With all the monumental rulings coming from the conservative majority of the US Supreme Court, you might hear conservative Christians cheering. There’s a lot of “talk” about how liberal justices have been radically reinterpreting laws in ways inconsistent with our founding fathers. The solution is often claimed to be “Originalism” or “Textualism” and many Christians swear by it.

But a couple cautions are in order. First, “interpretive methods” are often intended either to get a pre-determined, preferred outcome or intended to obscure a just outcome. Interpretive methods often are intended to defend laws or interpretations of laws rather than assuring justice.

To those with interest, here’s an interesting read on how “originalism” is being applied inconsistently to get a predetermined, desired outcome. Or consider this article on the politics behind Supreme Court rulings by both sides . . . so much for originalism and interpretive methods!

I get why conservative Christians might favor originalism. Conservatives sing the praises of originalism as it “reigns in” judges who might “over-interpret”. And conservative Christians generally love all things conservative. But should conservatism serve as the underlying principle on interpreting law or should Scripture?

What Does Scripture Tell Us?

Scripture is a book of law so it makes sense to look at its interpretive methods. But the funny thing about the Bible is it doesn’t come with a manual of how to interpret it. It’s law, history, poetry, ethics and prophecy. But nowhere does it explain how to interpret it.

Scripture simply urges its readers to read it, study it, meditate on it and do what it says. It’s profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training. But how does one understand it? There are volumes written on the subject with numerous competing methods, all of which advertise to be the best. But God simply says, read it, study it and do it.

He has freely given us His word, without restriction or constraint. No constraints or restrictions on how to understand it. It’s as if God trusts that His Spirit will lead us. It’s pretty amazing if you think about it. None of us would do it that way. None of us would allow others to freely interpret law or history as each person wishes. But that’s God. Not much help, is it?

What the Bible Does Not Say?

Since the Bible doesn’t really tell us how to interpret it, perhaps if we examine it, we can narrow the possibilities by looking at methods it doesn’t use. The obvious test we should conduct is if the Bible uses “originalism”/”textualism”.

This question is more important than it may appear. If conservative Christians favor originalism for interpreting US law, then one would think they would favor originalism for interpreting biblical law. If originalism is applied to Scripture however, it means we must abide by the Old Testament laws as these were the first laws written by our “forefathers” (i.e. Moses) and so we should seek to understand his original meaning and follow it.

It brings the first problem. Would any Christian advocate that we should put adulterers to death (Leviticus 20:10) and by stoning (Deuteronomy 22:21)? What about children who curse their parents (20:11)? Should they be put to death? There are many other laws just as strict. No Christians I know have ever argued adulterers or rebellious children should be put to death. So much for originalism.

Originalism is Not the Method Scripture Uses

When one turns to the New Testament, Christ affirmed the law’s importance in its entirety, stressing every element’s importance saying, “For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” (Matthew 5:18).

From this verse, one might think Christ was an Originalist. Not hardly. He actually radically reinterpreted Old Testament law. For instance, he redefined adultery, dramatically broadening the law. He said, ““You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:27). He also said, “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (5:31-32). These are dramatic broadening of Mosaic law!

He also broadened the definition of murder to include character assassination saying, “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell” (5:21-22).

These are sweeping changes that broadened the reach of the law, exactly what conservative Christians complain has been happening in the US justice system! Yet no one complains that Jesus took such a “liberal” expansive view of God’s original laws!

Understanding What’s Behind Originalism

Originalism is not being proposed as the right method or even the best method. It’s being proposed to deconstruct the administrative state. It’s to hollow out the power of government so that it can’t tax companies or place environmental constraints or liability upon them.

There’s big money on the line. The companies and wealthy backers are not doing this for the betterment of the country. They’re doing it for the betterment of their bottom line. Getting rid of social security, Medicare and Medicaid reduces their taxes substantially as typically these companies pay little or no income tax. Getting rid of these entitlements lets them operate pretty much tax free.

Getting rid of environmental regulations allows them to produce goods cheaply but at a high cost to our health and the world we live. Some of you old-timers will remember Love Canal. No thanks. We don’t need more of them, or more of the EPA toxic supersites.

What Should the Christian Position be?

As earlier mentioned, there are a variety of interpretive methods used by biblical expositors. Each has its devotees and its detractors. It seems everyone thinks their method is best. But if so, why did God not provide guidance on how we should interpret His word? Even with these various methods, there’s hardly consensus among scholars on the exegesis of many passages of Scripture. There are also classic passages that seem to defy sensible exegesis. A good example is The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? edited by G.K. Beale.

The problem with many of the interpretive methods is they can become distractions. The process can become more important than the interpretation. It’s really hard to get in the head of authors who wrote over two thousand years ago, especially when we often are unsure who the author was and exactly when the text was written. It’s complicated by limited understanding of the culture, politics and language.

What we can say is that God expects His people bring justice, particularly to the poor and powerless in our communities (Psalm 82:3; 140:12; Jeremiah 5:28; 22:16). These verses show those who don’t come under God’s judgment.

Closing Thoughts

Here is where we should consider if our conservative court and it’s commitment to “Originalism” is assuring justice. Consider their decision to overturn Roe v Wade. Many Christians are applauding the ruling. But does it bring justice? When state to state rules make some guilty and others innocent, it’s unjust. Arguing that the Constitution didn’t give them the authority by their interpretive method is useless if it results in injustice.

Or consider the Court’s recent ruling on concealed carry in New York. The conservative court continues to show strong resistance to any controls on guns, regardless how many innocent people are killed and how many families are destroyed. Not only the court, but the church must reconsider its stand on the Second Amendment.

Similarly, when the conservative justices ruled in 2019 that the Supreme Court should not be involved in gerrymandering disputes, it assures injustice. History has already proven it.

When court rulings defend an interpretive method that brings injustice, then the interpretive method is useless. The court was not constructed to defend a method but its citizens. Arguing that the Constitution doesn’t explicitly allow it is specious. It’s unreasonable to expect that our forefathers would anticipate every possible outcome or consequence and anticipate all the possible problems that could arise from new technology, culture change, environmental change or new business opportunities over hundreds of years.

One might argue it is the legislative branch’s responsibility to introduce new laws to deal with these situations. If you believe that, then as a Christian you should direct strong efforts to making that happen. But recent experience shows that the legislative branch can act corruptly in its own interest or through deliberate inaction advantage itself. One only need examine Republican court-packing or the Trump Presidency to see gross injustice to large segments of our country’s population.

But even here, as a Christian I would exercise caution. The Bible nowhere directs God’s people to introduce new laws. To the contrary, Israelites were always to settle disputes using judges who were to judge against the Law of Sinai. They were to do it without formulating new laws. The Pharisees of Jesus’ day went crazy with added countless laws. Jesus opposed these additions, arguing their laws only obscured the truth of Scripture.

It shows the high calling Scripture puts on Judges. They must be above reproach and committed to justice and righteousness. It shows that if our Supreme Court really wants to better grasp its job, they should stop looking to “Originalism” and look no further than their title: They are called Justices! Kind of says it all, doesn’t it?