Summary
To begin with, Zwaagstra considers "linguistic context"--the relationship between the words or passage being studied and the larger passage or document within which it is situated. He illustrates this through the story of "Goldilocks and the Three Bears"--pointing out that it would be a misinterpretation for us to conclude that the point of the story is that one-child families are best. Considering the narrative as a whole, we can see that this is not the point of the story. Likewise, he points out that Jeremiah 29:13 is situated within a larger promise of God to return the Israelites (as a national community) to their land, after seventy years. It is not a promise to bless and prosper individual believers, as it is often understood and quoted. Unfortunately, as he notes, this kind of "cherry-picking" of verses out of their context is common today.
After considering linguistic context, Zwaagstra moves deeper, into a discussion of "cultural context." Considering the cultural context of the text allows deeper understanding and takes us further from the common usage of Jeremiah 29:13. He points out that, in contrast with our individualistic Western culture, ancient Israelites conceived identity in terms of community. Thus, the promise is not to any individual or even group of individuals, but rather to the community as a whole. It is situated in the midst of national upheaval as Israel is conquered by Babylon, and many Israelites are killed. God's promise "not to harm you" is to the nation, not to individuals in the nation who may well suffer and die before God's plan is fulfilled. This is their "future" and "hope." It cannot be properly interpreted without recognizing the communal identity of ancient Israelite culture. Yet, he argues, we too often approach the Bible as if it were written for our 21st-century, Western minds by authors who share our values, beliefs, politics, and worldview. That is simply not the case; we must pay attention to cultural context in the Bible.
In closing, Zwaagstra offers some practical suggestions or guidelines for our own Bible study. Most importantly, he states, we must be humble and willing to learn. "In contrast, using the Bible to prove a preconceived point or settle an argument is a surefire path to misinterpretation," he says. The Bible is not a source of ammunition for ideological or social warfare. If we use it as such, we fail to grasp the deeper implications for our lives--both individual and communal.
Analysis
I appreciated how Zwaagstra highlights key aspects of interpretation and explains them clearly and efficiently. However, in addressing an Adventist audience, I wish he had spent more time attending to particular discussions within Adventism. His illustrations stick to "safe" ground. While I understand that avoiding controversy can allow you to reach a wider audience, that avoidance makes it difficult to understand how his ideas relate to everyday Adventist practices and discussions. Additionally, I thought he took cheap shots at issues and groups outside of Adventism, rather than addressing our own inconsistencies and misinterpretations. To me, this seems to reinforce a sense of us-vs-them (with "us" being better for apparently avoiding misinterpretation). Even as he suggests we shouldn't study scripture simply to win arguments, he seems to be doing so. But perhaps these are small caveats against the value of the main points he is explaining.
Something from this article that I believe relates to our ongoing study of hermeneutics is this: our major question should be "is this a good (strong, careful, wise, etc) interpretation?", rather than "is this a 'literal' interpretation?" Too often, the debate within Adventism (and Christianity at large) is divided into "literal" and "higher-critical positions." However, I believe this "two-party" understanding misses the point. Our chief concern should not be whether an interpretation belongs to our "party", but whether it makes the best sense of the Bible. One might argue that taking Jeremiah 29:13 out of context is reading it "literally," another might disagree--but that misses the point that understanding the passage in terms of individual prosperity is simply a bad interpretation, "literal" or not. Hopefully, the rest of our study will clarify what is a "good" interpretation.
Zwaagstra, Michael. "Biblical Hermeneutics 101." Adventist Review Online. http://www.adventistreview.org/141534-14
