Out of the discussion that came out ‘a new way to dialogue about homosexuality’ i felt it would be appropriate to outsource the discussions surrounding ‘culture and Bible’ into a new thread.
I would like to share some observations of how I feel that our own culture leads many christians to read, act or think differently to what the Bible might have said in its cultural context. What I would like to encourage is a critical thinking of our own perceptions and our own motives of why we do it. I assume the questions will come up where it is legitimate to take certain texts as not being relevant for our culture today.
Here are some stories / observations of the question in question:
1. We had a guest speaker in our Bible college about 10 years ago that proved us from the Bible that the sun is circling around the earth. It is actually undoubtedly so that there are Bible verses that mention this. If requested, I could go in details. He asked us if we believe the Bible or not; and therefore told us that we should accept the Bible also in this area (he also tried to show from a ‘scientific’ view and his new discoveries in this area that the sun actually is circling around the earth). The Bible, so his explanations, must be true also in fields of science; even if it doesn’t want to be a science book. But where biology, astronomy etc is mentioned; it is simply true. I must say, though, that he was not officially invited by the school; the english teacher took him on board.
Assumption: not many of us would believe the sun is circling around the earth, even though it is stated in the Bible
2. Christians an the eve of the enlightenment had to revise their view of how they viewed the world and that the world wasn’t flat. For them this was ‘what the Bible said’.
3. Most christians (except 7-day-adventists) celebrate sunday as their day of rest even though the 10 commandments clearly say: ‘on the 6th day you shall rest’. This commandment has never been taken back. Christians have adopted part of roman culture in celebrating this ‘sun-day’, even though it is contrary to the 10 commandments.
4. Most christians (except Jehova’s wittnesses) have no problem eating ‘blood’. (as mentioned before; many european countries have meat that is mixed with blood and is commonly used). the apostle’s council in acts 15 clearly says that we are not allowed to do it.
5. Most christians (with quite many exceptions,
though) do not demand from women to cover themselves. Even though Paul
demands it as stated in the Bible.
There are probably many more examples that one could use.
I
honestly believe that even those who say they take the Bible
‘literally’ fail to ‘interpret’ the Bible always literally and that
there just are things they would also ‘twist’. Let’s be honest about
this.
My assupmtion is that we tend to ‘disregard’ aspects of the Bible where we just can’t see or feel the importance in it. Few of us would admit this but I think that this is underlying in how we ‘interpret’ the Bible. I see two ways how this is done theologically: 1. To try to ‘twist’ the text and have it say what we want it to say; 2. admit how ‘it is’, but say that we live in a different culture.
As mentioned in my other comment over in the ‘homosexuality’ conversation; I do believe the Bible and the church must, by their very definition, have a prophetical character towards the world and critique current culture as well as dialogue with it.
But how are we going to go about that in deciding what in the Bible is culturally related?
I would welcome any thoughts on this.
Re: cultural context in reading the Bible
Paulchen,
I think one thing we have to realize is that the OT is a testament to the nature of God. From Genesis to Deuteronomy we can learn that God is faithful, sovereign, holy, gracious, and loving. I do not think we are bound to the Mosaic law today because Jesus came to earth to fulfill that law. He gave these laws to the Israelites so that they would be set apart from other nations. Back in that time the other nations were pagan and worshiped many gods. God chose Israel to be somewhat of a broom to sweep away these spiritually and morally polluted nations. Israel was His instrument of judgement. This is why He wrote the law.
Now, that being said how does this apply to our culture today? We can read it and understand the nature of God as much as our human minds can comprehend it. I believe that it is important to God for us to know Him. He knows there is no possiblity of us to keep the law, but just knowing it gives us an idea of who we are and that we need Him in our life. The law helps us to recognize our sins, but it is God who can deliver us from them, just as He delivered Israel out of bondage to Egypt.
Re: cultural context in reading the Bible
Angelamarie,
thank you for your contribution. You are raising some interesting questions regarding the OT law. I think much can be said and debated about and I think,though, that Martin Luther would quite agree with you.
However, what about the references I listed regarding scientific (astrological, biological) statements in the OT; and those references in the New Testament? What is your take on them?
Re: cultural context in reading the Bible
another view…
I see the entire bible as a testament of faith by 2 distinct cultures. The first being the view ancient Isreal’s culture. The OT tells Isreal’s mythology of creation and deliver from egypt through to its prophetic ideas about how their pain and struggles might be ended one day by a great messiah. The NT is a collection of writings that express the views of Christians over the first 2 centuries after Jesus’ life. I see those writings as books written by men about what Jesus had become to them in their traditions and in their dreams for the future and their eventual delivery from the evil empire of Rome. The NT expresses how early Christians came to view Jesus as their messiah.
The bible is not God showing us his character, it is specific people expressing their specific view of God’s character. This explains why the views are different without the need for weird doctrines to try and fill in the gap and join the different views.
On a personal note, I can say that I experienced a paradigm shift when I realized that I no longer had to see the bible as God’s words. This paradigm shift was something that allowed the bible to come alive for me. I use to read the bible in a very selective manner. Certain passages were accepted as historical and others were parables or myths and metaphors. But once I began to see the whole collection of writings as a human product instead of a devine product I was able to appreciated it all. It also allowed me to regain respect for God because I saw the negative views of God in the OT and selective views of atonement in the NT as only negative reflections created by humnans and NOT as character flaws of God.
This way of understanding was like the secret key that when applied to the riddle allowed the whole thing to make perfect sense. I no longer need to believe in things that don’t add up in the modern world in order to embrace and TAKE SERIOUSLY the bible. I now see those things as beautiful artistic expressions to explain their particular view of God and hope for the future.
Re: cultural context in reading the Bible
Paulchen,
Could you point to which verses in the Bible talk about the sun circling the earth? I do not believe I have ever read or remember reading those verses.
Danutz,
How could you think that the Bible is not God showing us His character? You cannot have a personal relationship with someone if they do not reveal to you who they are. Not only does God reveal to us in the Bible who He is, but He does it in our everday lives. Why would we even pray to a God that we do not know? Your take on the Bible makes God seem very impersonal. I do not want to sound judgemental at all, I just cannot understand how you can read the Word of God and not realize its whole content was meant for the very purpose you are denying. Can you honestly say that God does not reveal himself to you in books like Psalms or the Gospels?
Re: cultural context in reading the Bible
Angelamarie,
In Joshua 10,12 and the next verse Joshua is demanding the sun and the moon to stand still; even telling them the exact location where they should stand still. In verse 13 then the outcome is recorded: ‘And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped’
also, Isaiah 38,8 showes the same world view in the Bible at the time.
I am sure there ar more verses, but I think those two should do it.
Re: cultural context in reading the Bible
Paulchen,
I believe that these verses have to be viewed in the cultural context. This was an individual incident where God displayed His might and power. He had to display this to the nation of Israel to prove Himself. God is the Creator of everything, why could He not cause the sun to stand still? We do not apply this to our culture today because there is no need for God to prove Himself. He has already conquered sin and death.
In Matthew 9:17 Jesus says:
"Nor do they put new wine into old wineskins, or else the wineskins break, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved."
Jesus is saying that the old law is no longer in effect, because He has come to teach a new message to be "preserved" or kept. I think this sheds some light on OT law and how it applies today.
Re: cultural context in reading the Bible
Angelamarie,
thanks for your reply. I agree with you that those verses should be viewed in a cultural context and I also think it is fair as a christian today to say that we do not agree with the scientific statement in this particular context, even though the Bible ‘said it’. We would, as you did, move ahead and think of possible ways this story could talk to us today besides those ‘scientificially incorrect’ details.
I think this could be true with other examples I used, also.
You do not have to agree with other peple’s opinion about more debatable aspects (like discussed over on homosecuality), but I think you might be considering that people there might argue on the same line as you do here. They say, as you do here, that those verses have to be viewed in its cultural contect and might not be transferable 1 to 1 today.
I personally might or might not agree with specific topics discussed; but I want to see if there are ways that you or others or I could more apreciate where someone is coming from; since it is not too far off of how I think in other areas.
is that fair to say?
Re: cultural context in reading the Bible
Paulchen,
It is fair for you to say that. This discussion has really made me think about my beliefs as compared to others. My question is this: Is it right to read the Holy Bible and not believe everything in it? Can we read about the wondrous signs and miracles, the great acts of God and shrug it off as "tall tales"? If a person starts questioning and doubting God’s word, I think their hope might start to diminish. Where are we without hope in God?
If we are to accept other’s opinions on topics, then we also need to accept the opinions of those with a more rigid viewpoint. I agree with andrew, this is a collaberation where we can all learn from each other.
God bless you,
Angela
Suspending belief
Angela, I don’t know if this makes sense, but I think that one of the problems with the insistence on believing what is in the Bible, whether miraculous or not, is that believing easily becomes a substitute for understanding. In our anxiety to defend the status of the Bible as the Word of God we short-circuit the process of interpretation - we jump to easy conventional conclusions about what is being said because meaning is in practice less important to us than the divinely sanctioned truthfulness and integrity of the text.
So for example, we may make belief in the virgin birth one of our tests for true faith, but we give very little thought to what these narratives actually meant in the context of the infancy stories. We assume that they tell us that this is how God became man - in some sort of quasi-biological sense - when in fact they have much more to do with validation of Jesus as Israel’s messiah, which is a different matter altogether. Or still on the Christmas theme - we may imagine the wise men following a miraculous star that moved through the sky until it stopped over the stable. But Matthew only tells us that these astrologers saw a star in the east (the opposite direction to Jerusalem in all likelihood) that had some connection with a new Jewish king; they travelled to Jerusalem (the obvious place to look for a Jewish king) and then made enquiries. It was Herod who sent them from there to Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1-8).
In both these instances there is still something significant to believe - but they illustrate how uncritical traditional belief can distort our understanding of what the Bible is actually saying. This is why in certain respects I think it may be appropriate for us to suspend belief while we attempt to read the texts more carefully. Out of that re-reading we may construct a new and I would argue more biblical system of beliefs.
Re: Suspending belief
Andrew,
Your two recent posts have been instructive to say the least. How long have you been writing books? I suppose it is not wise to just believe something blindly, which is what most of us (who were brought up in a Christian environment) were taught to do. Understanding what you believe takes study and studying the scriptures is time spent with God, which is what He wants.
Thank you for shedding alot of light on this subject.
Angela
Re: cultural context in reading the Bible
You are missing my point. I apologize for not being clear. I am not saying we can’t know God, I am saying that I don’t see the bible as God’s direct revelation of himself to us. That doesn’t mean that people did not reveal God’s nature through the bible. This explains why there are so many different view points (even within the bible). God is very personal to me as I live and interact with him through the people around me and through nature. If the bible was God speaking then every view of God in the bible would look the same.
I don’t see how you can read the bible and all of its tall tales and NOT realize that people created those stories in an attempt to explain God or explain what they thought was God. Ancient pagan groups thought that the sun and moon were gods. Ancient Israelites thought that a flood actually wiped out the entire world (for them it felt like it was their entire world). But you don’t actually think that the only surviving species on the planet were the animals on an ark do you? I have to believe that even you would see that as a mythological tale to describe how people had survived a catastrophe and how they attributed that survival to God. That doesn’t mean it was a lie or intentional fabrication. There is still truth in those stories for us to learn from but it doesn’t have to be seen as a historical fact.
It is human nature to use poetry and metaphor to describe a God that we can’t know in detail. If you really know God, then what color eyes does he have? We can’t know God in a literal way, but we can have a relationship with him the way Jesus showed us. Jesus taught us to love God by loving others. Jesus taught us that God loves us by using others to love us. Jesus revealed "the way" to know God by living unselfish lives that share God freely. Doesn’t the bible say "God is Love"? How can you have a relationship with love unless you are loving someone. There is the danger in the fundamentalist theology (I once shared it too). If your focus is on worshiping a completely transcendental God (one that is above and beyond creation) you have missed where God really resides. God is love and to know God means to love others. That is the radical message of Jesus that has been lost by the church.
Did Jesus say "if you love me, then defeat sin and create great monuments of worship to honor me" or did he say "if you love me feed my sheep"?
Jesus’ mission was to give us the good news that God is not what we had thought. He is not the evil Judge ready to cast us the majority of all creation into hell. He is love and this love is for everyone not just a select group of people that keep certain laws. We turned Christianity into a religion rather than a lifestyle. We started worshiping Jesus rather than following his teaching. We made it all about believing IN Jesus rather than believing him.
This is my view, but it is hard to discuss theological issues when you come from two completely different views about scripture. I think it is important for everyone in discussion here to make an effort to understand why people have those views and how their culture has shaped their logic. I’m not suggesting that you throw out your more rigid way of seeing the bible. I may need your viewpoint on topics so feel free to keep it and share it with me. I am suggesting that you also listen to others and understand them so you can discuss these topics in a more beneficial way. The reason I come to sites like this is because I want to get beyond our differences in the basics and address issues without always ending every discussion with "I believe the bible means this and you mean the bible means that". In order move beyond that point we have to be willing to understand each other. Sometimes that means we have to understand other religions too. I think we should approach all of these discussions with the attitude of "how would someone else outside of my particular theological thinking view this problem" and maybe their unique perspective could shed light on solving it. That is why we have gathered here.
Re: cultural context in reading the Bible
Paulchen, thank you for initiating this thread.
What I would emphasize is the need for this discussion to reflect the broader purpose of the emerging church, which in part is to get beyond the well-worn theological ruts into which these conversations too easily fall. Whether we regard ourselves as conservative or progressive in these matters, I would encourage all who participate in this project to look for ways to move forward and not simply repeat old squabbles using old arguments and old insults. This is meant to be a collaboration. Let’s see if we can map out a territory, a way of thinking biblically, consistent with the ancient calling to be a people of God, that none of us has been to before. The following comments are attempt to move in that direction.
We are probably hampered more by our conscious or subconscious allegiance to prior hermeneutical standpoints than by actual difficulties of interpretation. We spend far too much time defending our precommitments and not nearly enough time reading the texts, listening to the story. The emerging church needs to learn to read with new eyes.
The Bible is through and through a complex assortment of historical documents, exhibiting all the foibles and limitations of historical documents, but that does not make it any less the ‘word of God’. It is precisely in the mess of history - not above or outside it - that God is found. The emerging church has to find a viable hermeneutic somewhere between an assumption of divine authorship that disregards the historical aspect of the texts (as represented by joshuafightingjericho) and Danutz’s consistent denial of divine authorship. Personally I don’t see that this should be such a problem.
The emerging church has to think narratively and historically as it reads the Bible - in my view this has to be the way forward. Angelamarie’s comments are interesting in this respect (she also asks some good questions of Danutz): the conquest of Canaan certainly has to be taken into account in understanding the significance of the law - this is a good example of historical contextualization. But to suggest that this offers a complete explanation is surely wrong. The narrative is more complex than that.
Related to the emphasis on narrative is an argument about what constitutes the eschatological orientation of scripture. I think it likely that an eschatology constructed around the renewal of creation rather than entry into heaven, which I would argue is fully warranted biblically, will help us to address issues of culture and lifestyle much more constructively (see ‘Homosexuality and new creation’ for a stab in this direction). But we have a long way to go in thinking this through - and I would suggest that it would be very helpful to be quite explicit about the provisionality, incompleteness, lack of consensus, in our thinking.
By emphasizing the historical nature of scripture we also remind ourselves that at the heart of Christian faith is not the revelation of truth through a book but the calling of a people to be a blessing to the nations of the earth, to be a place of God’s dwelling, to be a holy nation, and to represent both actually and prophetically the renewal of creation. This people more clearly than any text is historically contextualized: the Bible sounds pretty much the same whether you read it in Seattle, Solihull, Sienna, or Singapore - but the church is going to look very different in these diverse locations because it always arises out of a local culture and addresses a local culture. That’s oversimplifying things admittedly, but there may be some value in shifting attention from the interpretation of a text that is of its nature unchanging to the shaping of a people that is unavoidably subject to historical and cultural change.
Re: cultural context in reading the Bible
Great Post,
I beleive conversations such as this are enlighting.
I have three things,
First I am not sure if I were reading it correctly so paulchen are you saying that Sunday Worship is not sanctioned in the scripture.
Secondly When it comes to whether or not people beleive that the Bible is the inspired Word of God one should not argue or debate with that person. If a person does not want to accept that the Bible is the Word of God, his revealation to His people then that is something that neither I or any man can convince them. Somethings must be left up to God for revealation. I beleive this is one of them.
Lastly
I think we ought to be careful when it comes to the Bible and the culture.For the Bible is either going to inform our culture, or our culture will inform the Bible. The latter of the two being incorrect.
Re: cultural context in reading the Bible
curtlove,
1. yes
2. it would be good for you to define what you mean by ‘inspired word of of God’. Maybe it would be good to consider that there is not only ’ literally inspired’ and ‘not literally inspired’, but also something inbetween that might even be closer to the Bible than either of those concepts.
3. to read the Bible with our own cultural eyes is not right or wrong, good or bad; it is unavoidable. for us, for Martin Luther and for Paul. Therefore I would agree with you to say we ought to be careful when it comes to the Bible and culture, since carefullness implies evaluating and the absence of a clear right and left.
Re: cultural context in reading the Bible
Paulchen,
I pray that everyone will take this opportunity to study the Bible and learn the methods of interpreting literally. I have learned much even in writing this post.
The Bible is the word of God. That being said, God chose to reveal Himself through written word. As written word, the meaning should be evaluated as written word. The Bible contains many different forms of writing. If you are handed a poem, interpret it as a poem. If you are handed a parable, interpret it as a parable. If you are handed a history, interpret it as a history. If you are handed the weather report, interpret it as a weather report.
1) I can only hope that the speaker at your Bible college was approaching the same point as I am - God is infallible, so is His word. Yes, there are several places where the Bible refers to the sun "revolving" around the Earth. Big deal! I listen to the weather and a highly schooled and scientifically minded weather man tells me the sun is going to "rise" and "set". I know exactly what he means. The sun does not actually rise or set. It is the earth that rotates. The weather man knows that, so does God. How long and ridiculous would the Bible be if God went about explaining things like the movement of the heavenly bodies? Such an explanation may have even proved lethal to Joshua who was trying to fight a battle at the time.
2) The Bible does go into the spherical nature of the earth in some parts (not discussed here). The terms "circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22) or "four corners of the earth" (Revelation 20:8) are used in all sorts of literature. Why is it that the Bible is the only one said to "teach" it? That isn’t what the Bible is teaching at all. Rather in teaching the Bible is using common idioms and phrases to speak of the horizon of the earth or the entire earth.
3) Exodus 20:10 says "the seventh day". I am not sure where you got six from though I would be interested in the passage. Either way, the initial command was to worship on Saturday, the seventh day. After Jesus was resurrected on a Sunday, Christians took to worshipping on Sunday, the first day of the week.
4) I would encourage you to research the blood in Acts 15. I did not find any Bible version that mentioned "eating" blood, just abstaining from blood. This may make a good "small" teaching, not to drink or taste the blood of animals. If anything it proves that our culture in not completely subjected to the Bible, no big surprise. It may also prove to be a good exercise for the steps summarized below.
5) The head covering is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. This is a teaching that serves as a good example of discerning culture and principle in the same passage. The principle seems to be contained in verse 3 - "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ". Some might also contend that the covering is a principle (and others may be drawn out as well). In order to figure out if one, both or neither of these are principles we can go through a few steps. One, either submission and covering are principles or submission and covering are cultural or submission is the only principle. Two, there are similar teachings of submission of the woman to the man elsewhere in the Bible, not true of head coverings. Three, Paul appeals to the creation order to support submission but not so for the covering. Last, if we are still in doubt then Romans 14:23 comes into play "[…] whatever is not from faith is sin". The burden of proof must be on those arguing that a teaching is purely cultural. Otherwise we disregard the mandate of our God and Savior in order to appease our delights.
To discern our steps are then: 1) principlize and divide (set possible principles down in all possible combinations); 2) search out similar mandates in the Bible; 3) pay close attention to principles established at creation; 4) Romans 14:23, if still in doubt then be over-obedient rather than not obedient enough.
R. C. Sproul has a great book and audio called "Knowing Scripture" that expands much more on these and other important techniques (http://www.ligonier.org/).
www.livebythecross.com
Headship and culture
I feel bound to respond to the comments on 1 Corinthians 11. Yes, there is a need to differentiate between culture and principle here - at least in principle. The question is: What is the principle at issue? The assumption is made that the principle at the heart of Paul’s teaching here has something to do with ‘submission’ but the word ‘submission’ does not appear in the passage and the creation story is not used in this way. What Paul is talking about is something quite different - ‘glory’ and ‘dishonor’ and the relationship between these and physical appearance. These represent a set of values and a cultural problem quite distinct from the authority-submission axis.
We tend to interpret the metaphor of headship in verse 3 as signifying a position of authority over another, but this connotation is foreign not only to Paul’s argument here but also to the use of the metaphor in Hellenistic Greek (the lexicological evidence is set out at great length in my book Speaking of Women: Interpreting Paul - apologies for the self-promotion but that’s just where I’m coming from). The metaphor signifies not ‘authority over’ but ‘prominence’ and in this context social prominence. In my view it is the public visibility of the man in a strongly patriarchal culture that makes him so vulnerable to dishonor as a result of his wife’s behaviour. One of the lessons from this is that it is actually not so easy to differentiate cultural behaviour from theological principle - we are thoroughly enculturated and this unavoidably has theological implications.
Re: Headship and culture
Hi Andrew,
Thank you for your post. The Holy Spirit greatly blesses me while preparing these responses. I realize that I did not fully explain how to arrive at the principle of submission from that text. It could have used some clarification, which I will do now. The principle of submission is drawn from the headship stated in 1 Corinthians 11:3. Submission then gives meaning to the ‘glory’ and ‘honor’ you mention.
In Ephesians 5:22-23 we read that wives should submit to their husbands because the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church. Ephesians provides the link between the headship found in 1 Corinthians 11:3 and the principle of submission through the use of that same headship found in Ephesians.
There is also the aspect of prominence involved in the submission (Colossians 1:18). I would like to hear your justification for attaching "social" to "prominence". From that point on I believe you diverge into "[your] view", by your own admission.
Re: Headship and culture
I have replied to these comments in a new post on ‘Headship, submission and cultural context’.
Re: cultural context in reading the Bible
Hi Joshuafighter,
thanks for your reply. Let me first respond to some more technical things before I move on to the issues I feel are different between us.
1.the difference between the weatherman and Joshua is that Josua actually believed the sun is circling around the earth. Not only him, but also the writer of Joshua since it is stated: ‘And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped’. And this was not necessarily written in haste and in battle. And it would be a bit awkward to assume that stopping the sun was ment ‘symbokical’, but the stopping of the moon was ment literally.
The man in Bible school actually did say we should take the Bible literally, and therefore as christians must believe that the sun is circling around the earth.
Let’s be honest here, Joshuafighter; if we had this discussion 500 years ago when this was still the common worldview held by almost everybody; don’t you think you would be telling me that the Bible actually says the sun is circling around the earth, and that I should take the Bible literally?
2. I am not saying the Bible ‘teaches’ those things; what I am saying is that the Bible was written in - and therefore reflecting a specific cultural context, including scientific worldview.
3. Sorry, your are right. it’s the seventh day, the sabbath.
4. you are right again (I should stop to quote so much from memory!). Even though eating blood might well break the rule of abstaining from it.
5. thanks, Andrew.
I think christians through the centuries would have agreed with you that the Bible is God’s word. However, I am pretty sure that christians through the centuries would also have had a diffeerent understanding of what it means; Bible being God’s word.
Maybe this sounds challenging, but I really believe saying : The Bible is God’s word fullstop; helps little to understand ‘God’s word’.
God chose to reveal himself to men; foremost through Jesus Christ; and peole wrote down what they have experienced with God. So I agree with you that the Bible reveals God. It reveals God through human eyes. It is a human testimony of devine revelation.
As far as I understand the claim that the Bible must be ‘inerrent’ in a literal way is a product of evangelicalism of the 19th century. When the father of the scriptures over centuries developed traditions fo which books to include and finally came to a ‘canon’ they did not put this label of ‘ineracy’ on the Bible. For them questions like ‘who is the author’, or ‘does this text support the believe of the church’, etc were decisive. They didnt expect that the text should be ‘word by word inspired’, ‘or true even when it talks about the scientific make up ow the world’, or all the other labels christians during the last couple of centuries have put on the Bible. We should try to read the Bible as how it was intended firstly by the author (some of them would be quite suprised if someone told them that their writing ‘made it’ in something like a Bible and that they actually couldn’t be mistaken in what they have said), and then by those who composed the books.
If God decided to use human beings in writing about him and his revelation to creation and not (like moslems and the mormons kind of hold), threw down a finished product from heavan, then I am not surprised to find human incompleteness and error there. This doesn’t have to throw over my faith; unless I have built my faith on a book rather than a living God that revealed himself to humans and through his own son.
Does this all make sense? I apreciate your feedback.
Re: cultural context in reading the Bible
"I am pretty sure that christians through the centuries would also have had a diffeerent understanding of what it means; Bible being God’s word."
Paulchen,
Perhaps we should analyze the first verse in John. What does John mean when he says "the word was God"? What is "the word"? Can this verse be viewed in the cultural context? I would love to read anyone’s thoughts on this.
Word
Angelamarie,
I am confused by your conflation of Jesus with the Bible. The opening verses of the Gospel of John have nothing to do with Scripture, and everything to do with the Messiah. This is why I have elsewhere echoed the chorus that “I believe that the Word was made flesh, not that the Word was made paper.” The label ‘word of God’ applied to Scripture can be misleading if carelessly handled…
On a different note, I’ve been thinking about this whole biblical interpretation thing, particularly as a result of the thread on homosexuality (which has unfortunately been too quick in retravelling the roads most travelled). I would like to tentatively put forward the following principle: Christians who take discipleship seriously owe it to themselves and to God not to ‘swallow’ (accept uncritically) everything the Bible says. In fact I would say they sometimes have the duty to reject things found in Scripture. Mind you, this principle is not intended to say anything about Scripture in and of itself, rather it is meant to provide a healthy way for disciples to approach Scripture. Allow me to clarify what I mean. Scripture is complex. It is highly probable, therefore, that I cannot fully understand it in its entirety. Given this personal limitation (notice, this limitation has to do with my comprehension and not necessarily the text itself), it is also plausible that I might misinterpret Scripture to mean something it does not intend to mean (although perhaps I should speak less casually of Scripture ‘intending to mean’ things…). For instance, if a passage in Scripture seems to promote something which I take as inconsistent with God’s loving and gracious character, as a Christian, I should reject that. Of course, it might be that I am misunderstanding the text, and that ultimately, it is not inconsistent with God’s character. It may also be that my personal categories of ‘good’ and ‘loving’ need to be altered to better fit the portrait of God found in Scripture. However this is a delicate process precisely because Scripture is so complex.
If I (mis)understand Scripture to say that God in some way intentionally causes evil (for example), what should I do? I can either adjust my concept of God so that it accomodates evil (a dangerous thought!), or I can (perhaps temporarily) reject that portion of Scripture. In many cases the latter approach might be the preferable one. Or maybe the emerging church can model how one lives with tension. Maybe it can say things like God is good, but the Bible says this, and we’re not quite sure how it fits together. Needless to say, this is a very sticky process in real life, but my thought is simply that too many Christians are too hasty in embracing what they think Scripture ‘clearly teaches’, when they are in fact contradicting (I might say ‘quenching’) God’s spirit… Again, a call to humility for all disciples.
I’m sorry if this post has essentially been a long ramble. I had some thoughts and I had to get them out.
Love to all,
-Daniel-
Re: Word
Daniel,
I apologize if I confused you. You will have to excuse my ignorance about certain things. I am just starting to study the scriptures and I am learning alot through ya’ll’s answers. (thats a little southern jargon,I’m from TN)
In reading the Bible, I have come across instances where God intentionally hardens the hearts of people. Was it an evil act of God in the case of Pharoh? I do not think so. My interpretation is that He did this to show His will is greater than ours. Notice I say ours because not only can this story be viewed for its cultural content, but it can be applied to today’s culture. Perhaps I am looking at it to simply, but I believe Christians misunderstand God when they talk about the negative aspects of God in the Bible.
Re: Word
Angelamarie,
Thank you for your input. I realized in retrospect that my comment may have seemed a little gruff. If it did and I offended you, I sincerely apologize. My desire has never been to alienate brothers and sisters in Christ. :-)
As for the Pharoah passage you mention… well it could be relegated to an entirely new thread because it’s such a big question. But I do have a couple thoughts. When people ask me about this, I like to affirm several things. First of all God is good—and so anything that seems inconsistent with his good character must not be true. Second, Scripture was written by men (I’d like to say ‘and women’, but I’m doubtful…). Inspired men, of course, but men nonetheless. Thirdly and finally, Pharaoh hardened his own heart 6 times before God hardened it. A favorite author of mine, Greg Boyd, argues that at the very least, this shows that God works with, not against, the wills of men (and women!), and that if there is any overriding that occurs, it is never out of the blue.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that well-meaning folk who are quick to point out character flaws with God (as portrayed in the Old Testament quite frequently) have failed to engage with the text to a meaningful extent… Many Old Testament and Jewish scholars reveal a deeper (and much better) understanding of the more offensive elements in the biblical narrative of the people of Israel. I do not think the texts can ever be tamed, mind you… I am not convinced we should ever become comfortable with much of what we read, but I readily grant that much is easily misunderstood and unfortunately dismissed. Fretheim and Brueggemann particularly are thinkers who, for me, reflect a more balanced approach to Scripture and to the Old Testament in particular.
I think I can sum up my thoughts on this sticky issue of biblical interpretation by referring people to andrew’s posts. The basic point is that whatever can be said about Scripture, it is often unhelpful to say it ‘a priori’, that is, before any actual interaction with the text. Our conclusions about Scripture must be just that: conclusions. Not postulates. By positing ‘inerrancy’ or ‘infallibility’ (or even strong senses of ‘inspiration’—with no definition of the word), we can unfortunately short-circuit the exegetical and hermaneutical steps which lead to a nuanced and more precise understanding of this or that text. And of course, by now you’ve realized that I’m fresh out of original material and that I’m just rehashing what has already been said elsewhere! My posting method on this website involves simply reiterating whatever ground andrew and peter have already covered in a way that makes it sound more or less original… but enough of that.
Blessings to all,
-Daniel-
Re: Word
Daniel,
Thank you for your input. So you say that you can affirm that God is good. Where have you gotten this affirmation? Is is it something you were taught, or something that God told you himself, or did you read it in the Bible? I am having a hard time with the thinking that we cannot be comfortable with the Bible in its entirety. I do not discount the fact that it reads like a history book and that we cannot take everything literally; however, if I was a non-believer and someone showed me the Bible verses that tell us how we can be saved, but then said Well, this is not God’s word, this is somebody’s view on how a person can be saved, I would not be so sure about the validity of Christianity. Do you see what I am getting at? I welcome your thoughts.
Angi
Re: Word
But where does the assurance that the Bible is God’s Word come from? This question should probably be taken up here, but it’s worth at least a quick response. In any real sense belief that the Bible is the true Word of God is itself only ever somebody’s view of the matter - we have no inescapable, theoretical guarantee that this and not some other religious text is definitive for ‘salvation’. There is nothing miraculous about the Bible in the way that the Qur’an or the Books of Mormon were ‘miraculously’ given. All the way along we are having to trust the claims of others: Jesus himself, those who remembered what he had said and done, those who wrote these things down, those who selected the books of the New Testament, and those who through the years have interpreted and frequently misinterpreted them for us. You just can’t make that simple distinction between being God’s Word and being somebody’s view of what God’s Word is. Binding these texts in leather and printing ‘Holy Bible’ on the front in gold does not make them any less historical documents or any more believable.
I think what we are trying to say is that it is possible to be much more honest about what the Bible is and isn’t as a text without abandoning the conviction that it is properly and reliably normative for the self-understanding of the church.
Re: Word
I know this same discussion is taking place in Word of God?, but I wanted to reply to andrew’s comments here.
I understand what you are saying and you have a legitimate viewpoint. Putting the message of the Bible in its proper historical context is a great first step for a Christian who wants to become more knowledgable about the origins of the Christian lifestyle. What concerns me is the fact that the message becomes stale when viewed more logically. I know you are probably scratching your head at that one, but Jesus did not come to preach a logical message. In my opinion in order for non-believers to be able to see God’s absolute power and authority(and every other aspect of him) starts in the Bible. Sure, people will misinterpret the Bible constantly, but to take away the divine inspiration(that only comes from God) from it is almost, dare I say, patronizing. I am not saying that is what is happening. I am also not saying that we should put the Bible on some shrine and worship it, but it is a righteous handbook given to us by God. It is a lamp for our feet and a light to our path. I think the question is, Do we have the faith to believe that?
Re: Word
Angela, I don’t think this is a matter of logic. Relocating scripture in its historical context is not simply a rationalizing process that results in a loss of power and authority, whether for the believer or for the non-believer. The intention is not at all to take away the divine inspiration, and I don’t really think we are going to stop letting scripture speak directly to us. But there is a shift towards recognizing that these texts must draw their meaning and to some extent their authority from their relation to their original context. A lot of people are finding, I think, that Jesus’ parables, for example, make much more sense and carry much more power when interpreted within the narrative about first-century Israel than when they are cut out of that context and stuck on the fridge doors of our modern lives.
What we also need to grasp, in the process, is that in the first place God called a people; he did not write a book. The book arose out of the interaction between that people and God and is secondary to it. I would suggest that normally non-believers will encounter the power and authority of God’s Word - God’s self-revelation to humanity - not in the book but in the community as it is summed up in Jesus.
Re: cultural context in reading the Bible
Angelamarie,
regarding the word being Jesus and not the scriptures I agree with Daniel here. it would seem a bit awkward to replace ‘word’with the Bible: ‘In the beginning was the ‘Bible’, and the ‘Bible’ was with God, and God was the ‘Bible’. The ‘word’ John is referring to is the ‘logos’, is Jesus; and therefore to replace ‘word’ with ‘Jesus’ makes more sense: ‘In the beginning was Jesus and Jesus was with God and Jesus was god.’
Re: cultural context in reading the Bible
The Gospel of John is a great example to use for this conversation. Most of the problems or debate here comes from misunderstand what is meant my "logos" which is translated "word".
the definition of the ancient greek word logos is:
of speech
The logos is NOT Jesus or the Bible. When I read the first few verses John I glean the following message from it…
However, I will concede that I don’t think this was the intent of the author. I think the author of John was actually making the case that Jesus was the word himself and was God or part of God or something similar. You have to derive this if you read the entire Gospel of John in context. That doesn’t mean it is "historically true". I think this was an idea that morphed or evolved over about 50-100 years after Jesus died and was an evolution of the original idea that Jesus expressed and lived the truth of God. To the Christian community a century later it was very important to build a case for the divinity of Jesus to provide the needed weight for their infant religion to survive. Christianity needed Jesus to not only be true, but to be God. I’m glad they made this case, otherwise the message of Jesus may not have survived. Compare the wording of John v. the wording of the earlier synoptic gospels which focused more on the immediate political and social message of Jesus. It is easy to see that John was an important book used to build some theological ideas and tie up the loose ends of all the stories that must have been floating around undocumented in the community for a entire generation (or 2). John’s Gospel smoothed out the rough edges of Christianity by linking together the life of Jesus with the phrophetic stories in the OT. The synoptic gospels expressed Jesus’ message, and the John provided the weight to help preserve it.
By understanding the culture surrounding these writings we can find what they say about Jesus and also what they say about the author and his community. This is a great example of how understanding the cultural context of scripture is important.
Re: cultural context in reading the Bible
Angela & Danutz,
The two of you have been in an interesting exchange regarding John 1. I’ve been reading the late Stanley Grenz’s "Beyond Foundationalism" and his treatment of these verses was very intriguing. I thought I would post it here, along with some of my thoughts on the issue.
Summary of Grenz’ Work Grenz, quoting Walter Brueggeman, claims that "the biblical text … anticipates and summons realities that live beyond the conventions of our day-to-day, take for granted world. It calls a new world into being."
In regards to John 1, Grenz writes that "just as God created the world ‘in the beginning’ through the act of speaking the Word, so also God creates a world in the present by the Spirit speaking through Scripture."
To explain what Grenz is getting at with his idea of the Spirit "creating a world," I offer this bit of insight. While reading a book, we essentially create for ourselves our own "world" based on what the author writes. For example, I read the Chronicles of Narnia many years ago. My perception of the characters, the land of Narnia, and other various aspects was quite different from what was portrayed in the recent movie version.
With the Bible, however, Grenz claims that the Spirit – not the reader — constructs the world through the Biblical text. Grenz writes, "The Spirit creates a world centered on Jesus Christ, who is the Word disclosed."
My Thoughts Though Grenz sounds a bit “New Age” when he speaks of the spirit’s creating of a new world, I think he is on to something here. Danutz, you wrote…
I view John’s first chapter as his way of recording, under the guidance and inspiration of the Spirit, the truth of who Jesus was and is. Or, following Grenz’s thinking, the Spirit was using John to ‘create a world’ that was centered on Christ.
I believe that the ‘world’ that the Spirit was creating through the words of John goes beyond the first century Christians. The Word today is still with God, is God, and always has been. The Holy Spirit is still very active in drawing hearts to Himself (God) and continues to reveal Jesus Christ through the inspired word of God recorded in Scripture. In that sense, I find myself agreeing with angelamarie’s views of Scripture. It is an account of God working in specific settings and contexts, but the Spirit inspired the accounts of these happenings and continues to use them authoritatively in the lives of His children.
Re: cultural context in reading the Bible
It is good to see that you are consistent in misreading texts. I think you have read too much into Grenz words just as I feel you have done with the bible. Actually it might be Grenz reading too much into Bruggemann, so it may not be entirely your fault.
Bruggemann is talking about the artistic value of the biblical poetry and how poetry always helps the reader to imagine things beyond reality or "enter that creative world". To get his statements into the correct context he intended try reading Bruggemann’s "The Prophetic Imagination". It is a great book and was the start of many modern day theological discoveries. I heard Bruggemann speak 2 weeks ago and he just amazes me. I can’t put down the Old Testament prophets after letting him shine a little light on their writtings and the whole nature of the biblical prophets.
From my viewpoint, the "word" is the truth or "what will always work out to be true". This truth about what will work out to be true in our lives has always been around (in the beginning was the word). This truth was told to us in clear terms by Jesus (the truth became flesh and dwelt among us).
In other words, the language of John is beautiful imagery and becomes confusing only if you try to treat it as something other than imagery. It is funny that Christianity takes the most obvious metaphors literally (word of God, son of God, lamb of God) but takes the most obvious literal teachings (like turn the other cheek) to be metaphors.
Re: cultural context in reading the Bible
I think another couple of steps would be very helpful in this process. After one has principalized and divided, it is helpful to hand that same set of principles (in explicit, written form) to others and see if they come up with the same division. If not, recognize that there are unacknowledged principles (typically stemming from culture but often from religious tradition or a priori commitments on specific issues)) still in play. Try to make these principles explicit (or re-divide your original issues if you reject them when acknowledged) and hand the new principles to others again and see if they come up with the same divisions this time.