I recall one year when I was a student at Harding School of Theology. The school hosted an annual seminar on a biblical topic. That particular year the topic was “grace, faith and works.” The seminar focused on the tension between Scriptures that talk about being saved by grace through faith—saved by nothing that we do, and Scriptures that stress the importance of putting your faith to work. Several faculty members from HST were invited to participate. In addition, a leader from another local school participated. Each speaker had an assigned topic and time.
I remember when the local school leader came to the stage to deliver his presentation. Instead of speaking on his assigned topic, he verbally attacked one of the other presenters for thirty minutes. He showed slide after slide of things the other presenter had written in publications, and did his best to show how those writings were blasphemous and sinful. In reality, they were not.
When he was done, the room fell silent. We couldn’t believe a person of faith would stoop that low—using an academic conference to publically shame another presenter who was firmly committed to Scripture. Later, when that other presenter had the opportunity to speak in an unkind and public way to that local school leader, he refused to do so. He treated him cordially and respectfully. I’ll never forget that.
There’s a way of living out your faith that builds people up or tears people down. And I think most of us want the former. Most of us want a faith that builds people up. I don’t think anyone here wants to be like that local Christian leader—using faith as an excuse to tear people down. We want to live out a faith that builds others up.
But how does that happen? Because we all know people of faith that seem determined to use their religion as a club and as a hammer. How do we gain a faith that builds up others rather than tearing down others?
One way is by learning to read the Bible right.
In Luke 14, Luke introduces us to a dinner party. It was the Sabbath, the day of rest and worship. And Jesus had been invited to a dinner party.
Luke records four conversations that took place between Jesus and others at the dinner party. From the last conversation to the first, we hear Jesus speaking with a fellow guest. Then we hear Jesus speaking to his host. We also hear Jesus speaking to all the guests. But first we find Jesus in conversation with lawyers or scribes and Pharisees who are present.
1 One Sabbath, when he went to dine at the house of a ruler of the Pharisees, they were watching him carefully. 2 And behold, there was a man before him who had dropsy. 3 And Jesus responded to the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath, or not?” 4 But they remained silent. (Luke 14:1-4 ESV)
The Bible is very clear about the Sabbath. The Bible plainly says that no work should be done on the Sabbath.
8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. (Ex. 20:8-10 ESV)
“You shall not do any work.” That was the black and white of the Sabbath command. Do no work.
But what did that mean? How did applied? What counted as work and what didn’t? That’s where interpretation came in. It was one thing to know what the Bible said about the Sabbath. Most could agree on that. But it was another to understand what it meant. That’s where disagreement came.
Jesus and these religious leaders agreed on what the Bible said. They agreed that the Bible said “no work” on the Sabbath. But they disagreed on what it meant and how it was to be applied. They disagreed on interpretation.
The fancy word for interpretation is “hermeneutics.” Hermeneutics refers to the way we interpret the Bible. What Jesus engages the religious leaders in is a discussion about hermeneutics. Jesus’ isn’t asking, “What does the Bible say about Sabbath?” Instead, Jesus is asking, “What does the Bible mean? How does that apply?” That’s a little trickier.
And this story reveals two different hermeneutics, two different ways of interpreting the Bible. One inevitably leads to tearing others down. The other inevitably leads to building others up.
The religious leaders read the Bible with a hermeneutic of consecration. I’m using the word “consecration” to refer to personal piety and personal holiness. What the religious leaders were most concerned about when they read the Bible was personal piety and personal holiness. That was the lens they read the Bible through. That was especially true when it came to the Sabbath. And that lens led them to apply the Sabbath command in a way that prevented most forms of work, even those works that demonstrated compassion.
- For example, the Jewish Qumran community was a group of ultra orthodox Jews who lived in the desert. Some of them believed that, if it was a Sabbath and they suddenly came upon an animal that had fallen into a ditch, it would be a violation of Scripture to help that animal out. They interpreted “Do no work” in the strictest way. It was never permissible to do anything on the Sabbath—even helping a hurt animal.
- Others were less strict, but only slightly so. Some Jews believed it would be a sin to help an animal out of the ditch on a Sabbath, but you could throw some bedding into the ditch to help the animal be comfortable. Or you could lower something into the ditch that might allow the animal to climb out on its own.
- Still other Jews had debates about which animals it might be OK to help on the Sabbath and which it wouldn’t be OK to help.
But all of these Jews still considered many compassionate actions a violation of the Sabbath. Why? Because the overriding concern for them was consecration. Personal piety. Personal holiness. Thus they were going to interpret Scripture in a way that kept them as far as possible from anything that even looked like sin, anything that even smacked of work, even if it was a work of compassion.
Those at this dinner party read their Bibles with the hermeneutic of consecration. We know this because of the specific way Luke writes this story. Listen once more:
1 One Sabbath, when he went to dine at the house of a ruler of the Pharisees, they were watching him carefully. 2 And behold, there was a man before him who had dropsy. 3 And Jesus responded to the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath, or not?” 4 But they remained silent. (Luke 14:1-4 ESV)
“Dropsy” is an old medical term for excessive accumulation of fluid in any tissue or space of the body. It is a symptom of serious disorders such as heart, kidney, or liver disease.
It does not appear that this man just happened to be present at the dinner party. It appears that the religious leaders placed the man here on purpose.
How do we know this? First, we’re told that the leaders were “watching him carefully.” They were watching him on purpose. Why? Not because they wanted to see if he knew the right fork to use for his salad. Instead, it seems to be that they wanted to see what he’d do with this man with dropsy—implying that they planted that man there.
Second, Luke writes that when Jesus saw the man with dropsy, he “responded to the lawyers and Pharisees.” This language indicates that Jesus believed the man with dropsy was the initial volley by the religious leaders. And his response was this question: “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not?”
It makes sense that the religious leaders would plant this man because this debate has been raging throughout Luke’s gospel:
- Luke 6 – Jesus is criticized for allowing his disciples to pluck and eat heads of grain on the Sabbath.
- Luke 6 – Jesus is criticized for healing a man with a withered hand on the Sabbath.
- Luke 13 – Jesus is criticized for healing a disabled woman on the Sabbath.
The overriding concern for the religious leaders was consecration. And this led them to read their Bibles in a way that interpreted the text on Sabbath in a very specific way. A way that kept them from rendering aid because it might lead to personal sin. Ultimately their way of reading the Bible led to tearing others down.
Jesus, however, read his Bible with a different hermeneutic. Jesus read the Bible with a hermeneutic of compassion. Obviously Jesus was concerned with consecration. And we must be as well. Holiness was vital to Jesus. It must be to us as well. But for Jesus, concerns related to compassion always shaped the way he pursued consecration. Jesus refused to pursue consecration in ways that eliminated compassion. Jesus read his Bible with an overriding concern for others. The question he asked after reading a biblical text was not necessarily, “How can I apply this in a way that keeps me spotless?” Instead, the question he asked seemed to ask was “How can I apply this in a way that demonstrates love for others?”
Then he took him and healed him and sent him away. 5 And he said to them, “Which of you, having a son or an ox that has fallen into a well on a Sabbath day, will not immediately pull him out?” 6 And they could not reply to these things. (Luke 14:4-6 ESV)
When Jesus read, “You shall not do any work,” he interpreted it in a way that still permitted a great deal of work for the good of others. He applied that command in as compassionate a way as possible. And his interpretation was so different that the religious leaders accused him of breaking the law.
And this is the great divide that exists today. The great divide is still between those who read with a hermeneutic of consecration and those who read with a hermeneutic of compassion. One of the most important choices we face is how we’re going to read our Bibles. And there is a Grand Canyon of a difference between those who read with a hermeneutic of consecration and those who read with a hermeneutic of compassion. One almost always leads to tearing other people down. And one almost always leads to building others up.
This helps explain what happened in the Mid-South in 2012. You may remember waking up and finding a full-page ad in the Commercial Appeal which claimed to reveal “The Whole Truth About Homosexuality” and claimed to be from area Churches of Christ. The ad was a listing of some Scriptures about same-sex attraction and a strict called for repentance. It was a cold condemnation. Highland responded with a warmer note carried by the Commercial Appeal. And we invited Sally Gary to Highland, who directs CenterPeace, which promotes a welcoming and loving outreach to those with same-sex attraction. One represents a hermeneutic of consecration. The other was an attempt to read with a hermeneutic of compassion.
I follow a lot of people on Twitter, a social media format that allows you to communicate quickly with a lot of people. Recently, someone I follow on Twitter posted some comments about women who teach in churches. He wrote this: “A woman’s preaching is like a dog’s walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.” You can tell that he’s decided to interpret the Bible’s teaching about gender roles through a hermeneutic of consecration. He feels those texts should be interpreted so coldly that any woman in any situation who teaches or preaches is, well, a dog.
So, I told my friend about our recent trip to China. I told him that in China we met some women who preached or taught in their tiny house churches. They were some of the only Christians in their cities of millions. There were no strong male Christians to preach. Thus these women did what was necessary so that the churches could grow.
And I shared that story because I wanted my Twitter friend to consider that there might be another way of reading those texts. He might want to read in a way that affirms what those courageous Christian women were doing in China, rather than implying that they were dogs.
Jesus invites us to read with a hermeneutic of compassion. And, it turns out, many of us already do—just in very limited ways. Jesus says, Which of you, having a son or an ox that has fallen into a well on a Sabbath day, will not immediately pull him out? In other words, even some of these religious leaders will use a hermeneutic of compassion when it comes to people or possessions that are near and dear to them. They may judge Jesus for healing this man on the Sabbath. But if their own ox, or their own son were to fall into a pit on a Sabbath, these same religious leaders wouldn’t hesitate to help. They read with a hermeneutic of compassion when it came to people or possessions near and dear to them. But when it came to those far from them, they switched to a hermeneutic of consecration. Jesus is calling for consistency.
I remember a long-time elder at the first church where I preached. He was a deeply devoted man and read with a hermeneutic of consecration. One of the things this led him to do was to draw a very firm line when it came to people who were divorced. None who had been through a divorce could serve in any capacity in that church. And most who were divorced were unwelcome as members. Then, one of his children went through a divorce. And suddenly he was faced with a crisis. Would he continue to read those same texts with the same hermeneutic and drive his child away? Or would he start reading with a new lens, a hermeneutic of compassion? Naturally, he chose to start applying those texts in a more compassionate way. And eventually, that not only changed how he treated his divorced child. It changed how he treated others who were divorced.
Most of us are quick to use a hermeneutic of compassion with people and possessions near to us. All Jesus is asking for is consistency. Let’s read and apply the Bible as compassionately to all as we might do with our own family.
I feel I should stop and just state this outright: this is not a sermon about divorce or gender roles or same-sex attraction. Those are complex issues that can’t be addressed with a simple story. This is just a sermon about how we read our Bibles. Because how we read our Bibles shapes our faith into one that tears others down or builds others up. And Jesus is inviting us to read the way he read. To read and apply our Bibles in way that puts love first.
Rachel spent many years here at Highland. She was an active member of our youth group. Recently, she wrote to me in response to some things I had written about Jesus’ way of reading Scripture: “This view of the [B]ible that Highland holds is the reason why church made such a good impression on me as a teenager and still appeals to me now as an adult.” We don’t always succeed at Highland in reading with a hermeneutic of compassion. But we are trying. And when we succeed, it makes a big difference, especially to young people like Rachel. Let’s build on that legacy. Let’s continue to strive to be a church that reads our Bibles and puts love first.
So, here’s what I want you to do this week: As you read the Bible this week, constantly ask this question: If I put love first, how would that shape the way I interpret and apply what I’m reading right now?
