Archives For Most Misunderstood Bible Verses

Untitled30

The word to which Inigo Montoya refers in the Princess Bride is ‘inconceivable.’

For many people outside the Kingdom of Florin, it’s inconceivable that another Word doesn’t mean what they think it means.

From cliched, Christian-speak catch-phrases (‘wherever 2 or 3 are gathered’) to familiar flannel-graphed VBS stories (‘Truly, this was God’s Son’), Christians are guilty of routinely misunderstanding, misquoting, misapplying or just plain MISSING verses of scripture.

So I offer you (in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) the 15 Most Misunderstood Bible Verses.

#14: The Centurion’s Confession

“Now when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said: ‘Truly, this man was the Son of God.”

(Mark 15.39 NRSV)

Adam Lewis Greene is a graphic artist who specializes in book design. Greene recently began a kickstarter campaign to produce an elegant, readable, novelized version of the Bible.

‘Bibliotheca’ as he calls it struck a chord, quickly exceeding Greene’s initial fundraising goal of $30K by almost $1.5 million.

Evidently others saw in the Bible what Greene sees: an unreadable book.

As a book designer, Greene notes that the encyclopedic format of most Bibles, with thin pages, small fonts, tight margins, lack of white space, unfriendly chapter breaks, distracting verse and footnote citations obscure what scripture fundamentally is: a narrative.

A story.

Meant to be read as you would a novel or a memoir from the beginning to the end.

Reading John’s Gospel, say, in one sitting from start to finish can reveal more about John’s message than any scholarly commentary.

We miss something of the original intent, Greene argues, when we divvy John’s Gospel up into discrete units that we then bloodlessly cross-reference with a hundred other small units of scripture.

The Bible’s encyclopedic form lulls us into forgetting that the evangelists weren’t writing numbered verses. They were creating art; that is, they composed their narratives in such a way as to have an affect upon us.

The bad design of most editions of the Bible, encouraging us to read scattershot as we would a reference book, leads to bad readers of the Bible.

Perhaps no verse of scripture makes Greene’s point as clearly as the centurion’s ‘confession’ at the end of Mark’s Gospel:

‘Truly, this man was the Son of God.’

399px-cranach_calvary2

Crucified, Jesus has just cried out ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?!’ which itself is a verse from Psalm 22, a prayer the Roman centurion would not have known.

Seeing the would-be King nailed naked to a tree and ostensibly crying out in anguish, this soldier says ‘Obviously, this was the Son of God!’

Son of God? Based on what exactly?

As far as he knows this rabble-rousing rabbi has died an indignant death, abandoned by his followers and by his God, with his movement in tatters.

What would compel a Roman centurion suddenly now to see Jesus as the Son of God?

It doesn’t jive with what Mark’s just told us nor with how he’s unfolding his story.

In spite of the incongruity, Christians persist in interpreting this soldier’s statement as a noble, sincere profession of faith. The centurion thus becomes the Gospel’s first reader, modeling the reaction we should have to encountering the crucified Christ.

On a baser level, the centurion becomes exhibit A for how even a Gentile can see what the Jews do not see: ‘Duh, this was the Son of God.’

Such an interpretation, I believe, reduces Mark’s sophisticated narrative to the kind of unsubtle ‘art’ you’d expect of a Kirk Cameron movie.

Instead the centurion’s ‘confession of faith’ in 15.39 is yet another instance of the irony that thematically unites Mark’s entire Gospel.

Take Adam Greene’s advice.

Read Mark straight through, it’s short. You’ll see: irony abounds.

Only demons recognize Jesus’ authority.

The man who can exorcize demons is accused of having one.

The blind see what the seeing cannot.

He says to give to Caesar what belongs to him, but he’s just implied everything belongs to God.

The mock title above his head (‘The King of the Jews’) turns out to be true.

The ones who charge him with blasphemy commit it in doing so.

When he cries out to God, the crowd thinks he’s soliciting Elijah.

God condescending to be God-with-us in Christ results in us condescending to sin so that we can be me-without-God.

The ‘vindication’ of resurrection results in fear that produces a final failure when Mark concludes his Gospel by telling us the Easter witnesses ran away scared and didn’t say anything to anyone.

There’s a good grammatical reason not to read 15.39 as a confession of faith in Jesus as the Son of God, but the simpler reason is just to read Mark, from start to finish.

“You are the King of the Jews?” Pilate sneers at Jesus.

“Hail, the King of the Jews!” the soliders taunt.

“So, you are the King of Israel?” the bystanders mock and laugh at the Cross.

And “Truly, this was the Son of God” says the centurion.

Marc-Chagall-1887-1985-Apocalypse-en-Lilas-Capriccio-194547

In other words:

“Yeah right, this was the Son of God” is the better interpretation.

“Truly, this was the Son of God…Not” best captures how Mark thinks the world  responds to the foolishness of the Gospel.

The centurion’s comments are part and parcel of a story festering with cynicism and sarcasm.

The centurion’s ‘confession’ at the foot of the Cross is but another instance of the irony Mark employs in telling a Gospel that he believes can only be received properly as a scandal and offense.

That we persist in hearing the centurion’s confession as sincere only implicates us in the irony.

inigo_montoya

Untitled30

The word to which Inigo Montoya refers in the Princess Bride is ‘inconceivable.’

For many people outside the Kingdom of Florin, it’s inconceivable that another Word doesn’t mean what they think it means.

From the Christmas creche to Christ’s Cross, many of the Bible passages so near and dear to our (the-Lord-laid-it-on-my) hearts don’t mean what we think it means.

Very often it means exactly the opposite of what we think it means- an impressive feat, no? Sometimes Christians read into biblical passages something that is not remotely there at all, what biblical scholars call eisegesis. Other times Christians miss, almost willfully, what is right there in front of them on the page.

From cliched, Christian-speak catch-phrases (‘wherever 2 or 3 are gathered’) to familiar flannel-graphed VBS stories (‘Truly, this was God’s Son’), Christians are guilty of routinely misunderstanding, misquoting, misapplying or just plain MISSING verses of scripture.

So I offer you (in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) the 15 Most Misunderstood Bible Verses.

#15: The Widow’s Mite

“As he taught, he said, “Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and to have the best seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets! They devour widows’ houses and for the sake of appearance say long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.”

He sat down opposite the treasury, and watched the crowd putting money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which are worth a penny. Then he called his disciples and said to them, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on.”

Where Can You Find It?

Mark 12.38-44

Luke 21.1-4

What Do You Need to Know First?

The ‘story’ of the widow’s mite (really, Jesus just points to her in the crowd) comes after Jesus has entered Jerusalem, as a mock Caesar, to a Messiah’s welcome.

2 mites equaled 1 quadron in Jesus’ day, the smallest coin in Roman currency. The widow, in other words, offered the modern day equivalent of 2 half-pennies to the Temple treasury in Jerusalem.

What Jesus says about money and the Temple immediately compel the chief priests and the scribes to ‘search for a way to arrest Jesusby stealth and kill him.’ 

Jesus’ notice of the widow’s offering happens within the larger context of Jesus railing about ecclesial greed, collusion with the Empire and his prediction of the Temple’s imminent destruction by God.

How Is It Always Interpreted?

Bottom Line: This widow gives her last mite to the Temple and Jesus is pleased by this and holds her up as a good example.

This is go-to passage for sentimental children’s sermon, passive aggressive stewardship appeals and slap-yourself-on-the-back sermons against the hypocrisy of the rich, powerful or organized religion.

Almost always this passage guest-starring the widow and her mite is used as an illustration of giving as a leap of faith. The (usually) preacher will put all his or her emphasis on the ‘giving all she had to live on’ clause whilst ignoring the obvious, black-and-white (literally) context within which this pericope falls. Consequently, the widow becomes an example to all of us of someone who so trusted God to provide for her that she gave what she did not have to give: her last 2 half-pennies.

Thus Jesus draws for us a ‘contrast between the religious hypocrisy of the scribes and the genuine piety of the poor woman.’

Insert (fabricated) moral of the story:

It doesn’t matter what you give. What matters is the faith in which your gift is given.

Or:

Our offering should be in proportion to what we possess; wherein, the poor widow upstages the rich for her sacrificial generosity.

Or:

We ought to go and do likewise. Give everything and trust the Lord to provide (Cue: Mount, Sermon on)

Besides being willful misreadings of the passage, it’s never said how all these interpretations are rife with opportunities to exploit the vulnerable.

What are the Problems with this Interpretation?

Jesus doesn’t speak one iota about the widow’s faith, attitude, disposition or motivation in giving. Why? Because, as a widow, she had no freaking choice!

 

Jesus, no stranger to ‘go and do’ exhortations, doesn’t say anything of the like.

 

Right before this oft-cited passage, hidden in plain sight, in 12.40, Jesus directs his ire at the caste of the Temple. With these words:

 ‘They devour widows’ houses and for the sake of appearance say long prayers.’

And then 2 painfully obvious verses later Jesus points to a particular widow and says:

‘She out of her poverty has given everything, all she had to live.’

And then 2 painfully obvious verses later, in 13.2, Jesus predicts the destruction of the very Temple to which the widow has given her last penny:

Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.’

Why would Jesus celebrate a widow’s impoverished giving to the Temple just after condemning those religious leaders who extort widows?

Why would Jesus praise a widow giving to an institution whose destruction he will praise in just 2 short verses?

What Does It Actually Say?

Jesus condemns the scribes for preying upon widows- the most helpless of people in 1st century Israel- and the Temple system which necessitates it.

Then he sees a poor widow coming in to the Temple grounds and forking over her last penny in the scribes’ coffers. And Jesus essentially says:

‘You see?! That’s what I’m talking about! The Temple system doesn’t hurt the rich who have abundance from which to give to it, but this widow has given every last damn thing has because to them.’

So Jesus isn’t praising the widow’s gift to the Temple.

He’s lamenting a system where she must give it rather than feed herself                                (and possibly her children).

She’s still an illustration, just for a different kind of sermon: she’s a widow who’s had her house devoured. And very soon, Jesus promises, God will devour the scribes’ house. Of worship.

Rather than citing the widow in a sermon meant to gin up a pledge drive, she should be mentioned just before exhorting people of faith to examine how they themselves participate in systems (let’s use Walmart as an example) that exploit the poorest among us for the gain of the rest of us.

inigo_montoya