While letters are raw material for historians, it isn't enough to simply have an historical interest in their content, as fun as that might be. After all, God intended that we have this letter in its entirety, not just the doctrinal parts. Eventually, we need to ask ourselves, what did God want to say to us through this final chapter of Romans?
This seems an appropriate moment to introduce three words we may use somewhat carelessly when reading, studying, discussing, sharing, and living out the Bible. They are: meaning, implications, and significance. I'm going to use the descriptions/definitions provided by Robert Stein in his book, A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible.
Meaning: "The meaning of a text is that pattern of meaning the author willed to convey by the words (shared symbols) he used."
Implications: "Implications are those meanings in a text of which the author was unaware but nevertheless legitimately fall within the pattern of meaning he willed.
Significance: "Significance refers to how a reader responds to the meaning of the text."
These definitions are fairly self-explanatory, but here are a couple of additional thoughts, and then an example. The meaning of a text comes from the author, not from the reader. There is only one intended meaning in a text, and one of our jobs in study is to uncover that meaning. Stein uses the phrase "pattern of meaning" since a meaning may not be isolated into a single thought. We might think of implications as something like the underlying principles we draw from a text. In many cases, that's exactly what we're talking about. Significance is where the reader really enters the picture. When you hear the phrase, "this is what it means to me," that person is not talking about meaning, but about significance. The significance of Romans 1:17 to Martin Luther, for example, put him at odds with the entire church establishment, and lead eventually to the Reformation. We're not in Luther's position today, and so the significance of that verse is also going to be different. Paul's meaning, though, never changes, because it's cast into the written word and cemented in place.
If the differences between these words is still fuzzy, here's an example using Ephesians 5:18. First, the text: "And do not get drunk with wine, which is debauchery, but be filled by the Spirit..." Clearly, Paul is telling the Ephesians not to become intoxicated with what they called wine (a mixture of wine and water). A very clear meaning. Does this mean that as an Ephesian, I can get drunk on beer? As Paul might have said, "Certainly not!" The reason he would say that is because it's an implication within his original pattern of meaning. While the Ephesians probably weren't drinking beer, and certainly not whiskey, Paul's meaning has to do with intoxication, and would apply by implication equally to other alcoholic beverages. What about the abuse of narcotics? If Paul's pattern of meaning was something like this: "don't take into your body substances like wine that cause you to lose control of your senses and natural inhibitions", then narcotics would be covered too, whether Paul was ever consciously thinking about anything like them at the time of his writing.
Stein concludes that the main concern for interpretation most of the time is to "understand what the legitimate implications of an author's meaning are." That sounds right to me.
When it comes to understanding the significance of Ephesians 5:18, consider the difference between someone who never drinks alcohol and someone who does. For the person who drinks, this admonition actually has significance in their life, and will temper the way in which they consume alcohol. For the non-drinker, the significance of this particular implication of what Paul wrote, don't get intoxicated, will have nothing to do with their own consumption of alcohol. However, its significance might lie in how they think about others' actions, or how they might counsel someone wrestling with alcohol. At the same time, the significance of other implications in the meaning of Paul's admonition, like the abuse of drugs, might be more direct.
In thinking about Romans 16, then, what meaning, implications, and significance can we draw from his closing comments? Here's a partial list of observations related to meaning.
- Paul is vouching for Phoebe (the letter carrier?), so that she'll be well received.
- Paul knew a lot of people in Rome.
- The church in Rome was significant, without Paul's planting.
- There were a lot of people involved in Paul's missionary work.
- There were a lot of women involved in Paul's missionary work, and given equal esteem in what they had accomplished, and how Paul felt about them.
- Priscilla and Aquila must have been significant workers in the early church.
- Paul has a genuine affection for those he has worked with.
Paul's meaning seems to be no more complicated than expressing his affection for these individuals, commending their work for Christ, and making Phoebe's arrival in Rome a welcomed one. Some of the implications I see in this text are:
- It takes a lot of people to do a work like Paul's
- There are, as Paul has said, many members in the church body, and each has a role to perform.
- Women are a significant part of the work of the church to be highly regarded. (How significant is something left for another discussion.)
- Working together builds bonds of friendship that last over time and space.
I'd like to end on an item of significance for me. Paul takes the time to remember and name a large group of individuals, 27 by name, and a few by relationship to those named. It certainly would have been easier to simply say greet all the brothers and sisters in Rome. In our world, we get so busy that we tend to take shortcuts like that. I need to remember that.
Having said that, I'd better change what the thank you I've written on the right side of the page. Talk about significance.
No comments:
Post a Comment