There are many textual critics who view the Scriptures as historical documents which are limited by their cultural origins and therefore are dated as to their applicability to today. This is an extremely serious charge. If true, it would mean that we can reject whole portions of Scripture on the ground that ‘that is what they thought in those days, but we know better’. This is what C.S. Lewis called ‘chronological snobbery’. It is clearly in conflict with the inspiration of Scripture, that is, the process by which God himself spoke through the human authors. It also overlooks the fact that God’s people are called to be different from others, not to conform to this world, but to challenge their own culture in the name of Christ.
The problem is that of our own cultural imprisonment and the problem of the cultural conditioning of the biblical authors, the collision of cultures between the biblical world and the modern world. The challenge is that we must be careful not to interpret the Scriptures according to our own cultural perspective. Careful exegesis of the biblical text necessitates studying it in its own cultural terms. How can a divine revelation given in transient cultural terms have permanent validity? How can a revelation addressed to a particular cultural situation have a universal application? The key is to identify the essential revelation in the text (what God is saying here), to separate this from the cultural form in which he chose to give it, and then to re-clothe it in appropriate modern cultural terms.
There are dangers of accommodating ourselves to our prevailing culture, leaping on the trendiest bandwagons and reading Scripture through the eyes of the world. We can take Scripture out of context and use it as a pretext for our own prejudices. Our culture can blind us. We need to allow Scripture to confront us, undermine our complacency and penetrate our consciences. We must distinguish between the truth that is being affirmed and the cultural terms in which it is presented; between meaning (the revelation) and medium (its communication). We have to ask whether the words and images are literal or metaphorical, e.g. plucking out our eyes or cutting off our hands to avoid temptation in Matthew 5:29,30. Jesus is using hyperbole to make a point. Hyperbole is an exaggerated statement not meant to be taken literally. The intention of the author will usually help us to know which is which. Let me give four examples.
First, when Jesus told us to follow his example in washing the disciples’ feet he was teaching the principle of serving one another in menial ways (John 13:14).
Secondly, Paul’s discussion of eating of meat which had been offered to idols (Rom.14 and 1 Cor.8) his principle was that conscience was sacred, and that religious exemptions should be offered for those who had scruples.
Thirdly, the role of women (1 Tim. 2:11,12; 1 Cor.11:4-10, 14:34,35) in the first century was complicated by religious and legal practice, fertility cults, female goddesses and prostitutes. The biblical principle is that male and female are equal (Gal.3:28). Male headship in marriage (Eph.5:21-32) was to be modeled on Christ’s: sacrifice and service, care not control. Men and women are both under the authority of Scripture and are to lovingly submit themselves reciprocally to one another.
Fourthly, the issue of same sex marriage. Culture cannot be used to justify the rejection of what Scripture teaches, forbids or commands (Romans 1:26-27). The reason for the biblical prohibitions of homosexual conduct was not cultural, but creational. They arose from the biblical definition of marriage, which was personally endorsed by Jesus Christ (Gen.2:24, Mark 10:7-9). What limits sexual intercourse to heterosexual marriage, and forbids it in other relationships, is not culture but creation. Cultural transposition is not a conveniently respectable way to dodge awkward passages of Scripture by declaring them to be culturally relative. It is not a sophisticated way of rejecting biblical authority.
RSS Feed
Recent Comments