Last week, I introduced three types of interpretive questions and their various uses. Of those three types, I find that implicational (or “so what”) questions tend to be the neglected second cousins of the bunch. Because people often don’t know what to do with them, they fail to give them a try.
Perhaps you’d like to see what power longs to be unharnessed by them.
Easy to Ask, Difficult to Answer
When I teach Bible study skills, people sometimes have difficulty coming up with implicational questions, but that’s usually because they’re thinking too hard about it. They believe their questions ought to be awe-inspiring and profound.
When it comes down to it, implicational questions ought to be the easiest to ask, because they all sound almost exactly the same.
- So what are the implications of [state the observation]?
- So what are we to understand from [observation]?
- So what should we conclude about [observation]?
But though they’re easy to ask, implicational questions can be some of the most difficult to answer. They require us to learn how to think and draw inferences. They require us to reason from one proposition to another. They expect us to get into the shoes of the original audience and hear the text the way those people would have heard it.
Because of the ease of asking but difficulty of answering, we often forget to even bother asking them. Most of our interpretive questions fall into the rational category, and we camp out in exploring the passage’s “why.” And please don’t get me wrong: The “why” is the heart of interpretation, so we ought to camp out there.
But the implicational questions provide that crucial bridge from interpretation into the beginnings of application. So if you find yourself having interpreted the text, but you’re still confused about how to apply it, perhaps you ought to try some implicational questions. Utilize their power to advance your study.
An Example from Proverbs
I was recently studying the theme of truth or guidance in the body of the book of Proverbs (Proverbs 10-31), and I came across the following gem:
Whoever speaks the truth gives honest evidence,
Proverbs 12:17
but a false witness utters deceit.
If I want a thorough picture of Proverbs’ teaching on the topic of truth, I must grapple with this verse. But doesn’t it sound elementary? As though it’s not doing anything but defining terms?
- To speak the truth means you give honest evidence.
- To be a false witness means you utter deceit.
Does the Bible really need to tell us this? Isn’t it like saying good people do good things? Or lazy people do lazy things? Isn’t that self-evident? Why did God even need to say it?
The more I thought about the verse, the more I realized my rational questions were getting me nowhere.
- Why is this here?
- Why does it contrast truth with a false witness?
- Why does a truth-speaker give honest evidence?
- Why does a false witness utter deceit?
These questions all had the same basic, elementary answer, which is that a person’s actions derive from that person’s habits or nature. But this point is rather obvious and could have been made in any number of ways. Why make that point in this way on this particular topic of truth-speaking in court?
When I finally tried out some implicational questions, however, I started getting somewhere.
- So what are we to conclude from a truth-speaker’s giving honest evidence?
- So what is implied by the fact that a false witness utters deceit?
- So how should these self-evident truisms shape my perception of the world or people around me?
Such questions are easy to ask but difficult to answer. I had to slow down and consider them extensively. And as I did, the more I realized that saying “a false witness utters deceit” was somewhat like saying “boys will be boys.” Or better yet: “haters gonna hate.”
Yes, we understand intuitively that a persons actions derive from that person’s nature. And our world is filled with people who say that their word is their bond, but who keep acting in deceitful and underhanded ways. Actions truly speak louder than words.
So when a person utters deceit, it is appropriate to grow wary of them and begin to perceive them as “a false witness.” And when a person consistently gives honest evidence, it is only natural for them to acquire a reputation as a “truth-speaker.”
So considering the implications of the verse helped me to understand that it may be here, at least in part, to teach us that our words will always catch up with us. I may be able to deceive some people some of the time, but I’ll never be able to deceive all the people all the time. My deceit will catch up with me, and people will take notice. Or alternatively, my integrity will catch up with me, and people will take notice.
When I’m faced with a situation where I might be tempted to lie sinfully, I ought to consider not only the present consequences but also future ones. What I say right now will affect my reputation going forward. It will affect whether or not people can trust me. Can I live with that, in light of the choice presently facing me?
Bridge to Application
I’m sure you can see I’ve now transitioned into application. I still have only principles and general ideas. But it shouldn’t be too hard to take those principles, remember Jesus, and get specific.
Leave a Reply