Drew
About 5 years ago, the "scales fell from my eyes" and I realized how I had been naively reading the Bible as if it were a set of timeless, contextless, truths. It would be nice if this were the case, but it rather clearly is not.
I think you’re right that we all come at things from personal bias. When I hear that “scales fell from my eyes†thing, I know we’re talking about a bias. And I have to admit that the same thing happened to me. We just took different turns somewhere.
We both started from the same place it would seem. I had to learn that the bible isn’t a book of proverbs. But some Christians treat it as such. They lift verses from here and there without taking even the context of the verses themselves into consideration. And then they develop a whole way of life based on those verses. The bible is a book of proverbs to them. Which proverbs are appropriate to them, they get to either choose for themselves or a denomination chooses for them. Even their doctrines are proven in that way. By proverbs, I mean verses, taken out of context. Used to do it myself. Learned how from that first Church I attended. And with you, I hope I’ve learned something since then.
I do not follow you. The view most common in North American evangelicalism is that you read the text without doing the hard work of trying to read with first-century Palestinian eyes.
Most Protestant Evangelical Churches within my experience do try to include something of historic culture, at least in regard to the NT. But they also rely on ideas that have developed in Protestantism for the last five hundred years. Roman Catholicism makes a big issue of ancient cultural understanding, just as you do. As well they should, since they’re the ones through whom the idea of interpretation came to Protestantism. And as you know, Roman Catholicism is the majority denomination in Christianity, indeed, more that half of Christianity are Roman Catholics.
I notice you like to emphasize “hard work†regarding understanding the bible. May I suggest that understanding the bible is only as hard as you make it.
I believe I am suggesting the "hard" route, not the easy one. The easy one is to simply read the Bible through "the spectacles of your own, 21st century, western worldview..... I suggest that we can be sure that it is a mistake to read the scriptures as if they were written by 21st century westerners.
In the view I present, I would agree that it’s a mistake to read the bible in the way you suggest. But on the other hand, if we are to take culture into consideration at all, we must include biblical culture in which the bible was written and 21st century culture to which the bible must be adapted. It’s like two sides of an equation. Both sides must be considered.
I am aware that there are indeed challenges in trying to establish the content a single "culture" for 2000 years ago, and even earlier But I suggest that one can develop a very reasonable best guess.
Best Guess? (he asked incredulously) You bet your life on a best guess?
I am not sure we have any other option.
Well, if there’s no other option, then I would have to side with the Atheists. All Atheists have to go on is their best guess. And in my opinion, the best guess of Atheists is far better than the best guess of any Christian any day. IF, and I mean IF, the Atheists are cognizant of their surroundings. For the simple reason that their best guess is based on cogent facts that are known in the present. Not on a best guess regarding some 2000+ year old writings the culture of which is even a best guess.
But according to the view I’ve presented, there is another option. Hear what the Spirit is saying to the ekklesia. Let Jesus teach you. He knows more about the bible than anyone in the 21st century ever could know. Even with their best guess. If you consider that representative of the idea of the “timeless, contextless, truths†you can’t believe in, it’s the only view that is pro-bible that I have. Since I believe in neither the Roman Catholic nor the Protestant view.
In this view, the bible itself is indeed timeless. It was written that way on purpose. God knew in advance how many generations would have to be able to understand the bible clearly. God didn’t intend for the biblical writings to only be understood by the contemporaries of the writers, and maybe a couple of generations down the road. Nor did God intend for the bible to only be understood by an educated few who are specially educated in how to “properly†interpret the bible. The writings say the same thing today as they did when they were written. Culture notwithstanding.
In this view, the problem isn’t that the bible isn’t being understood culturally. Rather, the problem is that it is. According to 21st century culture. Or rather Western culture as it has developed to the 21st century. Adding another culture, such as a view on the first century culture, just exacerbates the problem to one who thinks that culture shouldn’t enter into the picture at all.
In this view, interpretation gets in the way of understanding the bible. Whether it be interpretive translation or interpretive explanation. Culture, whether ancient or modern, certainly would get in the way of God’s revelation and of God’s being able to reveal. For each generation, God would have to reveal the bible all over again. And considering the tendency of Christians to interpretively translate the bible and interpretively explain the bible, it sure seems that the Christian interpreters think they are God’s way to re-reveal the bible all over again. Interesting how God’s revelation changes over time. Roman Catholicism thinks that the bible is a progressive revelation, and consistently they think that the understanding of the bible for the last two millennia has been progressive as well.
In this view, the bible does indeed have a context. A supernatural context. Not the natural context of culture, ancient or modern. If culture has anything at all to do with the bible, the bible has nothing to do with the supernatural. The writings are as natural as Homer’s Iliad, the writings of Plato and Aristotle, the Meditations of the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, and the works of Shakespeare. As natural as any writing that is metaphysical in content with an emphasis on the idea of a supernatural realm. That is, religious writings that are not the Judeo-Christian bible. Which people try to understand in the same way that Christians try to understand their bible. By interpretation. With the same result. A lot of different points of view. Same difference that makes no difference.
But don’t let “my opinions†deter you. I have questions.
But first a suggestion. Let’s stick with an emphasis on the NT. That will benefit both of us. You expressed a time problem, and I don’t know Hebrew.
Could you clarify which first century culture is the culture that is necessary to know in your view?
Roman Catholicism puts great stock in the writings of the first few centuries AD. As a guide to the nature of the NT and what it says. How do you feel about that?
What about what Jesus said? Do you think what he said was within the venue of culture? And if so, why do you think what he said should be relevant to anyone living in the 21st century?
FC
