As a Bible teacher, I hear the phrase “the plain meaning of the text” all the time. It’s used in the context of, “the right interpretation (i.e., “way to read”) of the text is the plain meaning of the text.” Take the creation account, for example. The plain meaning of the text is that a “day” is a 24-hour period of time. This is the plain meaning of the text and therefore is the RIGHT INTERPRETATION of the text.
In other words: plain meaning = correct meaning.
In a lot of cases, this hermeneutical rule is spot on. HOWEVER, there are many, many times where what is “plain” to one reader is not at all “plain” to another reader. This is because what comes to the front of our minds as we read a text is conditioned by our worldview. That is, our context frames and dictates that which is “plain”.
Here’s an example.
I attended a prayer/devotional time this morning here at EBS in Haiti. The devotional time was led by one of my dear Haitian brothers that we’ll call Jean Claude. His text was Romans 1:16–17, a text many of us know well. It reads:
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.” (ESV)
Here’s how Jean Claude, interpreted this passage.
There was a couple in his community (non-Christians) who had marital problems. They were both having affaires. Leading up to the event, Jean Claude had been talking with the husband about giving his life to Jesus. The man was getting closer to making the decision when he learned of his wife’s infidelity.
At that point, the husband said that he couldn’t become a Christian because it would cause him SHAME.
Why would it “shame” him, you ask? Because, in order to save face, that is, maintain his pride as a man in the community, he would have to avenge those who wronged him (in this case, his wife and her partner). Revenge, in this case, is murder. Knowing that Christians are to forgive and not take revenge, he understood that becoming a Christian would cause him shame by taking away his right to take revenge, and thereby taking away his status as a respected man in the community.
Furthermore, his right as a non-Christian to take matters into his own hands also SHAMES those who wronged him because it would make public their social crime. The scales of justice, in his mind, would be balanced this way.
Jean Claude, then, says that Rom 1:16–17 applies perfectly to this context. If the man became a Christian and forgave his wife and her partner (rather than taking revenge), then the Gospel literally became the “power for God for salvation” (v. 16) because it would, quite literally, save the lives of the wife and her partner.
Furthermore, the verse applies to this context because forgiveness is a higher road of virtue than revenge. This means that forgiveness, rather than shaming the man, elevates him as a more pious and virtuous member of the community. Because of this, he would not be “ashamed of the gospel” (interpreting the genitive “of the gospel” as a genitive of result rather than a genitive of object which is how it’s normally interpreted according to the Western “plain reading”). This turns the “plain meaning” of the phrase “ashamed of the gospel” to “ashamed because of the Gospel”.
This is an EXCELLENT exercise in how the plain meaning of the text becomes a bit more complicated than it seems at first blush. The question is, even if this is not what the Apostle Paul had in mind when writing to his original audience, is it a valid interpretation? Are Jean Claude’s interpretive results sound?
Furthermore, what did Paul mean with this verse? For starters, the Gospel, as Paul defines it in vv. 1–7 of the same chapter, is the reign of Jesus as the King prove through his resurrection. But how is this “shameful”? Well, it’s shameful in two ways. First, for Jews it’s shameful because Paul’s claim is that the Jews rejected and killed the long awaited Messiah. What they had been waiting for all along had finally arrived, was right in front of them, and they missed it. They not only missed it, but they condemned it. They sent him to death on a cross. This very condemnation, says Paul, God turns on its head and makes it the only way to salvation. That is, God uses the very unjust act of the enemies of God to extend his own grace far enough to redeem them. THAT, my friends, is grace.
Second, it’s shameful to the Greeks (i.e., non-Jews) because Roman crucifixion is the highest form of criminal punishment. This was for those who were foolish enough to challenge the reign of Rome over the civlized world. Anyone who died this was was considered the most foolish of society. To say that someone who died this was was the King of the Creation would make one, well, an idiot. It would be a cause of shame to say, “the guy that I follow and trust in ended up in an electric chair.”
This is the historical context in which Paul is speaking when he says that he is not ashamed of the Gospel. For Jews and Gentiles of the first century, this is the “plain meaning” of the text.
The question from here is, is this the plain meaning of the text for contemporary, Western world reader? I would venture to say no. I’ve heard pastors in the US preach on this verse, and their take on the “plain meaning” of the text is that we should believe in Jesus even if it isn’t “cool”. In other words, in a post-post modern, largely secular humanist world, Christianity (or any religion) is not a viable belief system for people who are serious thinkers. This is in line with what I call “Santa Clause Syndrome”. The religion is for primitive thinkers to fill in the gaps of things they cannot explain or don’t understand. To believe in the unseen, to depend on Jesus, to be a Christian, demands a lesser intellect. It’s looked down upon.
In this context, the “plain meaning” of the text is, “even though the secular world looks down on you for being a person of faith, don’t be ashamed of the gospel. Don’t hide the fact that you are a person of faith even though it will result in your own embarrassment.”
This is quite different than what the plain meaning was to Paul’s original audience.
So, what’s the right interpretation? More precisely, which “plain meaning” of the text do we go with? The Haitian reading? The first-century reading? The 21st century Western protestant evangelical reading?
What’s my point? My point is that the argument of “plain meaning of the text = correct meaning of the text” isn’t always as simple and straight forward as we tend to think.
For a final note, I’m not arguing here that all readings are legitimate. I contend that we first attempt to discover the plain meaning of the text as it was for the intended historical audience (first century jewish-gentile church in Rome, in this case), then cross the “application bridge” to contemporary culture to see how the principle applies today. That’s another conversation altogether. The only point that I’m making here is that “plain meaning = correct meaning” is sticky.
