Cultural Imperialism's Impact on Biblical Interpretation and Application
Cultural imperialism, in the context of biblical interpretation, refers to the imposition of one culture's values, perspectives, and historical experiences onto the understanding and application of biblical texts, often to the detriment or marginalization of other cultural readings. This phenomenon can subtly shape how interpreters understand biblical narratives, prophecies, and ethical teachings.
One area where cultural assumptions can influence interpretation is in the understanding of historical prophecy. For instance, the Jamieson, Fausset & Brown commentary on Daniel 7:19 interprets the world powers mentioned in Daniel's vision through a specific historical lens, identifying "Asshur" with Eastern kingdoms like Babylon and Medo-Persia, and "Chittim" with Western kingdoms, specifically Greece and Rome [1]. This interpretation reflects a historical framework prevalent in Western scholarship, which often views biblical prophecy as directly mapping onto a linear progression of empires familiar to European history. Another example from the same commentary on Daniel 7:26 suggests that Antichrist is "to be gradually 'consumed,' as the Papacy has been consuming for four hundred years past," and then "destroyed" by Christ at His coming, potentially linking the "man of sin" to a figure like "Louis Napoleon" [5]. Such interpretations demonstrate how contemporary political and religious concerns of the interpreters' culture can be read into ancient texts.
The concept of "pure language" in Zephaniah 3:9, where God promises to "turn to the people a pure language," is interpreted by Jamieson, Fausset & Brown as a reversal of the penalty of sin at Babel, which involved the confusion of languages [3]. While this interpretation connects to a biblical narrative, the emphasis on "pure language" can, in some cultural contexts, be subtly linked to linguistic or cultural uniformity, potentially overlooking the diversity of expressions within God's kingdom.
Furthermore, cultural imperialism can manifest in how sin and idolatry are understood. John Gill, in his commentary on Ezekiel 14:5, interprets God's judgment on Israel as taking them "in their own heart," exposing their "wickedness, the hypocrisy, and idolatry" [2]. Similarly, Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Micah 1:7 describes Israel's wealth as "the hire of an harlot" received from idols, which God will "desolate" [4]. While these interpretations correctly identify idolatry as a grave sin, the specific cultural manifestations and implications of idolatry can vary widely. An interpretation that focuses solely on ancient Near Eastern idol worship might miss the "idols" of modern consumerism, nationalism, or other cultural constructs that can function similarly in different societies.
Charles Hodge, in his Systematic Theology, discusses how different theological schools and eras approach biblical interpretation. one tradition notes that "Rationalists and Supernaturalists of the last generation" and "modern speculative theologians" often deal with biblical statements by adhering to "modern theories more or less modified," rather than allowing "the Scriptural statements untouched and unrefuted" to control their convictions [7]. This observation highlights a broader challenge: interpreters, regardless of their cultural background, are prone to bringing their own intellectual frameworks and cultural assumptions to the text. Hodge also argues against making tradition "a part of the rule of faith," asserting that doing so "subverts the authority of the Scriptures" because it introduces an "explanatory, and infallible interpreter" that determines the meaning of the Bible [6]. This point, while aimed at theological tradition, can be extended to cultural traditions that implicitly or explicitly dictate how the Bible is to be understood.
The impact of cultural imperialism on biblical interpretation is not always overt. It can be seen in the unstated assumptions about what constitutes "normal" or "universal" human experience, which then shapes the understanding of biblical commands, narratives, and prophecies. The challenge for interpreters is to recognize and critically evaluate their own cultural lenses to allow the biblical text to speak in its own context, while also discerning its universal truths.
Sources
- Daniel (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Daniel 7:19: Balaam, an Aramean, dwelling on the Euphrates, at the beginning of Israel's independent history, and Daniel at the close of it, prophetically exhibit to the hostile world powers Israel as triumphant over them at last, though the world powers of the East (Asshur) and the West (Chittim) carry all before them and afflict Eber (Israel) for a time (Num 23:8-10, Num 23:28; Num 24:2, Num 24:7-9, Num 24:22-24). To Balaam's "Asshur" correspond Daniel's two eastern kingdoms, Babylon and Medo-Persia; to "Chittim," the two western kingdoms, Greece and Rome (compar”
- Ezekiel (Baptist/Reformed) “John Gill on Ezekiel 14:5: That I may take the house of Israel in their own heart,.... By which they are ensnared, and drawn aside to their ruin; being given up to strong delusions, to believe a lie, and worship idols; God threatening to answer them by righteous judgments, and thereby take the wickedness, the hypocrisy, and idolatry, that were in their hearts, and expose and make it manifest unto others; or, by punishing them, to draw out the corruption and sin that were in them, that it might be seen what a wicked people they were. The Targum interprets the text in another way, "that I may ”
- Zephaniah (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Zephaniah 3:9: For--The blessed things promised in this and Zep 3:10 are the immediate results of the punishment inflicted on the nations, mentioned in Zep 3:8 (compare Zep 3:19). turn to the people a pure language--that is, changing their impure language I will give to them again a pure language (literally, "lip"). Compare for this Hebrew idiom, Sa1 10:9, Margin. The confusion of languages was of the penalty sin, probably idolatry at Babel (Gen 11:1-6, Margin, where also "lip" expresses language, and perhaps also religion; Zep 3:4, "a tower whose top may reach u”
- Micah (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Micah 1:7: all the hires--the wealth which Israel boasted of receiving from her idols as the "rewards" or "hire" for worshipping them (Hos 2:5, Hos 2:12). idols . . . will I . . . desolate--that is, give them up to the foe to strip off the silver and gold with which they are overlaid. she gathered it of the hire of an harlot, and they shall return to the hire of an harlot--Israel gathered (made for herself) her idols from the gold and silver received from false gods, as she thought, the "hire" of her worshipping them; and they shall again become what they had b”
- Daniel (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Daniel 7:26: consume . . . destroy--a twofold operation. Antichrist is to be gradually "consumed," as the Papacy has been consuming for four hundred years past, and especially of late years. He is also to be "destroyed" suddenly by Christ at His coming; the fully developed man of sin (Th2 2:3) or false prophet making a last desperate effort in confederacy with the "beast" (Rev 16:13-14, Rev 16:16) or secular power of the Roman empire (some conjecture Louis Napoleon): destroyed at Armageddon in Palestine.”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, section 37: hundreds of folios in which these traditions are recorded? Surely a guide to the interpretation of the latter must be far more needed than one for the Scriptures. Tradition destroys the Authority of the Scriptures. 6. Making tradition a part of the rule of faith subverts the authority of the Scriptures. This follows as a natural and unavoidable consequence. If there be two standards of doctrine of equal authority, the one the explanatory, and infallible interpreter of the other, it is of necessity the interpretation which determines the f”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 104: and afterwards by the Reformers; how the Rationalists and Supernaturalists of the last generation dealt with it; and how the modern speculative theologians have philosophized about it; and end, generally, by giving in their adhesion to some one of these modern theories more or less modified. All the while there stand the Scriptural statements untouched and unrefuted. They are allowed to go for what they are worth; but they are not permitted to control the writers own convictions. This course is adopted by different men on different princ”