In reading the Sermon on the Mount, my family discussed whether Matthew 6:17 should be take literally. That is, Jesus says, “when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face” (CSB). The specific question was, “When you fast, are you required to put oil on your head (“anoint your head” ESV)? If you don’t, aren’t you going against what Jesus clearly says?
The obvious answer is ‘no.’ Jesus is not prescribing a fundamental requirement of fasting, but is rather – in the context of His sermon – making it clear that one shouldn’t disfigure oneself when fasting or draw attention. Rather, clean yourself up – take a shower – and go about your business. “And your Father who sees in secret will reward you” (Matthew 6:18b).
This is such an obvious interpretation of the meaning (see here), but it is also a very mis-usable practice. When are we allowed to ‘read between the lines’ or ‘recotextualize’ the very words of Jesus – claiming to have knowledge of an underlying principle or theme that invalidates the actual words Jesus spoke? How do we guard against cultural contextualization that emasculates a seemingly real meaning of a text for an accommodationist interpretation?
It’s clear that at times, interpretations of the text must be recontextualized from its first century context (or BC context, in the case of the OT) to preserve the meaning. Jesus did this, in sorts, in Matthew 12 when he adopted the story of David and the Levites eating and taking on the Sabbath. He said, “You’re missing the meaning of these passages if you don’t allow them to be applied in these contexts.” He did this in Luke 24, when, “beginning with Moses and the Prophets, He interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” The text needed to be reinterpreted – removed from its cultural setting and perhaps re-viewed or perhaps newly-viewed – in order to more closely represent the true meaning.
But how do I do that consistently, faithfully, and in a way that preserves and chases a Divine meaning to which I can humbly submit myself? How do I prevent myself from remaking Scripture in my own image? I want to define some practices and ‘rules’ for interpreting passages on principle, rather than ‘at face value.’ (As I’m writing this, I have no doubt that other, more thoughtful scholars have offered rich and more thorough explanations of this. As I find those, I’ll update this and refine my own language.)
It must agree with context. In this, I mean any interpretation of a passage must make sense in the immediate context of the passage. It will never be – it can never be – a ‘uncontextualized proof text.’ In the case of Matthew 6:17, this makes sense. The questions should be asked, “Why does Jesus command oil be put on the head?” and that answer – the cultural practice – should be contextualized for today, to attempt to interpret the passage’s meaning.
It should be called for by context. This is a corollary to the first principle, but better than simply “agreeing with the context,” it should be called for by the context. Matthew 6 does this – to wear oil on ones head today would actually go against the overall interpretation of the immediate passage – oil on the head would draw attention to oneself. So, we can be more confident in taking the verse on principle, because the context calls for it.
The concept of ‘calling for it,’ needs to be defined by the actual passage, however, and not culture. Furthermore, I would be cautious with saying a passage ‘calls for’ principled understanding on the basis of intrabiblical agreement; just because it’s hard to reconcile a passage with another passage isn’t justification to recontextualize a face value interpretation. It may happen, but tread carefully.
The interpretation should be attested to elsewhere in Scripture. This is just a general practice of hermeneutics, but a good strict rule for recontextualization: I will feel most confident when my interpretation is reinforced elsewhere in Scripture. That is, I would be a fool to base a theological or lifestyle principle on a passage which has only a recontextualized (or multiple recontextualized) passage as its cornerstone. That’s just dangerous ground.
I’ll take this a little further – I will struggle immensely with any application based solely on a recontextualized passage in Scripture. When doing good work of Bible reading, corroborating attestation should be present before drawing broad applications.
It must be done humbly. Finally, like all work in interpretation, it must be remembered that we’re chasing something concrete – meaning. The passage truly means something (and perhaps more than one thing). The intention is God’s. The meaning is God’s. It’s not hidden – He’s not keeping it from us, but it is His and our privilege to search it out and find it. We do so prayerfully, patiently, expectantly, and most of all – humbly. It is not our meaning; it is God’s. It is grace by which we receive it. But we seek it, and He is kind to give it.
I’ll add to this list as more boundaries or principles come to me.