Why Do We Reach Starkly Different Interpretations When Using the Same Verses?

Exploring What the Bible Really Says About Slavery

Part 3 of the response video is coming soon. In the meantime, let me share with you:

---

Photo by Lewis Fagg on Unsplash

As I write about the Bible abolishing slavery, I get a lot of push back. In these discussions, I’m not only trying to make my case, but also to learn about the person I’m talking with.

In part, I’ve wondered why we can look at the same data — the same exact verses in the page — and reach wildly different conclusions.

As I’ve been trying to pay attention to the beliefs of everyone involved, I’ve noticed one central trend.

Different Israelite History

Many of those who argue with me — who think the Bible does endorse slavery — believe that Israel was never in Egypt. They believe Israel gradually developed out of Canaan nations. There was no Egypt, no Exodus, no Moses, no time when God gave the Law.

In other words: they do not believe that Israel was ever enslaved, themselves. They don’t believe God rescued Israel from slavery inflicted upon them by the Egyptians.

Instead, they think several Canaanite tribes gradually coalesced to become Israel, fabricating a fake backstory they all shared. Instead of God giving them new laws, they believe Israel merely borrowed laws from the surrounding lands.

This explains, to a large degree, why they fail to see the uniqueness written into the Law in the Bible. Rather than seeing God call Israel to be a nation set apart, holy and distinct, they see Israel as arising from those around it. Rather than viewing Israelite laws as pointing to a nation set apart as a royal priesthood, they see assume Israelite culture derived from the nations around it.

This changes a fundamental assumption about how we interpret the verses in the Bible.

How Your Assumptions Change Your Interpretations

Imagine a law like Deuteronomy 23:15-16, which declares,

“You shall not give up to his master a slave/servant [ebed] who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him.

Now examine a similar law, from a Hittite treaty with Alaksandu of Wilusa:

“If a fugitive (slave or free) comes from your land to me, I will not send him back to you. If a fugitive comes from my land to you, you shall not send him back to me.”

If your assumption is that Deuteronomy borrowed from pre-existing Hittite laws, then you focus on the similarities.

You could see how both allow escaped slaves to find refuge in foreign lands. Where Deuteronomy is different than the Hittite law, you would naturally read the Hittite law back into Deuteronomy, assuming that it intended to mean the same thing, or close to it.

But, if your assumption is that God gave the Law to make Israel distinct, you might focus on the differences.

The Hittite law specifies that it only applies to fugitives from foreign lands entering the host nation. Its language intentionally singles out foreigners being granted asylum.

Deuteronomy 23 does not.

Deuteronomy 23:15-16 lacks any such restrictions. It says nothing about where the slave or servant has to come from. Nothing requires the escapee to originate from a foreign land.

As it is written, Deuteronomy 23:15-16 applies to everyone — any ebed from anywhere. Given that people at all levels of society can be referred to as an ebed, this verse grants freedom to anyone who wants it, regardless of their situation, how they came to be an ebed, what nation they’re from, or anything else.

Similar laws, like the Hittite example, clearly demonstrate that writing restrictions into the law isn’t difficult. It can be done easily. If the law maker wants to write a law that focuses on a refusal to extradite fugitives from a specific foreign land, they can do so with clarity.

Which makes it all the more important that Deuteronomy does not.

Clashes make more sense now

Deuteronomy 23 could have included language limiting it to foreigners, or limiting it in any other way. Yet it doesn’t. As it is written, Deuteronomy 23:15-16 is as expansive and inclusive as it would be possible to write a law. It contains no restrictions. It applies to any ebed of any kind, anywhere.

Occasionally, I’ll point this out. The responses I get back shocked me at first, but now I’ve come to expect it: they point out examples like the Hittite law, and tell me that’s what Deuteronomy 23 means. When I point out that Deuteronomy 23 lacks that language, they tell me it still means what the Hittite law states.

When I try to focus on what Deuteronomy 23:15-16 says, and focus only on the words it says, I’m often rebuked. I’m told it’s silly to assume Deuteronomy 23 means what it says, and only what it says.

But this is not simply a case of people being stubborn or rude.

It’s a case of assumptions driving interpretation.

If someone firmly believes that Israel was never enslaved, never called to be set apart, and emerged slowly from the surrounding nations, this assumption makes it seem foolish to read any sort of distinction into Israelite law. The natural direction of their assumptions pushes them to seeing the similarities and smoothing over the differences.

To be clear, we all carry assumptions with us. No one reads the text bias-free.

I am the first to admit that my assumptions drive me to see the distinctions, to focus on the differences and explore whether they are meaningful.

This is why it remains critical for us to examine our biases every chance we get, to dig into why we see the same data so differently.

If we don’t understand this, we can get irrationally angry with each other, wondering why someone just can’t see what’s so plainly obvious to us. It isn’t that they’re seeing different words on the page. It’s that their background assumptions shape how they interpret the words.

Remembering this can help us open up new avenues of conversation — and sometimes come to agreement when it would never otherwise be possible.