There are at least four crucial considerations in attempting to interpret the Bible: genre, context, purpose and biblical antecedents. This post will offer some thoughts on the significance of the first two.
Genre is simple to illustrate. We all know that a love letter, with its flowery exaggerations is read differently than a math textbook, and a historical novel is read differently than a historical biography. The 66 books of Scripture contain a myriad of genres. Consider the Psalms and Song of Songs, which are poetry. Poetry is not to be read literally, but metaphorically. Love is not a rose literally, but it is one metaphorically. The question of genre is particularly relevant for Genesis, the Gospels and the Epistles. Genesis’ early chapters, contrary to popular belief, were never meant to be a historical scientific account of the creation of the world. It was a polemic response to the competing creation narratives, offering stark contrasts on the central questions “What is God like?”, “Why were we created?” and “What is God’s posture towards us and what is to be ours to God?” It is not history, it is myth. But myth which tells the deeper truths than fact. Truths regarding the deepest questions of life, which are not scientific (“How did it happen?”) but teleological (“Why did it happen?”).
The Gospels are difficult because they immediately appear to fit into a genre that is familiar to us: historical biography. And the Gospels do contain reliable biographical historical information about Jesus, but they are not written with the kind of preoccupation with historical factual accuracy that characterizes Modern biographies. Like Genesis, the Gospels tell the truth, with less concern for the facts. Of course, some of the facts are the very foundation of the truth claims made by Scripture. The resurrection, as a historical factual event, is the only basis of making the truth claim that Jesus was the Son of God whose death atoned for the sin of the world. But if we apply a strict inerrantist view to the Gospels, the contradictions become apparent: Did Jesus overturn the tables in the temple at the beginning of his ministry, or the end? Did Jesus heal so and so in Galilee or Nazareth? Inerrantists are forced to strain credulity and argue for both. In this way, inerrancy contains an impulse for the anathematized attempt of Tatian in the 2nd Century to merge all the gospels into one, in the Diatesseron. This gospel ‘harmonization’ destroys the ability of each Gospel to highlight different truths about Jesus and in place of a harmony of different voices offers a stale melody.
Moving on to the Epistles we have to keep in mind that these are letters from an apostle to a congregation, or region, with its own challenges. Epistles are not manuals with timeless rules of the church. The Epistles are not written to us, they are written to the 1st century churches in Corinth, Ephesus and Colossae. When we read the epistles as letters, we have to always ask, “What was going on in this church that made Paul say so-and-so?” Because what Paul commanded there, for that church in that situation, may or may not be God’s will for our churches in our situation. And that leads us directly to the third crucial element of Biblical interpretation, context.
I have already stated the significance of context. All the books of the Bible were written by a specific person or people in a specific time, place and culture and for application in a specific community in a time, place and cultural location. The Epistles, with their teaching on women, are the most fruitful place to see the significance of context.
Paul told Timothy that the women in his church were not to “teach or have authority over a man”(1 Tim. 2:12), and yet at the same time, Paul referred to Junia (a woman) as “prominent among the apostles” (Romans 16:7). So what explains Paul’s apparent inconsistency? Inerrantists are compelled by their understanding of Scripture as loaded with timeless principles to go to great lengths to deny Junia’s gender – a futile attempt according to the historians and scholars I find credible on the matter. Just as they attempt to ‘harmonize’ the Gospels into singularity, they attempt the same with the teachings of the Epistles. But if we allow Paul to be the pioneer and pastor of many congregations, as he was, then it makes all the sense in the world that he would have specific instructions for some congregations (given their needs and context) that were not incumbent on all others. (Some scholars believe that Timothy's church had a problem with female heretics from the cult of Artemis, goddess of the Ephesians.)
It is true that many of Paul’s letters were cyclical – and meant for passing on to all the other congregations nearby, but if we take this to mean the intended audience was equally all churches throughout time and space including ours, we are guilty of ignoring the theologically loaded significance of Paul’s greetings almost always indicating which church or churches this particular letter was for. The rest of us are blessed eavesdroppers, allowed to listen in as God, through Paul or another Scriptural author, guides brothers and sisters of ours in a different time/place with whom we have relevent similarities and differences of character, situation and cultural context.
Francis Collins, leader of the human genome project and Christian apologist conveys some of this as it relates to Genesis as he sits on the Colbert Report.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Francis Collins | ||||
| ||||
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Dr. Francis S. Collins Pt. 2 | ||||
| ||||
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete