Misreading Scripture Cross-Culturally
Despite knowing more today than many Christians in the past, we still need to be careful and humble when interpreting and applying Scripture. If we do not respect historical and cultural differences, we can inadvertently misread Scripture through our own modern cultural lenses.
I vividly remember the time in my youth that I was in a Bible study with my pastor and we were looking at Luke 14:25-35. I got stuck on Jesus’ words in verse 26: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.” I was a new believer, and it was the first time I had read that passage. I was horrified by the verb “hate,” which today means to intensely dislike something or someone. As an Asian youth steeped in a culture that almost idolizes respect for one’s parents, how could I hate my parents or my siblings? I loved them!
At the time, the Bible passage seemed clear to me: If I don’t hate my parents, I can’t follow Jesus. But I could not choose between the seemingly irreconcilable options, and I began to weep. After realizing why I was crying, my pastor quickly reassured me that Jesus did not mean for us to literally hate our parents but simply that we must love Jesus more than anyone or anything else. It was hyperbole, he explained.
Of course, it was still a radical and, to some degree, offensive claim. But it became less harsh when understood not as disliking one’s parents, but as loving them less than one loves Jesus.
My youthful self read our modern understanding of “hate” back into Jesus’ use of the word, making his claim more offensive than it already was. I now know that people in Jesus’ ancient Middle Eastern culture often spoke with colorful hyperbole to make a point. This was their custom, and Jesus’ original audience would have understood his statement to be an exaggeration.
That incident was an early lesson for me in this truth about biblical interpretation: The Bible, even though it’s for us, was not written to us, but to audiences greatly removed from us in time, culture, and language. We can never read Scripture plainly, if by “plainly” we mean ignoring our own cultural biases and the cultural and historical gaps between us and the text. If we do not respect the historical, cultural, and linguistic differences between us and Scripture, we are in danger of reading modern cultural ideas back into the Bible and distorting whatever insights we might get out of it.
Clarity of Scripture
I am not saying that the Bible is so obscure that only Bible scholars can understand Scripture properly. Neither am I arguing against the Reformation’s doctrine of the clarity of Scripture, historically called the “perspicuity of Scripture.” That doctrine does not assert that everything in Scripture is clear and easy to understand. It only teaches that what is necessary for salvation is clear in Scripture. We see this in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646): “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them” (Ch. 1.VII).
Scripture itself shows that some parts of the Bible are not easy to understand: “(Paul’s) letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction,” the apostle Peter writes, (2 Pet. 3:16) and the Ethiopian eunuch needed Philip’s help to understand the prophet Isaiah (Acts 8:26-40).
So even without biblical scholarship, anyone can still read the Bible and sufficiently discern its main message of salvation. But not everything in the Bible is easy to understand, not even for first-century readers like the ones Peter wrote to. How much more difficult must it be for those who are centuries removed from the Scripture’s cultures, customs, and contexts?
Lost in Translation
Modern translations of the Bible, though generally reliable, are not infallible. Despite the translators’ best efforts, there are many cultural and linguistic nuances that cannot always be adequately translated into English or some other language.
For example, most of us know that ancient Greeks had multiple words for “love.” Agape means sacrificial love, philos means brotherly love, and eros denotes erotic or romantic love, to name the most common ones. All of these words are usually rendered into English from the original Greek of the New Testament as simply “love.” Readers of English translations can thus miss out on some linguistic nuances.
In John 21:15-19, for instance, Jesus asks Peter three times if Peter loves him. This is, of course, reminiscent of Peter previously disavowing Jesus three times. We can understand this story as Jesus gently reconciling with Peter and restoring him to his apostleship. What might be lost on us without reading the original Greek, however, is that two different words for “love” were used in that conversation.
-
Final Reflections (Job pt 17)
DISCLAIMER: The Aquila Report is a news and information resource. We welcome commentary from readers; for more information visit our Letters to the Editor link. All our content, including commentary and opinion, is intended to be information for our readers and does not necessarily indicate an endorsement by The Aquila Report or its governing board. In order to provide this website free of charge to our readers, Aquila Report uses a combination of donations, advertisements and affiliate marketing links to pay its operating costs.
-
If Your Church Is Operating Biblically, It Will Never Be Exactly as You Would Have It
If every decision in the church, every matter of how things are down to the finest detail is exactly how I would set it up, it suggests that I am making every decision and insisting on the minutiae of how everything will be and, therefore, not relinquishing authority and decision-making capacity where it should be relinquished.
It is often interesting to me that people frequently assume, because I am the pastor of the church, everything in the church must be exactly as I would have it. I suspect, in part, because of the kind of character I have and the way I communicate, some people assume the church is as it is because I have determined it would be so. Neither is the case.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t have any particular issues with my church or the things that happen in it. But not everything is the way I would have it. But that is partly because some things are the way they are because they are how others would have it. There are the things I would do differently, but they are evidently not things I have decided to make an issue of. There are then a whole bunch of things that are not how I would have them, but even if I were inclined, I cannot really do anything about because we just aren’t in any position to do so. Then there are the things that all of us would like to be different, but we are unable to do anything about. These things are just the things of any church.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Living in Meshech & Kedar
Those who lie for power, influence, and gain, hate the gospel of the Lord Jesus. It is that simple. What is more, this Psalm could and should be applied to the life of Christ. He, in his own country, was not received. Though he was in Jerusalem it was like he was sojourning in Meshech and dwelling in Kedar. He was for peace but surrounded by liars. His peace is found in the truth of belief and repentance toward Him who is truth. And that is what our country needs today. It needs the peace of Christ through repentance and faith.
The Psalms are an invitation to experience the Psalmist’s experience. That must be clarified. The Psalmist often provides us with just enough information so that we cannot locate the Psalm in any given geography or time in history. Yes, there are those Psalms that set us down by the streams of Babel or in the courts of Jerusalem’s temple but then there are those Psalms, like Psalm 120, which provide us with little to nothing by way of sitz im leben. They invite us into the experience of the Psalmist.
For example, in Psalm 120, is the Psalmist saying that he sojourns in Meshech (Asia Minor) and dwells in Kedar (North Arabia)? Well, it would be impossible to do both. So perhaps he has something else in mind. Likely, he is describing his current location, unknown to the reader, as Meshech and Kedar to help the reader understand the religious and moral climate he is experiencing. This latter idea is best.
The opening of the Psalm gives even more insight. The Psalmist is in distress. Why? Because he is surrounded by lying lips and deceitful tongues (v. 2). Apparently, Meshech was known for being a warring people and Kedar for belligerence. They were difficult people. Most belligerent people are! Thus, he feels himself to be among enemies and treated as such in return.
Does that description invite you into the Psalmist’s experience? For me, it certainly does. An evening this past week, I watched President Biden tell the media gathered around him at an ice cream shop that the “economy is as strong as H–.”[1]What is more, the President tried to blame our inflation on other countries instead of acknowledging that his administration printed money like there was no tomorrow! This is not the first time Joe Biden has mislead the public. And these are not the only lies that have come from his administration. Remember how NBC News anchor Chuck Todd asked the Vice President Harris, “We’re going to have 2 million people cross this border for the first time ever. You’re confident this border’s secure?” Her answer? “We have a secure boarder.” These examples of the current administration are not isolated. They could be multiplied endlessly.
Read More
Related Posts:
