Consider two men who have partial blindness in their left eye. One of these men recognizes his blindspot and modifies his lifestyle to accommodate this reality. He doesn’t drive a car anymore, he takes greater caution in crowds, and has begun wearing glasses to help his vision. The other man chooses to deny that he has any blindspot at all. He drives his family around, refuses to see an eye doctor, or do anything differently at all. The first man is wise, the second is not only a fool, but a danger to himself and others. While this story may seem strange, we often behave like the second man when we go to read and interpret the Bible.
Often, when interpreting scripture, we strive to read the text with unbiased eyes. Behind this is the idea that to read the Bible without bias will give us the right understanding and interpretation. Many preachers claim that the view they exposit comes from the “unbiased” reading of the text, and therefore is correct. The problem with this, is that such a claim is not only incredibly dangerous, but impossible. Furthermore, as we will see, we should be proudly biased when reading the Bible.
Let’s start with why it’s impossible to be unbiased when looking at the Bible.
We don’t know what we don’t know. Anyone who’s been married is well aware of this, we grow up observing certain behaviors in our parents, interactions with siblings, family norms, traditions, structure, and so much more. We grow up thinking that this behavior is normal and aren’t even aware that the way we do things may not be standard. Then, we get married to another person who grew up observing different behaviors in their parents, had different interactions with siblings, different family norms, etc. I didn’t know that certain ways I grew up and lived weren’t shared by everyone until I got married. Things that were normal and inoffensive in my family were offensive to my wife, and vice versa. Likewise, we don’t know every way that we’ve been influenced by our environment (let alone how our brain is wired) that might influence how we read the Bible. Often, we focus on the big sources of bias (perhaps you’ve heard the story of the tribe who thought Judas was the good-guy of the gospel narrative), but we lose sight of smaller or less obvious sources of bias (growing up in a 21st century western enlightenment-influence country, whether you grew up liberal or conservative, your relationship with your father, what your favorite childhood television show was, etc.). The first may be easier to set aside when reading the text, the second is far more difficult to recognize – let alone function independently of.
We run into further difficulties when we try and define what it looks like to be “unbiased” in the first place, as being “unbiased” looks different from person to person, and assumes that all people of all times have always thought the same way. An example of this is in how one interprets the “Olivet Discourse” found in the synoptic gospels. Unfortunately, a full exposition of this passage would be out of scope for this article, but we’ll call attention to a few points. In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus is responding to the disciples remarking at the beauty of the temple. Jesus tells them that not one stone will be left upon another. In other words, the temple will be utterly destroyed. The disciples respond by asking him for signs that this will be taking place. What follows is Jesus describing the signs of this event taking place, followed by what seems to be a prediction of his second coming. The problem with interpreting this passage is that what Jesus says in the first part of the discourse seems to be very clearly pointing to the sacking of Jerusalem and the utter destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. Yet Jesus did not return in A.D. 70, and still has yet to return. How might this passage be interpreted then?
Taking an “unbiased view” of the text has led to a variety of interpretations. For example, dispensationalism has, with their supposedly unbiased view interpreted that all of Jesus’s words in the discourse are referring to a distant future event, not the destruction of the temple. They, from their unbiased view assume that because Jesus did not return, this could not be referring to the sacking of Jerusalem, therefore it must be future. One unbiased view leads to futurism (the idea that the olivet discourse prediction is in our future). Another view, however, takes a drastically different turn. Full, or hyper preterists, also claiming to take an unbiased view (holding to the historic creeds and confessions is biased, they claim) look at the olivet discourse and say that Jesus is clearly referring to the destruction of Jerusalem, therefore, he must have returned in A.D. 70. Just not in the way that modern apostles/nicene-creed influence protestants would expect. This view is heretical, but it comes from those who claim to have an “unbiased approach.” Yet another drastically different view comes from secular (some atheist, some progressive/liberal christian) scholars. They, claiming to be unbiased, would agree with the preterists that Jesus is clearly referring to the sacking of Jerusalem, but would also agree with the dispensationals that Jesus did not return in A.D. 70, though they believe that he claimed it would happen. Therefore, they conclude that Jesus was not God, rather he was just an incorrect man. Why? Because he claimed that he would return on a specific occasion, but didn’t. One unbiased view leads to futurism, another unbiased view leads to preterism, and yet another unbiased view leads to atheism and skepticism. Now of course, each one of these camps would accuse the others of having bias, but this just reveals the problem at hand. It is a bias to say that “the Bible is not a divine book,” it is also a bias to say that it is a divine book, just as it is biased to say that “the Bible is partially a divine book,” and even to say that “the bible might be a divine book.” There is no unbiased reading in this case, rather a choice between biases.
Another way this can clearly be seen (within regenerated Christians) is by looking at commentaries on scripture throughout church history. I have very often benefited from reading John Calvin’s commentaries on scripture, however, there are times when I read his works and have no idea what he’s talking about, or how he came to a particular conclusion. Yet Calvin did not grow up in the same time period as I did, his culture did not struggle with the same sins that mine does, the enemies and threats to the church are not the same, the list goes on. Is it any wonder than, that this man’s understanding an interpretation of a passage differs from mine? This is just one example, I’ve seen this in modern as well as old study bibles, ancient and modern commentaries, sermons, etc. No one is truly unbiased.
This, however, is not a bad thing. Not necessarily at least. As in the story of the two blind men, only the one who refused to acknowledge his blindness was a danger to others. When we recognize and acknowledge our biases, it can allow us to be aware of our own blindspots. This is also why it is good to “read widely.” To see how the church throughout history has understood a passage. To see how different traditions understand a passage of scripture. Not all groups are equal of course. I treat any commentary on Romans, for example, that holds to New Perspective on Paul with far weight than one that holds to an orthodox view on Pauline theology. Yet it is beneficial to understand how different people, with different biases read a text of scripture. We, with our biases, may diminish a particular condemnation in scripture, or give greater weight to something than God intended it to have. We must be aware of our biases whenever possible, so that we can alleviate our blindspots.
Finally, there is something to be said about good biases. What separates the three groups in the example of the olivet discourse above? Some had better biases than others. The atheist is biased toward atheism, of course. He comes into the Bible with the understanding, the bias, that it is not a divine book, that Jesus is not God, and that God likely does not exist in the first place. The dispensational would argue that the Jesus is fully God and fully man, and that scripture is the Holy Word of God, inerrant and infallible. This is a good bias to have! Not all biases are created equally. There are some biases that we should bring to light and try and destroy, because they are dangerous, such as believing that there is not God, or that the Bible can be false. Other biases are absolutely necessary to have when reading scripture, biases such as
- God is real
- God does not change
- God’s Word, the Bible, is inerrant, infallible, complete, and the only rule to direct us in our lives.
- The Bible is living and active, just as relevant for today as it was when it was written.
- Jesus Christ is God, the promised king, prophet, priest, and messiah.
- The entirety of the Bible is testifying to Jesus.
- There is only one correct way to interpret any passage
This is not an exhaustive list by any means. Yet to read the Bible “without bias” would be to set aside these things listed above. To read the Bible without believing that God is real, or to read it with the understanding that it can be incorrect, contradictory, or that everyone’s interpretation is equally valid is dangerous. We should proudly hold to some of these biases when we read the text. We are Christians after all, let us read the Bible as Christians.