This sixth installment of my response to a beloved former student’s question concerning the authority of Scripture deals with the third context in which one must set Scripture in order to hear God’s Word in the words. In addition to the cultural context that produced the text and literary context in which one finds the words, one must also attend to the contemporary context in which readers find themselves.  The two-fold challenge involves avoiding the danger of assuming that the intellectual and cultural world of the Bible corresponds perfectly to contemporary circumstances, on the one hand, and failing to allow the biblical perspective the opportunity to critique modern assumptions, on the other.

Often, the problem manifests itself in the supposed conflict between biblical faith and modern science.  The authors did not have, could not even anticipate, and therefore could not incorporate into their writings, the vast knowledge about the universe revealed to us by modern science. The Bible nowhere claims that it reveals the summation of knowledge about the world. But, then, nothing in the Bible indicates that its authors wished to give instruction in mathematics, biology, chemistry, geography, anthropology, physics, etc. Sometimes the Bible reflects understandings of these aspects of reality that are manifestly wrong. The ancient Israelites were not good mathematicians.  According to the biblical account of the construction and furnishings of Solomon’s temple, Solomon “made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference” (1 Kgs 7:23 = 2Chron 4:2-5).  Using the formula c=πd (circumference equals π times the diameter) results in a value of 3. for π (30= π10, 30/10 = π).  The ancient Israelites were not good zoologists.  “You may eat all clean birds. But these are the ones which you shall not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the osprey…the hoopoe and the bat” (Deut 14:11-18 par. Lev 11:13-19, RSV). Bats are mammals, not birds. The ancient Israelites were not good anthropologists. The so-called “Table of Nations” in Genesis 10 lists the descendants of Noah, in the biblical view the ancestor of every human being after him, through his three sons.  Japheth became the ancestor of “the coastland peoples” along the southern and eastern Mediterranean; Ham became the ancestor of the peoples of northern Africa; and Shem became the ancestors of the Semitic peoples, including the Israelites, the Aramaeans, and the Mesopotamians. The Table of Nations does not name the ancestors of the northern Europeans, the Asians, the aboriginal Australians, or the aboriginal Americans – because the author of the Table of Nations knew only the Fertile Crescent.

This circumstance is not a problem for believers unless they are unwilling to “harmonize” the ancient and the modern, so to speak.  The Bible intends to tell the story of God’s relationship with a community of faith, not to teach science. Worldviews change continually as people acquire more information and understanding. I can understand that the ancient Israelites could not compute π; the decimal point had not yet been invented. Nonetheless, I do not want to fly in an airplane designed using biblical math.

The need to harmonize modern and ancient worldviews does not always apply, however. On many questions, especially regarding matters of wisdom, faith, and righteousness (cf. 2 Tim 3:15-16), the worldviews of ancient Israel and the early church stand against modern understandings and practices.  For example, the world that produced the Bible knew nothing of modern hyper-individualism.  Instead, Scripture reflects the high cultural value placed on “the people of God” and “the body of Christ.”  The Scripture that speaks well of only three (David, Hezekiah, and Josiah) out of all the kings of Israel and Judah and that asserts “Jesus is Lord!” (in contrast to the confession of loyalty to the emperor “Caesar is Lord!”) cannot be reconciled with Christian nationalism.  The Bible that commissions God’s people to be “light” to the world and that calls for loving others, even Samaritans and those who hate us, as we love ourselves, does not support protectionism, isolationism, or any actions that manifest lack of empathy – personally, communally, or nationally.

The supposed conflict between the faith and science surfaces especially with regard to the Bible’s creation accounts and viewpoints on cosmology and evolution. The situation provides an opportunity for a couple of case studies that will demonstrate how biblical interpretation benefits from careful attention to all three of the contexts involved in reading Scripture.  These case studies will constitute the final installment of this series.