Interpreting the Bible in it's cultural context

logansrun

Hello,

I have often engaged in debate on this forum in which I have taken the position that the only logical way of interpreting the Bible -- and in being a genuine Christian -- is to view it as being verbally inspired and binding in all it's details upon all Christians down through the centuries. This is, generally speaking, the way that fundamentalists and Jehovahs Witnesses view the scriptures; the Bible "says what it means, and means what it says" case closed, no if's and's or but's! I do not believe this and consider myself to be an agnostic, a point which I do not find necessary to elaborate on here.

But there are those who do not view the Bible this way. They view the Bible as being the Word of God yet one in which the cultural context of the Jews and early Christians has to be taken into account. For example, homosexuality is condemned quite clearly in the Bible in both the OT and Pauls writings, yet some Christians (and evidently liberal Jews) believe that God allows homosexuality (in a loving context) and that we cannot expect the Bible writers to escape their cultural prejudices and historical time period. From a certain point of view this makes perfect sense yet it does raise some problematic questions, such as:

1) Why couldn't (or wouldn't) Almighty God have inspired the Bible writers to move beyond their societal prejudices in the first place? WHY NOT just "tell them like it is" so to speak?

2) If God would not choose to do so, why not have some sort of progressive revelation which would CLEARLY and DISTINCTLY show His viewpoint when the time was right for society to deal with it?

3) If one takes the viewpoint that God HAS done so, in the sense of the Holy Spirit guiding believers consciences, what is one to make of the discrepencies in viewpoint among members of the Church today? And what CRITERION does one have to figure out what in the Bible is "cultural noise" and what is more "everlasting"?

Thank you.

Bradley

gumby

yet some Christians (and evidently liberal Jews) believe that God allows homosexuality (in a loving context) and that we cannot expect the Bible writers to escape their cultural prejudices and historical time period.

I hadn't heard this one before.....but it's a lame-ass comment. Any Christian who thinks they can take bible laws such as on homosexuality, and say these laws changes with culture and time and that we must look at it in from that viewpoint, is grasping at biblical straws. How homosexuals can in any way justify homosexuality from a biblical perspective I have never understood. The scriptures simply and plainly do not support it.

Their reasoning is as lame as the WTBTS is when they try to justify their prefrences. I say this STRICKTLY from a biblical perspective and not a personal perspective.

Supposedly the bible was a book to all man from god. God would not be so foolish to have a statement made such as on homosexuality, then leave it up to man to figure out he really didn't mean it that way. How are third world country bible readers supposed to know god doesn't really mean what he says in all cases.....only some.

Does god allow, killing, and stealing, in some cases but not others.......according to time and cultures?

If people are homosexual and feel good they are, then trash your bibles, because the two don't mix no matter how you look at it. According to the bible god will forgive homosexuals as he does other sinners, but he has never honored the act, nor justified it. The bible god don't like it and he never will.

Gumby

ThiChi

No one can second guess the times and challenges they faced, and how they had to deal with it. I am very assured if those in Bible times were here today and witnessed how we deal with issues, they would think we were the nut cases. There are two sides to a story, and until all facts can be uncovered, one can only guess on the whys and how comes of the past.

The most important message was nothing new to man, it has been written on our hearts, Do to others as you would have done to you. You don?t need a Bible to tell you that.

Leolaia

The cultural context is critical for interpretation because the text survives but the setting in which it was written has long since vanished. So there might be allusions to things in Paul's letters that the people at the time knew what they meant, but they puzzle us today. And as ThiChi suggests, we will never recover the actual context -- we can only reconstruct it to the best of out ability. As far as what one might want to accept for one's own personal use, that is an individual subjective decision and it totally depends on your own prejudices, preferences, etc. whether you want to accept any of it, all of it, and any portion thereof. However it should be remembered that the Bible is not a homogenous book with a single-point of view, but a selection of ancient literature embracing a multiplicity of voices and points of view.

gumby

Thi Chi,

There are two sides to a story, and until all facts can be uncovered, one can only guess on the whys and how comes of the past.

Two sides to a story.

Sometimes there are many sides to a story. The bible is but one. It is a story that tries to explain what other books and beliefs try to explain as far as what truth is as far as spirituality goes. I agree that, unless facts can be shown on these matters that carry this much weight, then to base lifes decisions on them is a risky decision.

Gumby

Narkissos

I guess the real problem lies with the "authority" Christians ascribe to the Bible.

Some years ago I read the following comparison by an English evangelical theologian (I can't remember who it was): suppose you are given an unpublished 4-acts drama, the last act of which is lost. You have to write the missing act. In what sense would the first three acts be an "authority" to you in doing so? Of course you could draw inspiration from them, you would have to maintain some narrative consistency with them. Yet you could not simply derive the last act (which may involve a complete reversal in action) from the previous ones. You would just have to create a new text which relates to the existing one and will in turn shed a different light on it.

I guess there's no way we can hide under any "authority". Even the most sincere believer must ultimately accept responsibility for choosing to believe, interpreting the Bible and living by it the way he/she does.

ThiChi

""I guess the real problem lies with the "authority" Christians ascribe to the Bible.""

Would you not agree that all our fundamental laws and constitutions, declarations, organic laws are based on the Bible?s "Laws"?

To deny this is to deny the last 1900 years....

Country Girl

Bradley:

That is ASSUMING that all the God-inspired texts were picked out correctly by the Catholic church. Who knows about the apocryphal texts.

CG

Narkissos

ThiChi:

Would you not agree that all our fundamental laws and constitutions, declarations, organic laws are based on the Bible?s "Laws"?

Definitely not. There are some common ideas (which are also common with texts much older than the Bible) and many new concepts (in our view of Human rights for instance).

To deny this is to deny the last 1900 years....

Nothing in history can be denied. The last 1900 years in the Western world were influenced by what we call "the Bible" -- and many other factors. Actually claiming to "live by the Bible" in the 21st century would imply that the last 1900 years are somehow less important to us than the 600 years or so before them. Pretty silly when you think of it...

ThiChi

Then you dismiss the Magna Carta, The US Constitution and the Four Organic laws of the US, all using the Bible as the foundation, cited many times in Court cases throughout our history. Can you cite the Supreme Court Case that proclaimed that the US is a Christian Nation?

I make no claim on what time periods are the best. I only make the claim of what our laws are based on today and the effects thereof..

Interpreting the Bible in it's cultural context

Share this