anonymous (2011), public domain
As Christians learn to study the Bible, we pay more attention to the details. We notice repeated words, names, grammar, and genre. We train our eyes to spot anything surprising or out of place.
What we do with these observations is just as important as making them in the first place. Observing the text is like stocking the pantry. We gather raw materials, but we don’t know what we need until it’s time to cook.
The Problem with Interesting Details
Most of our Biblical observations arise because a detail captures our attention. We’re interested in a certain feature, conversation, or nuance in the text.
Yet when we move from observation to interpretation, we must be careful. Though there might be curious or compelling details in the passage, we should try to zero in on the main point. We’re likely to miss what God has for us if we concentrate on what is intriguing instead of what is most important.
Ideally, we should give our attention and thought to themes and details in proportion to their importance. Granted, we don’t usually know the major thrust of a passage until we’ve spent some time with it. But if we want to land on the main point, we should give our energy to the evidence and supporting truths that point in that direction. If we camp out on curiosities, we might be off the mark when stating the main point. And if we miss the main point, our application might be unnecessary or misdirected.
Additionally, we should avoid the trap of speculation. If we get obsessed with a detail or surprise in the passage, we’ll wonder why it’s there. When we interpret, we’ll try to answer related questions even though the answers are nowhere to be found in the text. While enjoyable on an intellectual level, this is merely spinning our wheels—expending mental energy without making progress.
What’s Important?
The natural question, then, is this: How do I know if a detail is important? How do we know what to keep and what to discard?
Here’s the brief answer. If it leads to the main point, it’s important. If it doesn’t, it’s not.
In other words, when you follow the author’s train of thought, is this detail included? Is information about this character or description repeated or used later in the passage? It this detail were omitted from the text, could you still make your argument about the main point?
Here’s an example. The fifth plague is described in Exodus 9:1–7, and we read in verse 6 that all the livestock of Egypt died. However, both later in chapter 9 (verse 20) as well as in chapter 14, additional livestock are mentioned. How can this be if all the livestock died? You might pay attention to the phrase “livestock which are in the field” in Exodus 9:3 and speculate about exactly where the pestilence affected the animals. You might wonder whether Egypt simply stole animals from surrounding nations after all their animals died.
We’re not told. And all the wondering and worrying distracts from the main point of the passage: God judged Egypt and not Israel. The later reappearance of livestock is an interesting detail, but not an important one.
Build on the Main Point
It’s irresponsible to build doctrine on or draw application from mere curiosities in Scripture. Some of the oddities in the Bible are interesting, but not valuable.
When you ask questions related to your observations and turn to answer them, be vigilant. Answer only answer those questions where the text provides an explicit answer or one drawn through reasonable deduction.
We honor the Lord as we draw our main doctrine and application from the main points of Scripture. And to get to the main point, we must make sure to focus on what’s important, and not only what’s interesting.
This is so important and helpful! One of the easiest ways to have a lackluster Bible study is by focusing the time on all these interesting but unimportant details. The best studies (in both personal and group settings) always occur when I/we focus in on the main point and expand outward from there.
Thanks, Tom. I agree with you. And in group settings, what we usually miss when chasing rabbit trails is application. So, so many Bible studies fall short in this regard.
Isn’t this tantamount to telling people what to thing, instead of how to think?
I’m not sure I see the connection between your comment and the article, so feel free to clarify. When I lead a Bible study, I do enough personal study beforehand to have a sense of the main point of the passage. Then I try to help my friends in the group see how the passage leads to that main point. Of course, I’m not perfect, and my friends correct my ideas sometimes! I hope I’m open to those sorts of conversations. But if a detail in the text doesn’t seem connected to the main point of the passage, I’ll try not to spend too much time discussing it so we can give ample time to the main point and application coming from that main point. If one of my friends wants to make a case for discussing an interesting detail, I’ll listen to it.
I think the key here is that we’re trying to determine, to the best of our ability, what *the original author* thinks. (What I think only matters insofar as it aligns with that author’s intent =))
And so we follow the natural interpretation of human language, just as anyone might do right now in seeking to understand what I’m writing. Any line of reasoning has a main point, subpoints and perhaps points under that as well. Some words and ideas matter a great deal and some matter less. I think that’s what Ryan is getting at in this article.
For example, let’s say that one evening my wife asks me about my day. So I happily tell her about my various meetings (encouraging!) and projects (productive!). I happen to mention that one meeting was delayed a few minutes because a projector malfunctioned, but our tech crew got it fixed and I was still able to meet a friend for lunch on time. If she focuses in on the projector, and why our tech people didn’t anticipate the problem, or whether we’re hiring the right tech people, or whether projector bulbs are overpriced, then she’d be way off in what I was trying to communicate. If my son then asked how my day was, and my wife tells him all about projector issues, how would I reply? If I’m gracious, I’d probably say, “Honey, my day was actually great and I got a ton accomplished. I have very little concern with the projector.”
Contrast that with if she listened well, noted the projector issue (but rightly recognized it as less significant than other things I shared), and then rejoiced with me that God has given me such a delightful work environment! If my son asked her about my day in THAT case, she’d rightly represent me. My son could, in fact, ask me the same questions and would come to a similar conclusion. She’d neither be telling him what to think nor how to think. They’d individually be considering what I said, making interpretations and then rightly making any applications to follow.
Hope that helps clarify somewhat. Ryan, please feel free to enter in and correct me here in case I’ve misrepresented YOU in what you were trying to communicate 😉
Very helpful and clarifying. Thanks, Tom!
Ryan, I’m really with you on your main point here. 🙂 That is, that a primary goal in interpretation is to discover the author’s main point.
However, I wonder if you could be overstating the point a bit by saying that if a detail doesn’t lead to the main point it’s not important. Every detail in the text is there on purpose. The Holy Spirit inspired this author to write this passage, and to include every detail contained therein. Therefore, every detail is important. That’s why Paul can draw teaching from a singular noun form (Gal 3:16). And Jesus can build a theology on a sub-sub-sub-point in a marvelous passage (Mark 12:26-27).
I’m inclined to say that if one or more details in the text don’t lead to the main point, you may actually be mistaken about what you think the main point is. The main point should assimilate every detail in the text. Or another way to look at it is that I should be able to connect any and every detail, in some way, to the main point.
But what I think you’re getting at is right on target: If our investigation of certain details takes us far afield from the text, leading us to speculate about matters the text doesn’t address, we’ve missed the train of thought and we must hop back on board. That means the “unimportance” lies not with the detail in question, but with what the interpreter has chosen to do with that detail.