Understanding the Bible in it’s Own Light
“The Bible is the Word of God given in the words of people in history.” (George Ladd) The Bible is not some magical document dropped from the skies, written by angels. It wasn’t even written by people who were caught in the grip of some trance, as if a supernatural force were possessing their hands to write, apart from any human agency. The Bible is the Word of God given in the words of people in history. It is divine truth coming through human beings in human words.
Because it is anchored in history, a text cannot mean what it never could have meant to its author or his or her readers. So the first step in understanding what a text means to us is to understand what it would have meant to them.
In order to understand what was meant by the original author (and understood by the original hearers), it is essential to understand what kind of form of writing the portion represents and to interpret it accordingly.
What follows is a list of some of the literary forms used in the Bible. Keep in mind that a given book of the Bible may contain more than one form.
historical narrative
prophetic oraclew
poetry
song lyric
gospel (a unique form of biography)
apocalyptic
proverb (sayings of the wise)
letter
law
parable
romance literature
story
essay
allegory
joke
satire
It is essential to understand a biblical text in light of it’s own literary form. For example, exaggeration is a poetic technique, to highlight something. It would be a mistake to take it too literally. Apocalyptic literature is highly symbolic and designed to be somewhat veiled, hidden, or mysterious. It’s not a form or literature designed to provide a precise road map for future events.
For Example: Interpreting the parables of Jesus
What is a parable? A story drawn from the world of the listeners that makes a point.
Why did Jesus use parables?
1. Mk. 4: 10-12 to unveil mysteries selectively
To meet people in their own thought forms, experiences, etc.
To help people feel the truth as well as understand it conceptually.
To stimulate active engagement with the truth, provoke deep thought, etc.
To by-pass people’s preconceived notions & defenses.
(This is why parables can be very effective in reaching modern seekers.)
A parable is not the same as an allegory. In an allegory each character or place “stands for” something else. Not so in a parable. A complex parable may only make one or two points.
How to access the truth of a parable:
Get into it as a story on its own terms. Picture it, feel the drama/impact of it.
Retell it within a more contemporary framework. Connect it to your experience.
What point does Jesus seem to emphasize? What is recurring/highlighted theme?
Does Jesus interpret the parable himself?
What is the larger context in which the story is told?
Is there a reason Jesus might have included the jarring, offensive, unexpected
parts?
Mk. 4: 26-29, Lk. 15, Lk 16: 1-14
A Thorny Problem: When is the meaning of a text culturally determined and not necessarily universal in application?
Virtually all students of the Bible agree that some portions of scripture are culturally determined and not universal in application. For example, all would agree that Paul’s advice to Timothy to “take a little wine for the stomach” was determined by the culture of the time (water quality, available treatments for stomach ailments, etc.), and not intended as a directive for all time. Most would agree that Paul’s teaching on the propriety of head coverings for women in worship is culturally determined, not binding on women in modern times. Head coverings for women (and the absence of them) had a particular meaning in the culture of the first century church in Corinth. Paul’s teaching was binding in that culture, but not our own. The question is, how do we determine when a text is culturally determined and not universal in application?
We want to make sure that we have good reason to consider a text not binding on us today; otherwise, we demean the authority of the Bible and ultimately God’s authority in our lives. It would be all too easy to avoid obedience to the will of God, using the “culturally determined” argument as a smoke-screen. On the other hand, there are some things in the Bible which seem to be intended for a particular time and placeonly; assuming that these are intended for universal application could also be a big mistake. The following are some criteria developed by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart in How to Read the Bible for All it’s Worth to help determine when a text might be only applicable in the culture in which it was written.
1. One should distinguish between the central truths of the Bible (the fall of humankind, eternity, salvation, the nature of God, etc.) and issues that are more peripheral. The central truths of the Bible are always universal in nature; whereas, sometimes the more peripheral issues may be culturally determined.
Issues that are inherently moral are universal in application; whereas those that are
not may (or may not) change from culture to culture. Fee and Stuart, would site Paul’s list of sins incompatible with the kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9-10) as inherently moral in nature; these include prohibitions against drunkeness, greed, homosexual activity (to be distinguished from desire or orientation), adultery, stealing, etc. They would view an issue like whether or not women serve in leadership as dependent on the cultural context, since it is not a moral issue.
It is important to note when the Bible itself has a uniform and consistent witness
on a particular issue and when there is diversity within the scripture itself. The latter is more likely to be culturally determined.
4. It is important to be able to distinguish within the New Testament itself between principle and specific application. It is possible for a New Testament writer to support a relative application (eg women’s head coverings) by an absolute principle and in so doing not make the application absolute.
The degree to which a New Testament writer agrees with a cultural situation in
which there in only one option increases the possibility that the position may be culturally determined. For example, since homosexuality was both affirmed and condemned in the ancient world, it is all the more noteworthy the homosexual activity is universally prohibited in the biblical witness. On the other hand, slavery was universally supported in the ancient world; no one denounced the system of slavery as evil; the New Testament writers also do not explicitly denounce the system of slavery as evil, though they do lay the groundwork for the eventual overthrow of slavery in asserting the equality of slave and free in Christ.
One must keep alert to possible cultural differences between the first and twentieth
centuries that are sometimes not immediately obvious. For example, the form of slavery known to the New Testament writers was not nearly as cruel as American Slavery; it was often a temporary condition; slaves could secure their own release;
slaves often held prominent and respect positions, etc. The New Testament approach to social-political issues is different because it was addressing a minority group in
a system that was not a participatory democracy. These factors play a big role in the
strategy for effecting change.