We would spend a great part of the semester
doing exercises in observation -- grammar, context, figures of speech, etc. --
attempting to observe what various texts were saying. After this we would do more exercises in
interpretation, attempting to determine as closely as possible the meaning of
the text in its context and to its original readers and/or hearers.
It was only after they had gone
through all this labor and toil that the students were allowed to do
application -- to take the principles learned from their studies and place them
in their own contexts -- into their personal situations. The results were often amazing, frequently
bringing tears as these were read in class.
A big problem that kept recurring in this
process was that of keeping one's present context out of the first two steps
and saving it for the third step. To a
great extent this was impossible. The
students did not arrive in college as blank slates. Most had some background of biblical
knowledge, of psychology and of history.
Much of this was helpful, although much simply got in the way, keeping
the students from seeing the Scripture afresh.
I noticed that sometimes those who were relatively ignorant of Scripture
were often able to grasp biblical meanings more quickly.
But this is an issue not only for first
semester college students, it is a problem for every person who desires to have
the Scriptures relevant in his/her life.
It is a constant problem for me, not only in my personal studies, but
also in attempting to relate them to the culture around me and to my fellow
believers. I have often seen it in
objections raised to things I have written, as well as in my teaching and
discussion with students.
Now please don't get me wrong. I have always appreciated disagreement, even
being corrected on faulty reasoning or ignorance on my part (even when my pride
gets hurt a bit). I appreciate listening
to other interpretations of Scriptures or theology, or current events.
What bothers me are objections in which, as I
see it, the objector inserts his/her own context into the interpretation rather
than into the application of Scripture.
A few "for instances" -- (Please pardon me for oversimplifying and
forgive me if you feel I'm referring to something you've said.):
First, the argument from experience: When Jesus commands to "forsake
all" and follow Him, that this forsaking is required in order to follow, the
reply is given from experience, "But when I chose to follow Jesus, the
forsaking came automatically."
Well, maybe so; I can't question your experience; but that's not what
Jesus said. He made an all-or-nothing
demand.
Then, there are the hypothetical "what-ifs?" Jesus says, "...do not resist the
evil..." The question is
immediately thrown up, "But what about protecting your family (wife,
mother, etc.)?
And, of course, the political or
patriotic. The Bible says to love your
neighbor, even the alien. The reply,
"But there are 11 million illegal aliens in this country. We've got to do something about them."
I'm not saying that these are not legitimate
questions; I'm saying they're being asked at the wrong time and place. These are not interpretation questions,
they are application questions.
As those who believe in the inspiration of
the Scriptures and claim to believe in the authority of the Scriptures, we are
obligated to make every effort to understand the Scripture in its own
context. We must have some understanding
of the time and place in which these sayings were made and of the original
hearers. We must seek to clearly
determine what Jesus meant when He made these radical demands. It is only when we have a clear understanding
that we can seek how to relate them to our own situation(s). We dare not insert America, guns, Mom or
apple pie into our interpretation of these demands.
But we must insert these demands into our
relationship to America, guns, Mom and apple pie.
1 comment:
Do not resist evil is listed with the truths of the Kingdom and also in context gives examples. Jesus could easily have said, "if a person tries to kill one of your children, offer him both" but he did not. I see nothing of physical danger. Earlier in the chapter he address's murder, but again not killing someone in self defense. Overall, I think you wrote an excellent article though and I agree. Our first question needs to be "what was the writer saying to his audience" because thats what it means.
Post a Comment