We have put the Bible in the Georgia Aquarium. I mean this: we interpret it ahistorically.
There is very little that has damaged us more in the past several hundred years than the isolation of the Bible from its historical surroundings. We understand, and understand rightly, that the Bible speaks to the modern man. But in consequence we sometimes think, and unfortunately think wrongly, that it is like a stain-remover that can be applied topically to any situation.
We read the prophets, but with no knowledge of contemporaneous events in the ancient Near East. We teach about Jesus feeding the five thousand, but with no conception of the starvation rates of his day. We speak of Pauline theology, but with no regard for the state of Semitism or paganism and the consequent state of Paul’s mind and the minds of his hearers in the mid First Century.
Consider this: maybe we have taken the Bible out of the sea and placed it in the Georgia Aquarium. And there is Paul, or John, or Peter, bloated and confined, staring at us with vacant eyes—no sign of the life and power with which they once communicated truth. Maybe we have taken the Bible out of its natural habitat, stripping it—its characters, events, and teachings—of real meaning.
Do not misunderstand me. The Bible does speak to the modern man. But it speaks, for lack of a more capable word, indirectly. We cannot simply take Scripture, derive a theology, and then apply that theology to modern life. That leads to incorrect and weak interpretations. We must understand and apply the Bible through the historical situations in which it is set. Or, putting it inadequately, we must understand and apply it indirectly.
Do not equate the word indirect with impotent. One reason for the modern unwillingness to deal with Scripture on its own terms is the supposed irrelevance it would have to today’s readers. What, after all, do we really care about living in harmony as Jews and Gentiles within the church? There seems to be so little cash value. But should we really form our method of interpretation on our perception of its cash value? In fact, my experience has been quite the opposite. When the Bible is taken on its own ground, within its own context and with its own ways of thinking, it speaks more powerfully than any isolated application of some systematized theology. We must cease trying to make the Bible address the issues we think need to be addressed in the ways we think they must be addressed. Let it address its own issues in its own ways.
There is nothing wrong with systematic theology. It is quite natural and necessary that we put our understanding of truth into categories and systems. We should be excited about theology and the orderly way in which true Christian doctrine explains the world around us. That is not the problem. The problem is that, too often, we view the Bible as if lays out truth in a systematic fashion. It simply does not.
The biblical authors were writing within history. They were dealing with specific situations in time and space. So, if we are to correctly grasp the meaning of their words, we must not force them into an artificial grid. Understand them first inside their history, and then take what they have said and apply it to the modern man.
For example, the Apostle Paul never thought or wrote “theologically.” Let me explain. I am not saying that Paul didn’t “study God,” which is what the word literally means. I am saying that Paul never set out to compartmentalize or systematize what he knew to be truth. Rather, he spoke truth into history-to real people and real situations in Corinth, Rome, Galatia, Philippi, and so on. And if we seek to understand what he said by isolating it from history and putting it into a system, we run the risk of misunderstanding him completely.
Do you see what I mean when I say that we have put the Bible in the Georgia Aquarium? Take it out. Let it speak indirectly within its history, and you will find that it speaks more potently than any isolated “theology” ever could.
Copyright © 2009 Bryan Elliff www.bryanelliff.wordpress.com
