BFF Blogger Brien recently posted the above picture on his facebook page. Not only did it cause me to laugh heartily, but it also engendered some interesting discussion. I reposted it with the caption "Why literal interpretation of scripture can sometimes be problematic." One of my friends made what I thought was an interesting observation in which he stated "It should read, 'Why a literal reading which disregards context is problematic.'" His astute observation got me thinking about the importance of context and prompted the following response from me:
"Context is a very interesting thing. I think sometimes it can be difficult, even if the context of a certain scriptural passage is well understood, to extrapolate its meaning absolutely to a modern context. For example, let's suppose that Jesus DID, in fact, condemn the consumption of figs under a certain historical/cultural/textual context. Fast-forward 2000 years to the age of the Fig Newton®. A Fig Newton® presents the fig in an entirely different context than how Jesus would have experienced it. In some senses, a Fig Newton® hardly resembles the scripturally condemned fig. It doesn't grow on trees. It's packaged differently. It tastes differently. It has a different texture. A different nutritional value. It's consumed in a world that is entirely different from the one in which the original statement was made. If context is so important that the meaning of a statement cannot be interpreted without it, then I would argue that our ability to interpret the same statement in a modern context can be limited if that context wasn't understood by whomever made the original statement. I think it can be difficult to say _exactly_ what Jesus thinks about a Fig Newton®. And I think that is the case _even_ if the original context for Jesus's statement was well understood."
"Context is a very interesting thing. I think sometimes it can be difficult, even if the context of a certain scriptural passage is well understood, to extrapolate its meaning absolutely to a modern context. For example, let's suppose that Jesus DID, in fact, condemn the consumption of figs under a certain historical/cultural/textual context. Fast-forward 2000 years to the age of the Fig Newton®. A Fig Newton® presents the fig in an entirely different context than how Jesus would have experienced it. In some senses, a Fig Newton® hardly resembles the scripturally condemned fig. It doesn't grow on trees. It's packaged differently. It tastes differently. It has a different texture. A different nutritional value. It's consumed in a world that is entirely different from the one in which the original statement was made. If context is so important that the meaning of a statement cannot be interpreted without it, then I would argue that our ability to interpret the same statement in a modern context can be limited if that context wasn't understood by whomever made the original statement. I think it can be difficult to say _exactly_ what Jesus thinks about a Fig Newton®. And I think that is the case _even_ if the original context for Jesus's statement was well understood."
Posts
1 comments:
I think you're right. Putting statements into context almost always changes the original meaning of the statement. But understanding the context of a statement doesn't automatically mean we can or should use that statement (in context) in a different context or a similar situation.
Unless, of course, you're only going to condemn figs when it's hot outside and you've been walking around that day, and you see a fig tree, and figs are a favorite staple of your cultural diet, and you go to get a fig off the tree, and the tree doesn't have good figs on it. Then, maybe, it would be biblically appropriate to condemn a fig because that's the context of the statement.
So I guess my argument is that even in context, many biblical (or other similar types) or statements should never be taken literally.
Post a Comment