Does meaning reside in the text or with the reader?

People often say, “The clear meaning of the text” or, “The text is clear.” Truth be told, I’m sure I’ve used those phrases more than once. For many of us, our gut reaction is that the meaning resides within the text. Texts have meaning. However, a written text is a collection of symbols. Who gives those symbols meaning? Do those symbols mean the same thing to everyone? Do they have consistent meaning over time?

You might think, “The author has an intended meaning for their work.” Perhaps. But this statement presumes we know who the author was and that we, as readers, can enter the author’s mind to know their intended meaning beyond our understanding of the words on the page. Regardless of the author’s intended meaning, once a text is written and released into the wild, the author no longer has control over their work. The reader is the one who interprets the symbols and generates meaning, with little regard for what the author might have intended beyond the written words on the page.

In his book Truth and Method, Hans-Georg Gadamer states that the meaning of a text always goes beyond its author. He writes that understanding (interpretation) is not simply a “reproductive” task (recovering the author’s meaning) but is always a “productive activity.” In short, the reader generates meaning. Gadamer describes the interpretive process as merging interpretive horizons, including the author, the text, traditions, and the reader’s experiences. These threads come together within the reader to generate meaning—an interpretation. Since each reader’s experiences are different, we produce different meanings.

The ancient Jewish rabbis would likely agree with Gadamer’s assessment. The rabbis discuss the “70 faces of the Torah” (Numbers Rabbah 13:15). By this, they mean that the Torah is like a multi-faceted jewel. In another passage, they state, “Turn it over and over because everything is in it” (m. Avot 5:22). The rabbis understood that studying the Torah from different perspectives yielded new and richer interpretations. Sometimes, those interpretations disagree. The rabbis loved a good argument!

Let me give an example from my recent biblical study tour to Turkey. This trip was instructive for me in many ways. First, it was my first time leading a trip to Turkey. Second, preparing for the trip enabled me to engage with texts, topics, and issues not part of my primary Hebrew Bible studies. My trip preparation study has always been a tremendous blessing from leading these trips. Third, it was my first experience co-leading a trip. Co-leading anything is always an exercise in negotiation and compromise. My co-leader and I had different skill sets that complimented each other in ways I had not anticipated before the trip.

As we engaged with the biblical text, I saw more clearly how life experiences influence how we read and interpret the Bible. At some point in the past, my co-leader had experienced some significant trauma within a church community. We’ve never discussed the details of what he experienced. However, it was clear that this trauma influenced his reading of specific biblical texts and how he interpreted them. He read these passages in ways that would not have occurred to me since I have not experienced similar trauma. He merged his reading of the text with his lived experience to produce an interpretation. His interpretation—informed by his experience—blessed the group.

The Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard

Reading Scripture in diverse communities enriches our understanding of the text. As another example, let’s look at a well-known parable of Jesus: “The Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard” (Matt 20:1–16). Like most parables, I think the headings in our Bibles misname this parable. But I get ahead of myself. Let me paraphrase the parable.

This parable is one of Jesus’s “the kingdom of heaven is like…” parables. He begins by likening the kingdom of heaven to a landowner who goes to the marketplace to hire day laborers to work in his vineyard. As expected, he goes out first thing in the morning, finds workers, and agrees on the standard wage for a day’s work. He then returns to hire more workers at 9 am, noon, 3 pm, and 5 pm. The landowner tells these later workers, “I will pay you whatever is right” (v. 4). At the end of the day, the landowner pays the workers. He tells the foreman to line up the workers from last hired to first hired. In other words, he first pays those he hires near the end of the day and works his way to those he hires first.

Here is where Jesus turns the story on its head. Those hired at the end of the day get paid the full day’s wage! So, when those hired in the early morning get to the front of the line, they expect to be paid much more. But when they get paid the day’s wage like everyone else, they are ticked off! The landowner then gently reminds them they received the agreed-upon fair wage. He reminds them who owns the land. “Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?” (v. 15, NRSV).

How have you heard this parable interpreted? In his summary statement, Jesus offers a brief interpretation: “So the last will be first, and the first will be last” (v. 16). I have heard this interpreted in several ways, all related to this first-last/last-first statement. In one interpretation, Jesus is talking about the Gentiles entering the kingdom of heaven. In other words, we (Gentiles) are those entering at the last hour ahead of the Jews. It’s a very “Christian” interpretation. I’ve also heard others apply this parable to someone who converts to Christianity on their deathbed after a life of “riotous and wicked living.” They get the same reward as someone who has been a Christian their entire lives. The parable’s message is God’s unlimited grace open to anyone and everyone. These interpretations fit the details of the parable. I am not claiming these interpretations are wrong, but they are not the only valid interpretations.

These interpretations contain an inherent assumption that may not be obvious at first glance. They presume that the kingdom of heaven is a future, end-time state and envision a reward that comes at the last judgment. In other words, as Jesus describes it, the kingdom of heaven is not a current reality but an age to come. Is that a correct assumption?

For a different “lived experience” interpretation, let’s turn to the liberation/postcolonial interpreters. These interpreters read the Bible from a social location where colonial powers have often used the Bible as a weapon to keep conquered/Indigenous peoples subjugated. The subjugation frequently keeps them impoverished as that helps maintain dependence on the colonial system while enriching the colonizers and their supporters. Their social location is similar to that of Jews living in the first-century Roman province of Judea.

Different aspects of this parable come to light from this lived experience. First, these workers are day laborers. In the colonial context, that puts them at the bottom of the educational/social ladder. Even in the USA, every city has its day-laborer market. Second, note the exchange between the workers and the landowner. When the landowner returns to the marketplace at 5 pm, he asks the workers, “Why are you standing here idle all day?” (v. 5). Notice their reply in verse 6, “Because no one has hired us.” These workers are not lazy. They want to work, but no one has hired them. A third aspect of the liberation/postcolonial reading is a recognition that these workers likely had families depending upon their daily earnings to meet their basic survival needs. In other words, their success in finding work that day impacted whether a family ate, went hungry, or maybe starved.

Through this liberation/postcolonial lens, the landowner’s generosity takes on new significance. This landowner understands the far-reaching implications of the wages he pays. He recognizes that a family depends upon that living wage to put food on the table. By paying these late-hire workers the entire day’s wage, he ensures their sustenance for another day.

As I hinted earlier, the title our Bibles add to this parable exposes a bias. My NRSV translation labels it “The Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard.” Perhaps it’s easy to see how my earlier interpretations align with this title. The “heroes” of the story are the workers who were hired last. They are the focus of the heading and our interpretation. It may be because we put ourselves in their place. But let’s not forget the preamble to the parable. Jesus says, “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner…” Not the workers but the landowner.

The liberation/postcolonial reading shifts the focus to the landowner. He is the story’s hero. Their reading places his generosity and care for the laborers front and center. What’s more, it shows how the kingdom of heaven impacts life in this world, not just in the age to come. The liberation/postcolonial interpretation offers hope and a vision of a better world for oppressed people who cannot escape poverty.

The liberation/postcolonial lens adds richness to the text. It offers an imperative for business owners who claim to be God’s people. A business owner in the kingdom of heaven is generous with his workers. At the same time, this reading highlights the need for God’s people everywhere to live out the kingdom of heaven in the here and now as we anticipate its full embodiment in the age to come.

The liberation/postcolonial interpretation picks up on a concept obscured by our English translations. In verse 4, most English translations use, “I will pay you whatever is right.” In Greek, the word translated as “right” is dikaion. This word is often translated as “righteous” or “just.” In other words, the landowner promises to pay the laborers a “just” or “righteous” wage. According to the liberation/postcolonial reading of this parable, a just/righteous wage meets the needs of the family the worker supports—a living wage. In the liberation/postcolonial view, a better title for the parable might be “The Parable of the Righteous Landowner.”

The natural question you might ask is, “Which reading is correct?” The rabbis would tell you they are both correct. They understood there are seventy faces to Scripture. “Turn it over and over because everything is in it.”

When we read the Bible in communities that are “like” us, we risk our interpretations becoming “one note.” We could all enhance our reading of the Bible by engaging with voices from different lived experiences—the more diverse, the better! When we come together to share our unique and diverse perspectives shaped by our life experiences, we create a rich tapestry of understanding. This collective sharing enhances our comprehension and appreciation of the Scriptures. More importantly, it forms how we live out Scripture more fully.

Going back to Gadamer, such communal readings and interpretations don’t mean we understand the text better. He writes, “It is enough to say that we understand in a different way, if we understand at all.” Enriching the different ways we understand the Scripture is critical to a vibrant and healthy faith and putting it into practice as we bring the kingdom of heaven into the here and now.