Perspicuity and cultural interpretation

[arapahoepark]

In what way does the perspicuity of Scripture relate to cultural differences between the NT/OT times and other cultures, today and otherwise? Are there hermeneutical principles for contextualization?
I see a lot of either literalistic interpretations or the polar opposite,i.e. one must know all the facets of a Scriptural background to interpret correctly, otherwise we misread with our own "western" lens.
Any good resources on this? Does Whitaker by chance dive into it?

 

[greenbaggins]

The typical Reformed position is that perspicuity is limited to salvation essentials. What we need to know for salvation is clearly revealed such that a regular use of the due means of grace will allow a normal person to come to the understanding they need. This does NOT mean that all Scripture is equally clear. 2 Peter 3 makes this perfectly clear (oh, the irony!). He says that there are some things in Paul's letter that are hard to understand. Thank you, Peter, for that understatement. I would say that the interpretation of Scripture is ongoing and that background studies can be very helpful for understanding many passages of Scripture.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

A topic of ongoing study for me.

One of the few books I have found on the matter of the historical treatment of perspicuity:

https://www.amazon.com/Scriptural-Perspicuity-Reformation-Historical-Literature/dp/0820470570

 

[RamistThomist]

Scripture is clear enough for salvation. With that said, however, we have to beware of two extremes:

Extreme 1: You can't know the Bible unless you have mastered ANE literature.
Extreme 2: You don't need to know the cultural background because Scripture is a platonic deposit from heaven and God revealed the bible using cultural norms that wouldn't be operative for 2500 years.

God revealed himself using a world-paradigm/through concepts that the people knew, not a worldview that they didn't know.

 

[Taylor]

What we need to know for salvation is clearly revealed such that a regular use of the due means of grace will allow a normal person to come to the understanding they need.

No doubt this is because the fallen human condition, unlike cultural particularities and characteristics (which can be unique), is both universal and universally felt (Rom. 1:18 ff.). The need for redemption both transcends and spans across time and culture. Of course, this doesn't mean that there aren't some particulars about God's redemptive plan—i.e., atonement, sacrifice, substitution, holiness, etc.—that might be foreign to some cultures, but the underlying need itself is always there and readily felt, save where the truth is suppressed.

 

[TylerRay]

Thank you, Peter, for that understatement.

Did you just offer prayer to St. Peter?

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

God revealed himself using a world-paradigm/through concepts that the people knew, not a worldview that they didn't know.

The problem lies in our incomplete knowledge and understanding of the cultural background as well as determining how exactly it relates to biblical revelation.

 

[RamistThomist]

The problem lies in our incomplete knowledge and understanding of the cultural background as well as determining how exactly it relates to biblical revelation.

No argument here, but I think one can see the analogs on the broader scale. The Israelites were more likely to understand Suzerainty Vassal treaty (especially since Deuteronomy is structured around it) than they were Lockean liberal democracy.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Does the perspicuity of Scripture all this mean that the average lay-person cannot comprehend the Bible? Must a person be educated in a Bible college or seminary to be able to interpret the Bible properly? No, the meaning of the pages of Scripture are not limited to a few. Made in the image of God, man is a rational (as well as an emotional and volitional) being. He has the intellectual capacity to understand the Bible. As a revelation of God, the Bible, written in human languages, is capable of being understood.

On the other hand, this does not mean that human teachers are not needed and that a person can be instructed by the Bible alone without any attention to what others believe about it. Some have been given the gift of teaching (Rom. 12:7; 1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11). The 3,000 disciples saved on the Day of Pentecost "devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching" (Acts 2:42). Peter and John "entered the temple courts... and began to teach the people" (5:21). They continued "teaching the people" (v. 25) and "day after day... they never stopped teaching" (v. 42). "Barnabas and Saul... taught great numbers of people" in Antioch (11:26). In Corinth Paul was "teaching them the Word of God" for a year and a half (18:11). In Ephesus, Paul "taught... publicly and from house to house" (20:20). He was accused of teaching all men everywhere (21:28). Even when he was in Rome under house arrest he "boldly... taught about the Lord Jesus Christ" (28:31).

If each individual believer could comprehend fully the Scriptures by himself apart from anyone else, then why were the apostles involved in teaching believers, and why is the gift of teaching given to some in the church today? Receiving the teaching of others can be in person or through written instruction in commentaries. Being open to the Spirit's leading of others can help Bible students avoid some of the dangers discussed earlier. This leads to the question of whether the Bible possesses clarity.​

Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, (Colorado Springs, CO: Cook Communications Ministries, 1991),

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Crossed my desk this afternoon:

"Jesus believed Scripture could be understood and that any misunderstanding on the part of the listener was not due to Scripture’s obscurity, but on some spiritual defect in the person or group. "​

More...
https://credomag.com/2018/08/clarifying-scriptures-perspicuity-a-look-at-the-new-testament/

See also:
http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-perspicuity-of-scripture

 

[DTK]

If the reading and study of Holy Scripture is undertaken as a spiritual discipline, then I don't see how we can (even if it's an unconscious act) segregate the word from the Spirit who gave it. The bottom line, for the believer (at least I think), is to answer in the affirmative to the question, "can God make himself known and understood through his written word?" And to that I would add this qualifier; we need not understand the Bible exhaustively or infallibly in order to understand it sufficiently.

Chrysostom (349-407): You see, despite the use of such precision by Sacred Scripture, some people have not questioned the glib words of arrogant commentators and farfetched philosophy, even to the extent of denying Holy Writ and saying the garden was not on earth, giving contrary views on many other passages, taking a direction opposed to a literal understanding of the text, and thinking that what is said on the question of things on earth has to do with things in heaven. And, if blessed Moses had not used such simplicity of expression and considerateness, the Holy Spirit directing his tongue, where would we not have come to grief? Sacred Scripture, though, whenever it wants to teach us something like this, gives its own interpretation, and doesn’t let the listener go astray. On the other hand, since the majority of listeners apply their ears to the narrative, not for the sake of gaining some profit but for enjoyment, they are at pains to take note of things able to bring enjoyment rather than those that bring profit. So, I beg you, block your ears against all distractions of that kind, and let us follow the norm of Sacred Scripture. Fathers of the Church, Vol. 74, Homilies on Genesis 1-17, Homily 13.13 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1986), p. 175.
Greek text: Εἰ γὰρ καὶ τοσαύτῇ χρσαμένης ἀκριβείᾳ τῆς θείας Γραφῆς, οὐ παρῃτήσαντό τινες τῶν ἐπὶ εὐγλωττίᾳ μεγαλοφρονούντων, καὶ τῇ σοφίᾳ τῇ ἔξωθεν, ἀπεναντίας τοῖς γεγραμμένοις φθέγγεσθαι, καὶ εἰπεῖν, μὴ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς εἶναι τὸν παράδεισον, καὶ πολλὰ ἕτερα τῶν εἰρημένων παρεγγυῶντες, μὴ ὡς γέγραπται φρονεῖν, ἀλλʼ ἀπεναντίας ἔρχεσθαι, καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς εἰρημένα περὶ τῶν ἐν οὐρανοῖς νομίζειν εἰρῆσθαι· εἰ μὴ τῇ ταπεινότητι τούτων τῶν λόγων, καὶ τῇ συγκαταβάσει ὁ μακάριος Μωϋσῆς ἐχρήσατο, τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος τὴν γλῶτταν αὐτοῦ κινοῦντος, ποῦ οὐκ ἂν ἐξεκυλίσθησαν, καίτοι γε τῆς ἁγίας Γραφῆς, ἐπειδὰν βούληταί τι τοιοῦτον ἡμᾶς διδάσκειν, ἑαυτὴν ἑρμηνευούσης, καὶ οὐκ ἀφιείσης πλανᾶσθαι τὸν ἀκροατήν; Ἀλλʼ ἐπειδὴ οἱ πολλοὶ οὐ διὰ τὸ καρπώσασθαί τι κέρδος ἐκ τῶν θείων Γραφῶν, ἀλλὰ τέρψεως ἕνεκεν τὰς ἀκοὰς ὑπέχουσι τοῖς τὰ παριστάμενα λέγοισι· διὰ τοῦτο οὐ τοῖς ὠφελοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς τέρπειν μᾶλλον δυναμένοις προσέχειν σπουδάζουσι. Διὸ παρακαλῶ, πᾶσι τοῖς τοιούτοις τὰς ἀκοὰς ἀποτειχίσαντες, τῷ κανόνι τῆς ἁγίας Γραφῆς κατακολουθήσωμεν. Homiliae in Genesim, Caput II, Homilia XIII, §3, PG 53:108.

We see in Chrysostom the patristic roots of the property of Scripture's perspicuity as set forth by the post-Reformation orthodox divines.

I'm sure that I'm open to the charge of being too simple, but the same charge was also leveled against the tax collectors and fishermen who were borne along by the Holy Spirit in the composition of their gospel accounts.

 

[RamistThomist]

I think the problem came about this way. 30 years ago any hermeneutics manual made the common-sense observation that it helps to know the original context. No one disputed that. No one could reasonably dispute that. Then NT Wright came along and people thought you had to have mastered 2 Temple Judaism to know Jesus. So they overreacted by saying you don't need no learning because Jesus is good enough amen. And Hegel or romanticism or something

 

[DTK]

If I may be so bold, I would recommend (I know, there is no end to the writing of books) D. A. Carson, Collected Writings on Scripture (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010). This book pulls together a number of articles by Carson that addresses, in a very nuanced way, the issues raised in this thread. It has been helpful to me to see how one of the most prolific and conservative scholars of our day addresses the various issues surrounding the question of claritas scripturae. Carson is very well-read in a great many areas, as he is in this one, and that and his other virtues shine through in his meticulous analysis.