Emphasis on rambling. Also, these are simply preliminary thoughts. Stuff to consider when thinking about biblical interpretation.

Some examples of cultural differences between the Bible and Modern America:

1. Monarchy
2. Cities of Refuge for those guilty of killing someone to flee to; avenger of blood hunting them down to kill them in vengeance.
3. Polygamy/Concubines (see Exodus 21)
4. Slavery (See Exodus 21)
5. Leverite Marriage
6. No punishment by imprisonment prescribed in the Law
7. Sacrifices for Sin

What else? (suggestions for consideration: Sabbath, Tithe, hair styles, clothing styles, Nazarite vow, kosher laws, primogeniture)

1. What barriers to understanding do our differences in culture create?
2. How do we decide when something in the Bible is culturally limited, and is not to be taken as prescriptive for us today?

When Jesus tells Peter to go catch a fish, pull a coin out of the fish’s mouth, and to pay the temple tax with it, (Mat. 17:24-27) why do we take that as limited to a specific person and a specific time and place, and do not attempt to universalize it; but when we see Paul write to Timothy that he “does not permit a woman to teach” do we take that as a universal commandment?

Or what about those who take the relationship of slave and master in Paul’s writings and attempt to apply it to employer/employee relationships. Is this valid?

How, practically, are we to apply Paul’s words “All Scripture is God-breathed and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work”? Does this passage require an understanding of all the laws that were prescriptive for Israel or the first century church being prescriptive for us today? And if not, how do we decide what is prescriptive? That is, how do we know that murder is forever and always forbidden while we can happily eat pork and ignore the Sabbath? Or why do we forbid polygamy or slavery today when it was permitted in ancient Israel?

Can we really see American “family values” in the Bible? Or are we really just trying to read our cultural norms (or even a specific, 1950’s stereotype) into the ancient text?

Basic Hermeneutical Principle:

All the data relevant to the topic (general and special revelation) must be addressed. Any interpretation of a given passage must make sense of all the data. Any interpretation of a given passage which results in a contradiction is wrong somewhere — either the particular passage is being misinterpreted, or the other passages are being misinterpreted. Only when harmony is achieved between all relevant passages can an interpretation potentially be correct.

Illustration:

“Spare the rod and spoil the child.” – such a phrase does not appear in the Bible. What does appear is as follows:
Proverbs 13: 24 – He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.
Proverbs 22:15 – Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him.
Proverbs 23:13-14 – Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod, he will not die. Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death.
Proverbs 29:15 – The rod of correction imparts wisdom, but a child left to himself disgraces his mother.
Thus I must spank my children — use corporal punishment.
Question: Do you use a big old stick on your children?

No! Those who believe in corporal punishment use:

a. hand
b. wooden spoon
c. switch
d. strap

But the passage talks about using a rod, which is a apparently a big old stick.

Thus:

Even those who use corporal punishment are taking the passage metaphorically, which is arguably the point: i.e., “rod”, as in Psalm 23, “Thy rod and they staff, they comfort me” is a metaphor for “discipline.” So, the passages in Proverbs may be properly understood to speak to the issue that children must be disciplined. How that is best to be accomplished is debatable, but I would suggest that these passages do not require corporal punishment, unless you want to insist on a literal interpretation, in which case you’d better be taking a “rod” to the backs of your kids from here on out.
Consider, too, that Proverbs is poetry, and the likelihood of metaphor grows that much stronger.

Working Considerations

The solution to this basic hermeneutic conundrum should be:

1. Simple. A complex, difficult to understand solution is going to be neither satisfying nor a solution at all. God intended to communicate, not confuse (one of our basic presuppositions)
2. Consistent. The solution must be universally applicable, and should never result in absurdity.
3. Not a tool for special pleading. That is, it should not be developed to explain away a command that we would prefer not to have to obey, or that we find objectionable.
4. Thus, it should not be subjective. It should eliminate the charge that we are willy-nilly picking the commandments we want to obey (thou shalt not murder) and ignoring those we don’t want to obey (thou shalt keep the Sabbath).

Proposals

One proposal that has some merit is that those commandments reinterpreted or “fulfilled” by the New Testament are no longer applicable.

This is somewhat of an oversimplification, and we must be careful that we are not guilty of violating the spirit or intent of Jesus’ words that “not one jot or tittle of the law” would pass away. Whatever we do with the NT’s handling of the OT, we must not assume that it is “explaining away” or “undoing” or “invalidating” the commandments of the OT. A simplistic approach (and the most commonly used approach) creates contradictions and tends to be inconsistent in its application — that is, tithing is encouraged in the Church, even though it would seem unlikely to be a legal requirement, based on the normal Christian understanding of the Israelite laws.

Circumcision we reject as a requirement for Christians, taking the words of Paul in various places as proof against it. Yet, in practice, we see Paul circumcising Timothy (Acts 16) right after his brouhaha over the very issue of circumcision! What are we to make of this?

Plus, if we read the OT regulations regarding circumcision, which predate the law, no less (consider the support of tithing often is based on its prelaw status), we find little apparent wiggle room. Moses’ son was nearly killed by God for not being circumcised (again, prior to the law being given). So how are we to reconcile Paul’s words, and the actions of the early church, with such explicit OT statements?

Does this have anything to say to us about a method for handling the rest of the OT in relation to the Church?

And what NT “commandments” are relevant to the church? Is the Jerusalem Council’s letter the norm, and nothing more — why didn’t it list murder or stealing as prohibitions, for instance? Or speak of the status of women or homosexuality?

Where exactly do we start? What is foundational?

1. Love God, love people. What Jesus says about the theme of the Old Testament (and I believe, of the Bible and God’s workings with humanity in general) are expressed quite clearly in Matthew 22:34-40:

Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

Jesus replied: “’Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (cf. Galatians 5:14, Romans 13:9-10, Luke 10:25-28ff, Mark 12:28-34)

This seems to sum up God’s intentions and commandments. Just as physics seeks a Theory of Everything for General Revelation, in Special Revelation I would argue that the Theory of Everything — what it all boils down to — are these two commands, which, are essentially one (cf. Paul’s comment in Galatians 5:14 and Romans 13:9-10).

a. Love must be carefully defined, therefore. It must be understood in its two-sided nature, both affiirmative and inhibitive; that is, as both warm and harsh. In Deuternomy 28-31, the two sides are presented: blessing for obedience, cursings for disobedience — but both reactions are the consequence of love, as in the disciplining of one’s own children. It is also seen in Psalm 136, where the perception of God’s love as positive or negative was dependent upon the observer’s relationship to God. The Israelites, for instance, saw the death of the first born in the tenth plague in Egypt as a loving act; surely the Egyptians had a different attitude.

2. Do the demonstration, the living of these two commandments change depending on circumstances?

The answer must be affirmative. Three examples come quickly to mind:

a. Greet one another with a holy kiss? (see Rom. 16:16, 1 Cor. 16:20, 2 Cor. 13:12, 1 Thess. 5:26) Not in the US you don’t. To keep this command (repeated in the New Testament), we greet others warmly, not necessarily by giving them a peck.

b. Washing Feet? (cf. John 13:14) We don’t have this custom any more, since there is no need for it. So how to keep this command? Various ways — for instance getting someone a cup of coffee, getting them something to eat or drink, etc., when they visit.

c. Worship in the Temple. Demonstration of our love of God is not the same today as it was when there was a temple. Jesus himself saw this coming when he was speaking to the Samaratin woman at the well. He told her that a time would come when people would no longer worship God in the temple, but rather simply in spirit and in truth. (John 4:21-24). A change, thus, in how the first of the ten commandments is practiced.

3. What is the purpose and context of the commandments that are given?

Why keep the Sabbath? What was its purpose? Are the Seventh-Day Adventists right? Is going to church on Sunday the mark of the beast? After all, isn’t this one of the ten commandments? How can we ignore one of the ten commandments! Will we start murdering people next? Why this one commandment and not the others?

Simply because it isn’t mentioned? The NT doesn’t say anything about beastiality, child sacrifice, or marrying our sisters, either, and yet we don’t think those practices are okay now, do we? How come? The list of commands found only in the OT that we still practice is relatively long. And what of the other of the ten commandments not mentioned in the NT: misusing the name of the LORD? Can we start doing that now? Simply arguing that if it is or isn’t reiterated in the New Testament that it is normative is insufficient.

The Sabbath, according to Jesus, is for us, not us for the Sabbath. Taking a day off is good for you. Romans 14 must be brought to bear on the issue.

What of the guy who was killed because he picked up sticks on Saturday? He was being rebellious, one would argue.

How about tithing? Why tithe? What was its purpose? To provide for the temple and support the priests. Modern context is similar: the pastors and administration of the church’s property requires that its members provide for it. The same thing is seen in the NT, even though a specific amount is not given as a requirement.

To make it possible to love God and love people is the ultimate purpose — the commands beyond the first two explain in practical terms how loving God and people is accomplished. If you love someone, you’re not likely to kill them or steal from them or turn them into an adulterer.

Moreover, the context needs to be taken into account. We recognize that we are not physically with Jesus now, and so his command to Peter to catch a fish and pay the temple tax with the money he takes from the poor creature’s mouth is obviously localized. But, we do translate the specific command to the general principle that we should live by faith and that we should do what God tells us to do.

Thus, perhaps, when Paul is prohibiting teaching by women, we should take it more as a general prohibition on teaching being done by those unqualified, than as a general rule regarding the place of women, since women of Paul’s day were generally uneducated and thus ill equipped to take on a public teaching role.

(What of the use of the woman being duped by the serpent that Paul uses to illustrate his point? Just that, it illustrates the point: that the women of Paul’s day, like Adam’s wife, were naive and easily lead astray. Would this be the case with all women? And how does a prohibition on teaching by all women reconcile with the examples of women teaching in the Bible (Pricilla) or even serving as prophets (Huldah, the four daughters of Philip [Acts 21:8-9]). Remember the fundamental principle: an interpretation that is correct must not create contradiction. If it creates a contradiction, you know its wrong. Only those interpretations that do not lead to a contradiction can be correct (this does not mean, of course, that just a lack of contradiction means the interpretation is correct; it might still be wrong).

4. So, has culture shifted in ways that require a shift in the practical outworkings of a given command?

Obviously, and a good example can be illustrated with the command in John 13 to wash one another’s feet. Some churches actually have such foot washing ceremonies, and while there is nothing objectionable in that, I believe the point of the command has been missed. That is, Jesus was speaking more metaphorically, giving a universal commandment: submission to one another (an expression of love and devotion). The cultural outworking of that command changes based on the culture: in first century, the washing of feet was a demeaning task, and thus served his purposes well. Today, a different metaphore would be wanted. What might be a modern equivalent? Several come to mind:

a. serving food at a meal
b. cleaning up afterward
c. parking the car for guests
d. setting up chairs, and tables, taking them down, general clean up

To insist on taking a first century cultural act and to literalize it in the present I believe is unwarranted and misses Jesus’ actual point.

Therefore

The question to be asked about any command, is the same as that to be asked about anything in the Bible. What did it mean in its context? Understand it thoroughly.

Then, what is the current context? Is it equivalent? Are there equivalent contexts. If not, is there something similar? Can it be translated to something like the modern setting?

What of slavery, polygamy, etc.? — where modern standards seem more than biblical? Are we guilty of being more holy than God? We point out that the Bible doesn’t prohibit drinking alcohol, so does that mean that those who don’t drink alcohol are like those who don’t practice slavery or polygamy?

The difference is that slavery and polygamy are social and societal, unlike drinking, which is a matter of individual conscience.

Slavery in the OT was either:

a. indentured servitude — i.e., limited to a particular period of time, and entered into voluntarily
b. permanent bond servant — but again, entered into voluntarily

These are not the same as the slavery that one saw in the United States prior to the Civil War, which was both permanent and involuntary.

Although polygamy is not generally prohibited, it is regulated and it is prohibited to those in “leadership” positions in the church — both elders and deacons are charged with only having a single wife. From a practical point of view, it is useful to notice that monogamy was the norm in Jewish society, with polygamy being limited principally to the rich, and more principally to the king. The expression in Genesis of a husband and wife being one flesh also seems to presuppose monogamous relationships, and from the general revelatory standpoint, monogamy is the most common arrangement among human societies, with polygamy being a somewhat unusual variant.

That polygamy is illegal in modern western societies makes the issue moot for discussion, as is slavery, which is also prohibited.

Summary

1. Love God, love people.
2. Does the demonstration of these two commandments change, depending on circumstances?
3. What is the purpose and context of the commandments that are given?
4. Has culture shifted in ways that require a shift in the practical outworkings of a given command?

It is necessary that we do something along these lines; there is no temple, thus there is no practical way to perform much of the ceremonial law. The New Testament provides the basic process.

The concept of cultural shift and the changes it can create in the practical understanding and practice of commandments may be disturbing, but we already do it without thought. The OT, prior to the law, enjoins circumcision and requires that all those who are not circumcized be cut off. Yet Paul, in the NT, argues that Gentiles should not be circumcised. How do we move from a clear do to an equally clear do not. To simply say that the NT supercedes the OT is to ignore the underlying question of how. It is still an apparent contradiction.

The only solution is to recognize the cultural shift, to ask for the purpose of circumcision, and how that purpose is universalized now in the indwelling Holy Spirit — i.e., the OT concept of the need to be “circumsized in the heart”.

The same thing occurs as we think about the temple and its related rituals. Why don’t we do any of them? Regardless of any theological or theoretical considerations, there is the simple practical reality that there is no temple, there has not been a temple for nearly 2000 years, and there are also no priests and no way of identifying who the priests should be. Again, a significant cultural shift, that result in practical differences in keeping the commandments of God.

Send to Kindle