More and more preaching and teaching seems to be focusing scriptural interpretation firstly on the context in which passages were written, and then addressing the text from within that setting. This certainly was a feature of all teaching since the beginning of the faith, but there seems to be a point where a more ‘contextualized’ analysis points a passage in an entirely new direction.
I’m currently reading Walter Wink’s The Powers That Be, and he does the same with several of Jesus’ statements about not resisting an enemy, including:
“You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Mt 5:38-39 ESV)
Taken at face value, Jesus’ words seem to imply a passivity towards violence and domination, suggesting that Christians should be weak-willed and cowardly when faced with an oppressor. However, Wink’s analysis of the cultural and political context brings forth more subtle meanings that present a much different approach to facing an enemy, each of which overcome the patterns of suppression and restore humanity and dignity to the marginalized.
Like in many cultures today, Jewish people reserved their left hand for unclean tasks, and therefore would hit other people only with the right hand. In order to hit someone on the right cheek (as the passage says), one would have to use the back of the hand – a slap when someone of a higher social standing wishes to disrespect or demean someone of a lower class. So, by turning the left cheek towards an assailant, the person would prevent a second slap, essentially making a person be hit ’straight up.’ Wink explains that for Jewish people of the time, to hit someone with a closed fist suggested equality between both parties. In essence, then, turning the other cheek means that the second blow would not be demeaning or dehumanizing; Jesus’ words suggest a way for the attacked to assert their honor and dignity even when others attempt to marginalize them.
In this case, a study of the cultural milieu reveals a completely different meaning in the text. Many of the greatest insights by the most popular preachers today (Rob Bell comes to mind first) revolve around explaining cultural diffrences hand-in-hand with a particular passage of Scripture. Often hearing these explanations totally turn around my understanding of a particular lesson or story.
All of this leads to an important question: does a surface-level reading of a text like this create more harm than good? Should we approach all scriptural analysis with the assumption that we need to know all about the context to understand its meaning, or is it possible to learn the message from a straighforward, no-research reading? Some diferences are subtle or benign, but others suggest great departures from a ’simple read-through.’ How do we draw the line? Should we leave all Bible study to the trained professionals – and the books they publish? Should all Christians become experts in Roman and Jewish history? To an untrained outsider, there is much of the Bible (and tghe Christian faith in general) that needs some extra explaining – shoukd we simply increase the level of study required?
July 19, 2008 at 1:46 pm
I’ve wondered recently, much like you, how much context is too much. The conservative cry to just “read” the bible is echoed in the search for it’s original contextual meaning (even if proponents lay on opposite sides of the fence). Where’s the room for inspiration, divination and the work of the holy spirit. Is scripture one thing? Or many things? Or one thing that can’t be pinned down through “simply reading” or a search for context. It seems the value lies in a synthesis of these two streams: allowing room for God’s spirit to move in a un-prejudiced reading of His word while recognizing the human author and the political, social and literary themes that are at play.
In other news: I heard Bell talk about this – the slapping thing. I sometimes wonder if he is the great synthesizer, or great plagiarizer. I find myself thinking more and more when I hear him talk not “Wow, what a great, fresh and new insight” but “Wow, where did he hear/learn/read that?” God warned there’s nothing new under the sun, and I’m blessed that the insight reaches me – through whatever conduit.