Over the past couple of programs we’ve learned about two different levels or methods of interpreting the Scripture according to the Jewish mindset and understanding.
There are four levels of Jewish interpretation of the Bible and they are:
Pardes is a Hebrew word that is really an acronym.
P – Peshat – this is the plain, literal or ‘simple’ meaning of the text
R – Remez – this is a ‘hint’ that there’s an allegorical or symbolic meaning of the text
D – Derash – this is to interpret or discover an ethical or moral lesson in the meaning of the text
S – Sod – this is a secret or esoteric, mystical meaning of the text, usually by Kabbalists
We’ve learned that Peshat is the most important and obvious level of understanding the Bible. It means learning and studying what it says by keeping the text in its context. The historical and cultural setting is vital, as well as the social setting that the writers were living in. The main, straight, plain meaning of the text is crucial for understanding the Bible correctly and any deviation or dilution of it is to be rejected. In fact all four levels of Jewish interpretation but keep and protect the peshat, the plain meaning of the text or be rejected.
The next level is Remez, which means that there’s a deeper or symbolic meaning to the text as well. The deeper meaning can often been seen in future prophetic fulfillments, which we learned about last time, but again, whatever Remez meaning is gained, it must never weaken or undermine the plain obvious meaning of the written text.
In this program, we’re going to learn about the third level of interpretation which is Derash.
Derash is like an expansion of the implicit meaning of the text to find the allegorical or homiletical application for it, but again, it vital that the original peshat meaning is not compromised in any way. We mentioned in our very first program on this subject about exegesis and eisegesis…exegesis being the actual interpretation and meaning of the actual verses which is drawn out of the text for our understanding, while eisegesis is to infer or infuse a meaning into the text that’s not already there. Derash ‘sort of’ operates along the lines of eisegesis, but using the Bible itself as a means of interpretation, not something external to the Bible.
What does that mean?
Paul gives us a really good example of what Derash looks like.
Paul spent a lot of time teaching the church in Galatia about being free from the Law of Moses and to do that he explained about being children of God and the differences between being an heir born through freedom or being a child born through slavery, or the Law. In the same breath almost, he was comparing the children born under the law and children adopted as sons. We’re not explaining what all that means, specifically here in this program, but for the point of understanding Derash, we’re going to look at the allegory he used.
Galatians 4:21-31, ‘Tell me, you who want to be under the Law, don’t you listen to the Law? For its written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai (the Law) bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. For its written, “Rejoice, barren woman who doesn’t bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in labour; for more numerous are the children of the desolate than of the one who has a husband.” And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son for the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman.” So then brethren, we’re not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.’
Now again, we’re not getting into what this text means, we’re simply looking at the example of the allegory that Paul was using to explain the difference between children born through the freedom of Christ or the judgment of the law and he used Sarah and Hagar as allegories of Mt Sinai and the New Jerusalem.
Does Paul’s allegory undermine or compromise the historical story of Sarah and Hagar, the son of the bondwoman – Ishmael, and the son of the free woman – Isaac?
Not at all. The text isn’t compromised but the allegory – taken from Scripture – explains the difference of attempting to obtain salvation through the Law which is futile and only results in judgment, and salvation through Christ and the freedom He gives which doesn’t include judgment but adoption as sons.
That’s a brilliant example of Derash, but it shows also that we need to be very, very careful about applying our own allegories because they can easily undermine Peshat if we’re not respectful of the plain meaning of the text. The ethical, moral lesson is part of our faith application of what we’ve learned, not simply what we want it to mean.
In the next program we’ll look at the final level of Jewish interpretation which is Sod.
Shalom
Mandy
