Five essentials of Biblical Interpretation 2: context
I am here continuing the repost and revision of my series from iii years ago on the essentials of estimation. Having established that we cannot avert the task of interpretation, my first 'essential' gear up out the reasons why nosotros demand to read whatsoever particular text in the Bible in the low-cal of the whole—to read in the low-cal of the big motion picture of the canon of Scripture.
My second essential starts with the aforementioned letter of the alphabet: we need to read texts in theircontext, in item, in their historical context. At one level, this is a basic supposition of the possibility of reading at all. Nosotros could non have a translation in English if we did not have some thought of what the terms meant in their context. But this supposition besides raises large questions for any interpretation. What if nosotros do not know the historical context? (This is particularly the case for poetic texts, particularly those which are function of some of the OT prophets.) What if the information is lost to united states of america—does that return the text meaningless? What if in that location is a disharmonize between different views on what the historical context really was similar? What about those Bible readers who do non take access to historical background information? And how do we avoid the 'priesthood of the historian', where an expert stands between the states and the pregnant of the text?
These are big questions, and they cannot all exist answered here. It is worth noting that these questions have been effectually for at least the last 150 years, since the 'historical critical method' (in a sense, the principle of reading the Bible in its historical context, pushed to its limit) has dominated the disciplines of biblical studies in Western culture.
But they are questions that we ignore at our peril. 'A text without a context is a pretext.' In other words, when we remove a text from its historical context, we can begin to make it hateful all sorts of things (which is one of the reasons to exist very wary of allegorical interpretations). Earlier nosotros inquire the question 'What does this text mean to me?' we must ask the question:
What did the text meanthen, to its author and first readers?
and the answers to this double questions must connect with one another if texts are to 'mean' anything at all. The idea that God continues to speak to u.s.a. in the present is dependent on the idea that God spoke at specific times and places in the past, and this in itself has significant theological implications. In asking this question, we are recognising that God is speaking to united states of america through what someone else said to another, in a different cultural and historical context. Information technology reminds usa that the worlds of Scripture are different from our earth—in an important sense, are strange to us—and this prevents us from domesticating Scripture or thinking we are the only ones God has ever spoken to!
Despite these big questions, at that place are some very direct and straightforward ways in which attending to the original context can transform our reading and our understanding.
In theParable of the Talents in Matt 25.14–30, the common awarding of using our 'talents' is that we should make the most of our natural abilities, gifts and resource. Simply if we pay attending to its historical context, nosotros will notation that the Greek discussion 'talent' (in older translations just transliterated into English) was a large corporeality of argent or gold, equivalent to about 20 years' worth of a working man's wage. This uncomplicated observation makes the mutual interpretation highly unlikely; my ability to play the guitar, or bake, or residuum the accounts, hardly merits this extravagant metaphor! When nosotros put this observation aslope the previous principle of reading canonically, we then ask: what, in Jesus' instruction in Matthew, is described every bit an enormously costly treasure, gifted to unworthy or unlikely people? The answer, of form, is the kingdom of God. (Run across Matt 6.nineteen–21, 12.35, 13.44, 13.52, xix.21). The parable is not about what we practise with our natural abilities, only what we practice with this costly treasure of the kingdom, bought at nifty price, and untrusted to us as a gift. (At this signal you might be rolling your eyes and groaning: 'Oh no, this is another parable about evangelism!')
In Paul'due southdiscussion of Jesus' return in 1 Thess 4.13–eighteen, what language is Paul using when he talks of the 'coming of the Lord' in v xv? The term isparousia and it can simply mean 'presence' of someone with another. But it also had in Paul'south earth a technical pregnant—the 'presence' of the emperor as he visited bailiwick cities. Every bit he approached, the elders of the city would come out of the gates, meet the emperor, then turn, to re-enter the city with the emperor whose authority they had exercised in his absence. This is prototype Paul is drawing on when he talks of usa 'meeting the Lord in the air' (v 17). When Jesus returns, he is coming to 'urban center globe' after a long absence; we leave to greet him every bit he approaches, and when we meet him, we turn around and accompany him as he takes his rightful throne dorsum on globe. So this is the precise opposite of the 'rapture' that these verses are often supposed to prove. (And worth noting that he does non actually use the phrase 'coming with the clouds' which is often associated with this passage.)
What does information technology hateful to be 'lukewarm' in the bulletin to theekklesia in Laodicea in Rev three.fifteen–16? It is usually assumed that to be 'hot' is to be fervent (a good thing) and to exist 'cold' is to be indifferent to faith (a bad matter). And then how could the risen Christ adopt united states of america to be cold than to exist 'lukewarm' (commonly assumed to mean beingness neither one nor the other—Anglican in fact!). Merely in its historical context, hot and cold are bothgood things to be. Across the valley in Hierapolis (mod day Pammukale), thehot springs bring healing. Further up the valley in Colossae thecold springs bring refreshment. But in Laodicea, the hot h2o has to travel some distance, so by the time information technology reaches the city it islukewarm, and with its dissolved calcium carbonate, if you drink it, it makes yous desire to—spit it out! Hot and common cold are bothgood for something, but lukewarm h2o is good for—nothing. It is then that nosotros notice what the verse really says: not, 'I know yourorganized religion' simply 'I know yourworks—and y'all are existence ineffective' (Rev 3.xv). (If you become to Laodicea, you tin can view stacks of clay pipes and the aqueduct itself lined with the calcium deposits, equally shown in the picture.)
The debates most the about controversial texts aproposgender relations and sexualityalso endure when the historical context is ignored—which it is surprisingly often. In 1 Cor xi.ii–16, Paul starts his discussion by talking of the relation between God and Christ, Christ and human being, and human and woman using the metaphor of 'head.' (Only here in fact; in the balance of the chapter the use of 'head' is literal, not metaphorical.) But we cannot know what this might mean without considering what people in Paul'due south globe actually thought heads were for!Weassume that the caput, which holds the brain, controls and gives instruction. Just in Paul's world, that was the function of the center. What do you think they thought heads were for? I have addressed this in other posts—but function of the answer is far from obvious!
In a similar way, we cannot read the 'haustafel' or 'household codes' in Eph 5 and 1 Peter (and elsewhere) without knowing what other codes in the outset century would have said. In what ways are these instructions supporting, and in what ways contradicting, the civilization of the twenty-four hours? Again, I accept explored this in other posts—but here we need to notation the importance of asking this question.
We cannot avoid the task of interpretation, so how practise we do it well? Kickoff, past asking 'What does this text meanhere, in this office of the biblical story?' which is the question ofcatechism. Second, we need to enquire the question ofcontext ,'What did this text meanthen?' Thirdly, nosotros demand to ask the question ofkind of writing (even though it does not begin with 'c'!): 'What does it hatefulwritten in this manner?'—which will be the field of study of my side by side postal service in this series.
Postscript: Peter Enns has an interesting post (with a groovy title!) where he links the need to take historical context seriously to the centrality of the person of Jesus in God's revelation. He does and then by citing the writing of Mark Smith, writing from a Cosmic perspective, just sharing the outlook of evangelical Enns:
As a Catholic Christian for whom theincarnation is a central mystery of faith, it seems to me that in the search for God fiddling refuge will exist found behind the walls of the text:God is non met in the text without reference to the world exterior the text. God is met in our globe, and not merely in our catechism and non simply in our church building.In our study of the Scriptures, God awaits both within and without, and perhaps notably in the run across between the two. This viewpoint, information technology seems to me, is hardly a modernistic or secular i. It informs Israel's earliest glimpses of God, as identified by historical criticism.
Enns goes on to comment:
In other words, taking the incarnation seriously means taking the study of history seriously. Even the written report of Scripture on its own approved terms will drive one, sooner or later, to historical report too. Why? Because at some point, commonly when we confront interpretive dilemmas…questions like the following come up up:
- What would this have meant to the people who first heard it?
- When was this written?
- Why practise these texts give such different points of view on the same subject?
These are historical questions, folks. And we all enquire them.
A key observation thing here is that request questions about history does not depend on adopting a particular philosophy outlook, but on attending to the person of Jesus.
Follow me on Twitter @psephizo.Similar my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this postal service, would you lot considerdonating £1.twenty a calendar month to support the production of this blog?
If you enjoyed this, exercise share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is washed on a freelance footing. If you have valued this post, yous can brand a unmarried or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Adept comments that engage with the content of the postal service, and share in respectful debate, can add real value. Seek outset to sympathise, and then to be understood. Make the nigh charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view contend every bit a disharmonize to win; accost the argument rather than tackling the person.
brookswittertun1986.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/five-essentials-of-biblical-interpretation-2-context-2/
0 Response to "Five essentials of Biblical Interpretation 2: context"
Post a Comment