context. And we don’t get to determine how they would respond to words, images, and stories rooted in the Biblical text or their own immediate ancient context.

We have a difficult task. With humility, try to assess the best we can with the information and historical reconstruction (via linguistics, social, historical, and cultural data such as archeology), how they may have responded. The magnitude of this task should truly leave us in a posture of humility.

The process for the student of the Bible is to start with the text and read forward into our modern moment—not start with our modern moment and read back into the text. Here are a couple of examples of how this can play out.

1. We take our modern 21st-century idea of a word and impose it onto the Biblical text. In the situation of "God/god," we have an English word that is being used to translate a Hebrew word. Every translation by definition is an interpretation. We are taking a word with a meaning in a source language and interpreting it into a target language. Anyone who speaks multiple languages knows that translating humor from one language to another is a disaster. The joke is never funny when you translate it into another language. In a similar way, in the example of the English word "God/god," there is a modern definition of the word that has to be contrasted with the original intent of the Hebrew word "elohim." This helps us understand the English word in context. We can be referring to the uncreated creator (God) or lesser spiritual beings who were created by Yahweh (gods). Notice how there is a modern mechanism to show the difference between a capital "G" and a lowercase "g." There are things we can do in the target language (the translated language) to help us get to the meaning of the source language. It is worthy work to do so.

2. We can assume hermeneutical error simply because we don't like the interpretive conclusion that differs from our own preference. It is easy to equate a different but valid theological opinion/stance as being hermeneutically in error. But the real issue is not necessarily one of hermeneutical error, but a difference of opinion on hermeneutical method that leads to varying interpretative decisions. Of course, there are errors that are made. When an error is found in the academy, it is addressed and critiqued. When there is a difference of opinion, usually the academy (at least in formal theological circles) has a sense of decorum in engagement. There is room for fierce disagreement, all done in an environment conducive to truly understanding the other view/opinion. You may be unconvinced at the end, but you are better because you understand more clearly where the argument is coming from. This is vital when it comes to secondary and tertiary areas of theological triage. In today's social media-driven world of viral takes and responses, I fear we are in desperate lack of respectful dialogue in areas of difference. Now, I think there is a reason for this. There is no viral success with a humble approach. It won't build a brand fast. It won't get massive amounts of eyeballs on social accounts so you can in a slick way move them along your sales funnels. You won't often get the exhilarating feeling of celebrities and influential personalities resharing your content or commenting on your reels.

   But you know what you will get? A faithful representation of the way of Jesus. You will most likely get fewer eyes but more attuned hearts to the way of Christ.

The result of all of this is the development of the new age modern theologian and Bible student. Let me just say it in a modern way—we need to make humble theology great again. And the only way for this to happen is to have humble theologians and Bible students who cultivate discourse wrapped in humility that is still convictional. This doesn't make you weak; it places you in a position of strength. Because the goal isn't to win an argument—it is to rightly know a person.

And just maybe, if you can know a person, you can engage with that person in a way that honors them and yourself.

---

For more theological content, check out my YouTube Channel

1. Robert W. Yarbrough, “1 John,” in CSB Study Bible: Notes, ed. Edwin A. Blum and Trevin Wax (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2017), 1991.

2. Source: Heinz-Josef Fabry, “צֵלָע,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, trans. Douglas W. Stott (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 402.

3. Source: Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1–17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 179.

4. I’ve heard this so many times I am truly unsure who to credit with the quote. Whoever it was, they were much smarter than I will ever be and I am forever indebted.