Historical and cultural context

I need to revisit a series of posts in which we were discussing different types of context and how they affect how we interpret texts of Scripture. So allow me to offer some thoughts in regard to the role of knowing historical and cultural context.

I have some reservations about the use of historical and cultural context. The controversy within evangelicalism surrounding I Tim 2:8-3:7 might help illuminate why. I am not going to attempt to enter fully into the debate about gender and roles in the church and home in this blog post. But as a complementarian, meaning that I believe that men and women are equal in dignity but different in roles and responsibilities, I read such passages and see male leadership in the home and church as rooted in creation and redemption. An egalitarian reading understands it as culturally and historically conditioned such that it does not apply the same way today. I become suspicious of any approach to Scripture that uses extra-biblical material to undermine what appears to be the plain meaning of the text.

But having reservations is not the same thing as refusing to make use of historical and cultural context. Another controversial issue illustrates how such information can be helpful. The New Testament never explicitly condemns the practice of slavery, and in some places even tells slaves to submit to their masters (Eph 6:5-8; I Pet 2:18). Slavery in the Old Testament was a means, tightly regulated in the Law, of protecting society against the effects of poverty (c.f. Exod 21:2-11). Practices such as the kinsman-redeemer and Jubilee made Hebrew slavery fundamentally distinct from the American institution of the 18th and 19th centuries (Lev 25:10-55). Kidnapping someone in order to enslave them was punishable by death (Exod 21:16). The apostle Paul’s letter to Philemon also effectively undermines the ability of Christians to keep slaves (c.f. Phm 1:15-17). Knowing that slaves in the world of the New Testament were often educated professionals who earned wages and were entrusted with significant responsibility also helps us understand the perspective from which the apostles Paul and Peter were writing.

The principle that seems to emerge is that historical and cultural context are not determinative for getting at the meaning of the text. What we need is there in the Bible. But culture and history are helpful in expanding or nuancing our understanding. Knowing Palestinian farming methods is not necessary for grasping the parable of the sower (Mk 4:1-20), but it does help bring the story to life. Knowing some basics about Ancient Near Eastern history is not necessary to understand what God wants us to see in 1 and 2 Kings, but it does add an element of concreteness – these things really happened in to real human beings.