Cultural?
 

What should be our criteria for deciding whether or not a teaching is simply cultural in the Bible?

For instance, in I Cor. 11, most people will agree that Apostle Paul was talking about a custom in Corinth of women wearing a veil in addition to the hair on their heads. But, most of us also agree that it was a cultural custom, and not binding on us today. (I know that some disagree, and believe it is still required.)

Some also believe that women keeping silence was merely cultural, or addressing something that was going on at that time. Greet the brethen with a holy kiss, etc.

For myself, I feel like if it is NOT simply a cultural issue, there will be another witness for the issue elsewhere in scripture. For instance, the man being the head of the home is a principal that is taught several times in scripture.

What do you think should be our criteria? How do we determine cultural vs. universal?

Re: Cultural?
 

studing Jewish cultures and customs helps understand the mindset of BIBLE days...

Re: Cultural?
 

lot´s of things in the Bible I wondered about and found out why the Bible uses many expressions etc...

Re: Cultural?
 

So do you think that if the Bible was referring to a Jewish custom that it isn't binding on us?

Re: Cultural?
 

Most jews don't even believe that Jesus is the savior so what about jewish custom and cultures and how it pretains to us

Re: Cultural?
 

Many Jewish customs and traditions are in the Bible but not applicable to us today. There are many that can be sorted out...but I just bet someone has a book on these that we could refer to.

Good questions.:thumbsup

Re: Cultural?
 

I would hesitate to say "merely" a cultural custom or such. Even if the practice doesn't have a literal application for us today there are often underlying principles that we need to be aware of.

For example, the head covering. Paul's point seems to have been to try and maintain a clear distinction between the roles and the the appearances of the men and women in the church congregation. The whole discussion appears to be predicated upon the activity of "praying," and thus is specific for those times.

Even if we have different cultural styles with regard to the way in which we carry this out, we should still strive to maintain a distinction and to emphasize the glory that is due God in our prayers and worship together.

Similarly with the issue of women "keeping silent." Though this is obviously the preferred approach http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ons/icon10.gif , more practical considerations require that we look at what was prompting Paul's counsel in this matter. Notice his emphasis is on "obedience" here rather than a direct concern for the volume of sound coming from the ladies.

The underlying principle then would be one of order and obedience first. This principle then would be reflected in the local customs related to who speaks when and in what tone of voice, etc.

Re: Cultural?
 

Aaaahhhh yes...the voice of reason. I agree with you 100%.

Blessings, Rhoni

Re: Cultural?
 

I think we have completely missed a major point that Paul was making in this passage, because we focus on the hair. I think his main point was about submission and proper roles.

Re: Cultural?
 

Absolutely!:thumbsup

Re: Cultural?
 

well, I am saying my personal study of Jewish customs helped me understand why the woman touched the hem of His garment...and on and on.

Re: Cultural?
 

Criteria: if you don't like it, it's cultural. :thumbsup

Re: Cultural?
 

Sister A is right. Even though many Jews of His day rejected Jesus, we can still understand a lot about the setting and the teachings of the Bible by understanding Jewish (and others!) customs. The hem of His garment is a good example. The people of Israel were commanded to wear a blue colored fringe on the hems of their garments. This was to remind them of who they were (Numbers 15:38-39).

Interestingly, but doing this they were also copying the decor of the Tabernacle itself - the dwelling place of God. By reaching out for the hem of His garment, the woman was actually acknowledging that God was in Christ.

We don't need to wear the blue fringe today; but it is important that we remember who were are and Who He is. The importance of that remeberance is the underlying theme that transcends cultures and styles of dress.

Re: Cultural?
 

You're way too cynical today, Timmy. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...cons/icon9.gif http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...cons/icon7.gif http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...cons/icon9.gif

Re: Cultural?
 

:smack

Blessings, Rhoni

Re: Cultural?
 

Why should today be any different? :winkgrin

Re: Cultural?
 

Well, I don't especially like forgiving people, but I don't think that's only cultural. ;)

Re: Cultural?
 

why would we think that something St.Paul wrote hundreds of years ago...answering a letter or report that we don't have...to people we don't know...or speak the same language...or share the same customs or culture...why would a rational person believe this is written for us today?

Re: Cultural?
 

You're right (IMO) about the generalities and cultural issues.

However, we are all still human beings; and presumably, God is still God. So there are important connections to that ancient and foreign world that bind us all together in one family - despite the vast differences in our times, traditions, customs and language.

Re: Cultural?
 

Man, wouldn't it have been great if God had written the Bible?

(Uh oh. There's that cynicism again! :toofunny)

Re: Cultural?
 

It's a matter of His transcendence. He is "above all..." Every manifestation of God in this world comes with certain limitations that prevent His nature and being from subsuming our created existence out of existence.

Thus, "holy men of God spake..." 2 Peter 1:21

The Bible is a revelation of God's will, and inspired by His Spirit; but those things are contained within the words of man.

Re: Cultural?
 

And we are required to sort out the inspired words from the uninspired. There are uninspired words of man, too, right? Like mine, or Buddha's, or some of Paul's (the ones that didn't make the cut), etc.? Is it good enough to believe that the ones that say they're inspired are inspired? Or should we also test what the words say for "trueness"?

Re: Cultural?
 

Are you me?

:toofunny

Re: Cultural?
 

"Truthiness." It's pronounced "truthiness."

Re: Cultural?
 

:thumbsup

Re: Cultural?
 

That's right. Now shutup and get back in the kitchen!!!!!!

Re: Cultural?
 

Yeah. And stay off the roads.

Hey, it's kind of cool being a "Neanderthal."

Would it kill any of you ladies to get me some breakfast?

Re: Cultural?
 

Well, killing might come into it.


:foottap

Re: Cultural?
 

2 of us in the world....scary thought indeed.:)

Re: Cultural?
 

which Bible?...or how many?...understand that when St.Peter & St.Paul were writing...the Bible to them was the Hebrew O.T. and/or the Torah. Ironically...most english bibles don't include all of these.

regarding "God's will" being revealed...I'm not sure if I understand what this means. Did something become God's will because it got written down?...or was something God's will and then it was written? how does this playout with all the Hebrew history that is in the O.T.?

Re: Cultural?
 

I'm a little confused by that last statement, perhaps you meant the Apocrypha? In which case you would be correct about "... don't include ..."
The problem a lot of people have with understanding the Bible is that they attempt to view it through the eyes of a fundamentalist. Even many skeptics and professed atheists look at it this way - though with some disdain.

The Bible that we have today exists as a compilation of material that has been through an extensive sorting and review process that has occurred over centuries, even millenia of time.

We don't have a book that shouts at us, "Thus saith the Lord!!!" Rather, we have a compilation of writings that people have sought out, used, discarded, rediscovered, redacted and recompiled over time. It is a work of an evolutionary process.

The "Bible" is the work of humans attempting to understand what it was that God was doing in their lives when they were in times of trouble, or even in times of blessing. It's a sort of a backward glance at "what happened?" that is useful for helping us to form a framework to understand what is happening, and possibly what will happen.

Essentially, "whatever happens" is "God's will..." I know that's a pretty lame way of surmising, by I think it's also pretty accurate. I like the analogy of Elijah's cave.

When he was hiding out from Jezebel's wrath and revenge Elijah took refuge in a "cleft" in a rock on the "Mount of God," Horeb. You know the story, he heard the storm but "God was not in the storm," not in the earthquake nor the fire that fell from heaven (1 Kings 19:10-18).

The Bible (OT anyhow) is the "still small voice" that was left over after the tumult of the Babylonian captivity and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple there. The Jewish people had tried to "find" God in the destruction, and He wasn't really there. They tried to find Him in the return, but He still proved elusive.

To understand where God had been throughout their national existence (and nonexistence!) they had to tell and retell the stories of their patriarchs and founders. The truth of their suffering was so horrible that they refused to associate the goodness of God with those events, except perhaps as punishment for the sins of some of their elders.

For life to have real meaning they needed to find a "good" God, or at least the "goodness" of the only God. But why the suffering? It would be easy to see the justice in the suffering of the backslidden kings (2 Kings 25:7) and the corrupt and wealthy (2 Kings 23:35 and 2 Kings 15:20). But why innocent children (Isaiah 13:16 and Hosea 13:16)?

For complex issues like that you need stories to attain understanding and wisdom. Simple aphorisms and tidy little "God is always good all the time!" types of messages fail to illuminate these issues. The alternative would be to deny that life has any meaning at all.

I actually considered this point for some time; but I was dissatisfied with the conclusions. The error (as I see it) is in expecting the Bible to be summed up in a little Chick comic book like fashion of Fundamentalist perfection. The Bible itself is attempting to explain something of much more profound significance. It's unfair to the book itself and it's message to impose our expectations upon it. We should wait, like Moses had to for forty years, for the God involved in this to reveal Himself.

He is "I AM that I AM," and not "whatever Pelathais needs at the moment but something else tomorrow 'cause I'm busy and got plans."

Re: Cultural?
 

Wasn't the suffering of God's own chosen people a result of their rejection of His law given to them by Moses? Didn't God forewarn them what would happen in Deut 28 and through the many prophets he sent to them telling them to turn back to God, their Rock? Until He reached the time when the space of repentance had ended and the time for judgement had come?

And through the suffering, furnace of affliction, didn't God bring forth a people who NEVER went back into idolatry? There is some good that comes out of suffering/chastisement.