Hermeneutics and Guns: A Most Unusual Pairing?

Orlando’s Pulse nightclub, the location of the latest shooting carnage, has become yet another springboard for conversation concerning guns and violence in America. As news outlets feverishly addressed the situation in whichever manner benefited their agenda, I couldn’t help but think about how the Second Amendment consistently comes under attack. Honestly, the revisionism of that amendment becomes rather unrelenting at times. Yet, it caused me to think about the way people tend to view history, and how the discussion concerning the Second Amendment stem from an inability (or unwillingness) grasp this all-important concept: authorial intent.

This post isn’t really about guns or the Second Amendment.  The Second Amendment is merely my springboard into a discussion that is relevant if we care about what the word of God asserts.  No, this post is really about biblical interpretation (hermeneutics), and authorial intent is one of the key components to a sound, consistent, biblical interpretation. Authorial intent simply tries to gather what a historical author intended when they wrote a particular text. In this way, authorial intent has application that goes beyond the Bible.  For instance, it can apply to the meaning of a song.  When teaching on hermeneutics, I usually reference the song by Rick James, “Mary Jane.”¹ Is this song about a person or Rick James’s affinity for marijuana, nicknamed “Mary Jane?” With this example in mind, we see that authorial intent can also apply to the meaning of the Second Amendment. Let’s look at a direct quote of the Second Amendment so this connection becomes clearer:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”²

Proponents of gun rights argue this aforementioned constitutional amendment is intended to protect individual rights of gun owners and, ultimately, allow people to have a defense against tyrannical governments.  Some opponents argue that it is intended to prevent the federal government from infringing on the states’ right to bear arms and essentially defend against a tyrannical federal government. There are others still that contend the Militia (National Guard) is the only one who should have the protection of bearing firearms.  Finally, some limit this right to “bear arms” to a specific time frame, one where hunting and basic protections mandated that a person have a simple firearm—certainly not the high-powered, technologically-advanced firearms people see today.

So, which interpretation of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is the correct one? I have my theory and rationale, but I won’t address that here.  My point is not to argue for or against the Second Amendment.  My point is to show that one must establish authorial intent. The only correct understanding of the Second Amendment is what the author(s) intended when they wrote it.  The same is true for every passage of Scripture.  The Bible was written by “Holy men who were taught by the Holy Spirit.”³ It is inspired, or more directly translated, “God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16). That means it was not given to us by an individual via dictation from God. Instead, God used men—their personality, skills, culture, language, and writing style—to produce a collection of 66 reliable, historical documents that we refer to as the Bible.

To understand the Bible correctly, we absolutely must interpret it as accurately as possible.  There is no alternative. The Bible cannot mean whatever we want it to mean simply because we think our claims are good. Noble intent can never replace authorial intent. We cannot impose our current, cultural meaning on a text that has a historical context.

Here’s what I know about the Second Amendment: if the framers of the constitution intended to make sure individuals had the right to bear arms and wrote it for that very purpose, it can never be interpreted differently.  Create an amendment that nullifies the Second Amendment if you will, but never let it be “reinterpreted” because one feels the framers would change their mind in 2016.  If the framers of the constitution only intended to make sure the states had an armed militia and not individuals, then it, too, can never be interpreted differently.  Create an amendment that makes provisions for individuals if you will, but never let it be “reinterpreted” because the NRA or gun enthusiasts simply like to shoot stuff.

Do you see the flow of thought here? The same goes for the Scriptures.  Yet, just as many individuals make errors on the Second Amendment by ignoring or misunderstanding authorial intent, there are even more errors made in interpreting the Scriptures. Furthermore, the Bible is not like the Constitution.  One can’t simply make an amendment to clarify the Bible; it’s God’s holy word.  Knowing this, understanding authorial intent is the key despite the constantly fluctuating culture of today.  Take homosexuality, for instance. Is it a sin? Sure, we can simply look for the word, “homosexual” in a modern English translation of the Bible and see the numerous prohibitions.  However, the biblical opponents today are far too committed to their agenda for that.  You’d better believe a Christian in 2016 needs understand the Holiness Code (Leviticus), the Septuagint’s use of the Greek phrase ἄρσενος κοίτην, and Paul’s intentional use of a similar term in 1 Cor. 6:9.⁴ These concepts reinforce the importance of authorial intent.

I realize that thoroughly considering authorial intent involves extra work, and many individuals are averse to any meaningful dialogue that cannot be summarized with an Instagram meme. However, proper interpretation of anything historical—especially the Scriptures—demands a diligent review.  While we may fail in our interpretation, and there are limitations on what we can gather historically regarding authorial intent, the pursuit is still a worthwhile endeavor.  It’s the only way to be fair and honest, whether we are referring to the Second Amendment, guns, or the Bible.

-Van

1. The most common reference in biblical interpretation text books seems to be the song, “Puff the Magic Dragon.” Yet, I find the Rick James reference to be a bit more culturally significant. Any song will do, but songs that seem to have a double meaning drive home the point more forcefully.
2. “Second Amendment,” Cornell University Law School, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment.
3. Answer to question 14 from “Catechism for Boys and Girls.”
4. Paul was a Pharisee and was well-versed in OT Law. It is clear that his use for the term, ἀρσενοκοῖται, in 1 Cor. 6:9 was used for the purpose describing the sinful, ungodly act of homosexuality and effectively pointing back to Leviticus 20:13.