Studying the Bible in historical context

[scraparcs]

How do you study the Bible in a historical context or framework? I ask having gone for a service to the Baptist church of my youth this Sunday, and what struck me very strongly this Sunday is that the way the Bible was studied was very modern and relevant. The Sunday School lesson from Joshua 1 was about being strong and courageous in the Lord. The sermon from Romans 7 was about sin and recognizing such in our lives.

Only in the most vague asides did I hear anyone place these scriptures in context. In Sunday School the teacher briefly alluded to the fact that the Israelites had just lost Moses and were in the desert for forty years at that point, but there was precious little mention of what Jewish culture and customs were at the time and place of this message, what leadership and political structures were in place at that time, why strength and courage were needed. Nor was it mentioned in Romans why the apostle Paul had to spend so much time pointing out sin and what the sins were at the time, why learning about sin was vital for those people in that time.

Having been away from a Baptist framework for many years, is it currently pretty typical that Biblical lessons will seem to be very relevant and appear to have little historical context? Do any of you find value in studying the historical context of the Bible? How do you study it within the framework of your Baptist communities? I remember this issue was a major concern for me when I was Baptist, but I didn't know if anything had changed much in terms of how the Bible is studied in collective settings in the past 10-15 years.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

How do you study the Bible in a historical context or framework? I ask having gone for a service to the Baptist church of my youth this Sunday, and what struck me very strongly this Sunday is that the way the Bible was studied was very modern and relevant. The Sunday School lesson from Joshua 1 was about being strong and courageous in the Lord. The sermon from Romans 7 was about sin and recognizing such in our lives.

Only in the most vague asides did I hear anyone place these scriptures in context. In Sunday School the teacher briefly alluded to the fact that the Israelites had just lost Moses and were in the desert for forty years at that point, but there was precious little mention of what Jewish culture and customs were at the time and place of this message, what leadership and political structures were in place at that time, why strength and courage were needed. Nor was it mentioned in Romans why the apostle Paul had to spend so much time pointing out sin and what the sins were at the time, why learning about sin was vital for those people in that time.

Having been away from a Baptist framework for many years, is it currently pretty typical that Biblical lessons will seem to be very relevant and appear to have little historical context? Do any of you find value in studying the historical context of the Bible? How do you study it within the framework of your Baptist communities? I remember this issue was a major concern for me when I was Baptist, but I didn't know if anything had changed much in terms of how the Bible is studied in collective settings in the past 10-15 years.

Historical Spine Bible Study Method « Osage Bluestem

 

[OzSpen]

Scraparcs,

How do you study the Bible in a historical context or framework? I ask having gone for a service to the Baptist church of my youth this Sunday, and what struck me very strongly this Sunday is that the way the Bible was studied was very modern and relevant. The Sunday School lesson from Joshua 1 was about being strong and courageous in the Lord. The sermon from Romans 7 was about sin and recognizing such in our lives.

Only in the most vague asides did I hear anyone place these scriptures in context. In Sunday School the teacher briefly alluded to the fact that the Israelites had just lost Moses and were in the desert for forty years at that point, but there was precious little mention of what Jewish culture and customs were at the time and place of this message, what leadership and political structures were in place at that time, why strength and courage were needed. Nor was it mentioned in Romans why the apostle Paul had to spend so much time pointing out sin and what the sins were at the time, why learning about sin was vital for those people in that time.

Having been away from a Baptist framework for many years, is it currently pretty typical that Biblical lessons will seem to be very relevant and appear to have little historical context? Do any of you find value in studying the historical context of the Bible? How do you study it within the framework of your Baptist communities? I remember this issue was a major concern for me when I was Baptist, but I didn't know if anything had changed much in terms of how the Bible is studied in collective settings in the past 10-15 years.

You raise a number of issues here that also are of major concern to me in what is happening in the evangelical church, not just Baptists. Since I live in Australia, I'm speaking from what is happening here.

There seem to be a few influences that are causing pastors/preachers/Sunday School teachers to be more focussed on existential, feel-good realities rather than dealing with a passage of Scripture in historical and cultural context.

1. The seeker-sensitive philosophy and the entertainment mode that have infiltrated our churches, causes emphases that are dealing with life issues and not historical, contextual interpretation of the Word.
2. Some of this emphasis is being made in the theological training schools and new pastors come into the pastorate with this view of preaching ministry.
3. Good expository preaching that includes application of the message of the passage, along with illustrations, is in short supply. If there was a return to this emphasis, there would be a compulsory need for historical, contextual interpretation.
4. Topical, popular preaching seems to be the order of the day. "Preach the word" has different meanings to different pastors.
5. These kinds of issues need to be raised by church members at members' meetings.
6. If you are in a Sunday School class or Bible study, there is opportunity for you to raise these matters. However, it would be good to know at least a week in advance what the teaching will be the following week.
7. If you attend a church with a postmodern, reader-response approach to preaching/teaching, you will have Buckley's chance of getting back to historical, contextual interpretation.

That should get us started with discussion.

In Christ, Oz

 

[scraparcs]

You know what I suspect might underlie things? I went to a church full of school teachers. They're very used to, and very good at, the postmodern reader-response approach to teaching - what they use in their professions. I love them all to death, but somehow the approach didn't ever work for me.

I couldn't bring up such an issue when I was a teenager, however. I had to simply move on and find another church body that was bound to looking at things more historically. Now that I have done so, I don't much feel called to go back.

 

[OzSpen]

scraparcs,

You know what I suspect might underlie things? I went to a church full of school teachers. They're very used to, and very good at, the postmodern reader-response approach to teaching - what they use in their professions. I love them all to death, but somehow the approach didn't ever work for me.

I couldn't bring up such an issue when I was a teenager, however. I had to simply move on and find another church body that was bound to looking at things more historically. Now that I have done so, I don't much feel called to go back.

Ah, now I know where you are coming from. One of the best critiques of reader-response postmodernism that is have read is, Kevin Vanhoozer, Is there a meaning in this text? Reader-response tells us little of what the original author intended, but tells us a lot about what the reader thinks and wants to impose on the text. I would never read the newspaper that way and it is not the way to read the Bible or any other literature, in my view.

Sincerely, Oz

 

[Marcus Constantine]

How do you study the Bible in a historical context or framework? I ask having gone for a service to the Baptist church of my youth this Sunday, and what struck me very strongly this Sunday is that the way the Bible was studied was very modern and relevant. The Sunday School lesson from Joshua 1 was about being strong and courageous in the Lord. The sermon from Romans 7 was about sin and recognizing such in our lives.

Only in the most vague asides did I hear anyone place these scriptures in context. In Sunday School the teacher briefly alluded to the fact that the Israelites had just lost Moses and were in the desert for forty years at that point, but there was precious little mention of what Jewish culture and customs were at the time and place of this message, what leadership and political structures were in place at that time, why strength and courage were needed. Nor was it mentioned in Romans why the apostle Paul had to spend so much time pointing out sin and what the sins were at the time, why learning about sin was vital for those people in that time.

Having been away from a Baptist framework for many years, is it currently pretty typical that Biblical lessons will seem to be very relevant and appear to have little historical context? Do any of you find value in studying the historical context of the Bible? How do you study it within the framework of your Baptist communities? I remember this issue was a major concern for me when I was Baptist, but I didn't know if anything had changed much in terms of how the Bible is studied in collective settings in the past 10-15 years.

I'm a church historian, so I enjoy understanding the historical context of a any given passage. I think where the breakdown is with some teachers/preachers is the mixing of the original meaning of a passage with the application of a passage. The passages about David defeating Goliath isn't about us defeating the "giants of sin in our life." We might could make that application, that's far from what the actual text is telling us. I've seen much more application as I visit churches recently than I'm used to, but I don't think any more than what would have been around 15-20 years ago. Basically there is only one meaning or "interpretation" of any text - but there can be many applications. The trick is having balance between making the congregation understand the actual meaning of a text and making the text relevant to their lives. The latter isn't a bad thing, unless that's all you're doing!

 

[OzSpen]

Marcus,

I'm a church historian, so I enjoy understanding the historical context of a any given passage. I think where the breakdown is with some teachers/preachers is the mixing of the original meaning of a passage with the application of a passage. The passages about David defeating Goliath isn't about us defeating the "giants of sin in our life." We might could make that application, that's far from what the actual text is telling us. I've seen much more application as I visit churches recently than I'm used to, but I don't think any more than what would have been around 15-20 years ago. Basically there is only one meaning or "interpretation" of any text - but there can be many applications. The trick is having balance between making the congregation understand the actual meaning of a text and making the text relevant to their lives. The latter isn't a bad thing, unless that's all you're doing!

One of the major problems we are facing in the church is the decided move away from interpreting the intent of what the biblical author stated (which means historical, contextual, exegetical and cultural interpretation) to a postmodern reader-response interpretation.

This means that we know what the reader wants the text to mean, but not the intent of the original author. The modern postmodernist is using all kinds of symbolism, allegorism, etc. to make the text state something that does not come from the original text.

That's why Kevin Vanhoozer's, Is there a meaning in this text? is such a masterly expose of the errors of postmodern thinking.

Sincerely, Oz

 

[Marcus Constantine]

Marcus,

One of the major problems we are facing in the church is the decided move away from interpreting the intent of what the biblical author stated (which means historical, contextual, exegetical and cultural interpretation) to a postmodern reader-response interpretation.

This means that we know what the reader wants the text to mean, but not the intent of the original author. The modern postmodernist is using all kinds of symbolism, allegorism, etc. to make the text state something that does not come from the original text.

That's why Kevin Vanhoozer's, Is there a meaning in this text? is such a masterly expose of the errors of postmodern thinking.

Sincerely, Oz

I was reading some followers of Origen last week and about vomited at the way they handled the text back in the 3rd-4th centuries (with few exceptions). Allegorical interpretation, while not new, has certainly merged into the postmodern thinking you're talking about. It can be disheartening listening to most of the televangelists due to the total lack of good exegesis.

 

[OzSpen]

Marcus,

I was reading some followers of Origen last week and about vomited at the way they handled the text back in the 3rd-4th centuries (with few exceptions). Allegorical interpretation, while not new, has certainly merged into the postmodern thinking you're talking about. It can be disheartening listening to most of the televangelists due to the total lack of good exegesis.

To read even Origen himself and his allegorical interpretation points to some of what is going on today. It has been throughout human history. In fact, the Baptist church I was raised in, here in Australia, had its share of allegorical preaching from the pulpit. It's still around in droves.

As i say to the people in my church (we have an excellent expository preacher who knows how to exegete the text and preach it well), your allegorical/postmodern interpretation tells me lots about your view but not about what the text states.

To be honest, many of the Christians I know would not know the difference between an allegoriser and an exegete until it's pointed out to them.

We are in truly difficult days when biblical hermeneutics is such a needed discipline in the church.

In Christ, Oz

 

[MbiaJc]

Study the Bible with the leadership of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said these words are spirit. Isa 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: Let the bible interpet itself except for the mysteriesof God. which cannot be interpeted by bible scripture. Example Paul says I show you a mystery. We shall not all sleepe. One could not find that in scripture a Prophet had to tell us the Mystery.