Avoiding Cultural Biases in Biblical Examples and Illustrations
When interpreting biblical texts and drawing illustrations from them, it is crucial to recognize and mitigate the influence of cultural biases. These biases can subtly shape understanding, leading to misinterpretations or applications that do not align with the original intent of the scripture. The Apostle Paul, for instance, warned against being "taken captive through philosophy and empty deception, which are based on human tradition and the spiritual forces of the world rather than on Christ" [1]. This admonition highlights the danger of allowing external human frameworks, including cultural ones, to supersede divine truth.
One area where cultural bias can manifest is in the interpretation of allegories and figures of speech. The Jewish scholar Rashi, commenting on Proverbs 1:6, noted that understanding an allegory requires attention to both the comparison being made and the figure itself, ensuring that the figure is not neglected [3]. If a modern interpreter, influenced by their own cultural norms, misinterprets the "strange woman" in Proverbs 2:16 as merely a literal adulteress, they might miss the allegorical meaning of idolatry that Rashi identifies [3]. Such an oversight demonstrates how cultural assumptions about gender roles or societal vices can obscure deeper theological messages.
Similarly, cultural context affects how certain behaviors or concepts are understood. John Calvin, in his commentary on Genesis, discusses the word for "wine" and acknowledges its double meaning, sometimes used in a negative sense (e.g., Genesis 9:21) and other times in a positive one [4]. A modern reader might bring contemporary cultural attitudes towards alcohol to the text, potentially misinterpreting the "honorable and moderate liberality" Calvin describes as distinct from drunkenness [4].
The early Church Fathers also grappled with cultural influences. John Chrysostom, for example, often adapted his rhetorical approach to his audience, as seen in his homilies where he might use an "introductory thanksgiving" to conciliate readers, particularly if they were Hebrews with potential prejudices [6]. This suggests an awareness of the cultural and historical context of his listeners, which informed his method of communication.
Furthermore, theological concepts themselves can be distorted by cultural lenses. Calvin, in his commentary on Isaiah, emphasizes that God cannot be represented by "painting or by any kind of likeness," directly challenging the idolatrous practices common in many cultures [5]. This underscores the need to interpret biblical descriptions of God free from culturally conditioned visual or conceptual limitations. John Gill, commenting on Hebrews 13:9, warns against being "carried about with divers and strange doctrines," which can include "the several doctrines of men, whether Jews or Gentiles" [2]. These "strange doctrines" often arise from human traditions and cultural philosophies that deviate from the unified doctrine of Scripture [2].
Sources
- Colossians “Colossians 2:8 (BSB) — See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, which are based on human tradition and the spiritual forces of the world rather than on Christ.”
- Hebrews (Baptist/Reformed) “John Gill on Hebrews 13:9: Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines,.... The word "divers" may denote the variety and multitude of other doctrines; referring either to the various rites and ceremonies of the law, or to the traditions of the elders, or to the several doctrines of men, whether Jews or Gentiles; whereas the doctrine of the Scriptures, of Christ, and his apostles, is but one; it is uniform, and all of a piece; and so may likewise denote the disagreement of other doctrines with the perfections of God, the person and offices of Christ, the Scriptures of truth, the anal”
- Sefaria (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki) on Proverbs 1:6: to understand an allegory and a figure That they should direct their attention to understand the verses through two methods: the allegory and the figure. They should understand what he compares to the figure, but they should not neglect the figure itself, for that, too, requires understanding. When he states, “To save you from a strange woman and a foreign one” (2:16), idolatry is meant; this is the allegory, and also the figure—for he expressed his allegory in terms of a woman—should be understood by it, [meaning that] you shall beware of a stra”
- CCEL (Reformed) “Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, Vol. 2 (Gen 24-50), section 20.15: implied, (so that drunkards may not plead the example of the holy fathers as a pretext for their crime,) but an honorable and moderate liberality. I acknowledge, indeed, that the word has a double meaning, and is often taken in an ill sense; as in Genesis 9:21 , and in similar places: but in the present instance the design of Moses is clear. Should any one object, that a frugal use of food and drink is simply that which suffices for the nourishing of the body: I answer, although food is properly for the supply of our necessities”
- CCEL (Reformed) “Calvin, Commentary on Isaiah, Vol. 3, section 8.30: in guarding the Jews against distrust, at the same time condemns the superstitions of the Gentiles, and declares that it is inconsistent with the nature of God to be represented by painting or by any kind of likeness. This shews clearly that Paul’s doctrine fully agrees with it; for the Prophet, after having shewn that the power of God is infinite, since he holds all things in his fist, at length concludes, “To whom then will ye liken me? for no image that is formed will have any likeness or resemblance to me.” Or, what resemblance will you a”
- CCEL/NPNF (Eastern Orthodox) “John Chrysostom, Homilies on John & Hebrews: or introductory thanksgiving,” by which St. Paul always takes pains to conciliate his readers, and of which there was especial need if he were writing to Hebrews disposed to prejudice against him. On the contrary, after the manner of St. Mark in his Gospel, the writer strikes directly into his subject, without any sort of preface. Another striking feature of difference is, that St. Paul always keeps close to his argument until it is complete, and then adds practical exhortations founded upon it, while in our Epistle each short division of the argume”