Culture And The Bible.

[Scott Hutchinson]

We know that the Bible is the sole rule of faith for Christians throughout the ages and all cultures , and God's principles don't change.
Yet the Bible was wrote in another place and another time ,so when we read the scriptures how much bearing does culture have in making application of the scriptures ?
Does culture have any bearing at all when reading certain passages of scripture ?
Or does it have no bearing at all ? Or does it really matter ?
We know that God's purpose is eternal and yet God's church in culturally diverse.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Any thoughts anyone ?

[Sam]

All Scripture is written for us
but
not all Scripture is written to us.

Some things in the Bible are descriptive.
Other things are prescriptive.

Some times we have a problem deciding which is which.

[Sister Alvear]

I spoke about this to my children this week...am anxious to read posts how people feel about this.

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

We know that the Bible is the sole rule of faith for Christians throughout the ages and all cultures , and God's principles don't change.
Yet the Bible was wrote in another place and another time ,so when we read the scriptures how much bearing does culture have in making application of the scriptures ?
Does culture have any bearing at all when reading certain passages of scripture ?
Or does it have no bearing at all ? Or does it really matter ?
We know that God's purpose is eternal and yet God's church in culturally diverse.

One must consider the cultures in which the Bible was written when trying to determine what the authors meant by what they wrote but we have no business basing our interpretation of scripture on the worldly cultures in which we live today - particularly since the Christian's "culture" is that of the kingdom of God.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Originally Posted by Chan

One must consider the cultures in which the Bible was written when trying to determine what the authors meant by what they wrote but we have no business basing our interpretation of scripture on the worldly cultures in which we live today - particularly since the Christian's "culture" is that of the kingdom of God.

Don't fall over and the sky isn't going to fall today ,but I do agree with you at least I hope my spelling is correct.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Well would a scripture like greet each other with a holy kiss be done by Christian men today ? Or would Christian brothers and sisters kiss each other in a fourier of a church ?

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

Well would a scripture like greet each other with a holy kiss be done by Christian men today ?

In Europe and the Middle East, yes.

Or would Christian brothers and sisters kiss each other in a fourier of a church ?

One would have to determine what a "holy kiss" actually is and how it was practiced in the first century Church.

My point, of course, was that we are not to use modern cultures as the basis for interpreting scripture - in other words, we should not try to conform the Bible to modern cultures.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

Well would a scripture like greet each other with a holy kiss be done by Christian men today ? Or would Christian brothers and sisters kiss each other in a fourier of a church ?

Verses about greeting one another with a holy kiss would be a good example of what we are talking about. Often in his epistles, Paul would have some personal remarks near the end. Paul and Peter stuck in the words about greeting with a kiss near the end of their epistles:
Romans 16:16
1 Cor. 16:20
2 Cor. 13:12
1 Thess 5:26
1 Peter 5:14
Modern paraphrases use terms like shaking hands (The Living Bible), or just greeting (New Living Translation), or embracing (The Message) instead of kissing. In my opinion, that would fit within the meaning of those verses and would not be wrong/sinful. Years ago I was around some folks that took those verses very literally and I had to kiss some of those elder snaggly toothed brethren in the mouth, and some of them had mustaches (mustaches weren't sinful back then).

Another passage that could be open to the same interpretation is John 13 where Jesus washed the disciples' feet and told them that He left an example and they should also wash one another's feet. Some take that very literally and insist on literally washing each other's feet today. Others take that to mean we should serve one another. In 1 Peter 5 you can see a reference to that when it speaks of submitting to and serving one another and being clothed with humility. Some versions use terms like putting on the apron of humility or the towel of humility in reference to John 13. That is something I would not argue over. I don't think it's wrong to have a foot washing service but I think that submission to one another is what is actually taught in John 13. Foot washing was part of the culture back then in the days of open toed shoes or just going barefoot and the dusty or muddy unpaved roads and no sidewalks.

The subject of head covering and/or hair length could fall into that same category and so could the place of women in ministry, but that stuff becomes very emotional when discussed and generates more heat than it does light.

Another passage which falls into that category is 2 Timothy 4:9-22 where we could be commanded to:
go to Rome to visit Paul,
get Mark and bring him with us,
stop off at Carpus' home in Troas and pick up a cloak and parchments,
watch out for Alexander the coppersmith,
greet Prisca and Aquila,
try to get there before winter.

Originally Posted by Sam

Verses about greeting one another with a holy kiss would be a good example of what we are talking about. Often in his epistles, Paul would have some personal remarks near the end. Paul and Peter stuck in the words about greeting with a kiss near the end of their epistles:
Romans 16:16
1 Cor. 16:20
2 Cor. 13:12
1 Thess 5:26
1 Peter 5:14
Modern paraphrases use terms like shaking hands (The Living Bible), or just greeting (New Living Translation), or embracing (The Message) instead of kissing. In my opinion, that would fit within the meaning of those verses and would not be wrong/sinful. Years ago I was around some folks that took those verses very literally and I had to kiss some of those elder snaggly toothed brethren in the mouth, and some of them had mustaches (mustaches weren't sinful back then).

Another passage that could be open to the same interpretation is John 13 where Jesus washed the disciples' feet and told them that He left an example and they should also wash one another's feet. Some take that very literally and insist on literally washing each other's feet today. Others take that to mean we should serve one another. In 1 Peter 5 you can see a reference to that when it speaks of submitting to and serving one another and being clothed with humility. Some versions use terms like putting on the apron of humility or the towel of humility in reference to John 13. That is something I would not argue over. I don't think it's wrong to have a foot washing service but I think that submission to one another is what is actually taught in John 13. Foot washing was part of the culture back then in the days of open toed shoes or just going barefoot and the dusty or muddy unpaved roads and no sidewalks.

The subject of head covering and/or hair length could fall into that same category and so could the place of women in ministry, but that stuff becomes very emotional when discussed and generates more heat than it does light.

Another passage which falls into that category is 2 Timothy 4:9-22 where we could be commanded to:
go to Rome to visit Paul,
get Mark and bring him with us,
stop off at Carpus' home in Troas and pick up a cloak and parchments,
watch out for Alexander the coppersmith,
greet Prisca and Aquila,
try to get there before winter.

For the most part I agree with you. But I wouldn't include the prohibition of women in ministry in the same category as the holy kiss.