Using Non-Biblical Examples to Illustrate Biblical Concepts Culturally
Using Non-Biblical Examples to Illustrate Biblical Concepts Culturally
The use of non-biblical examples to illustrate biblical concepts is a common practice in Christian teaching and interpretation. This approach helps to make biblical teachings more relatable and understandable to contemporary audiences. According to Adam Clarke, Jesus used earthly things to illustrate heavenly concepts, as seen in John 3:12, where he explains the concept of being "born again" using an analogy from everyday life [5].
The biblical text itself employs analogies and metaphors drawn from everyday life to convey spiritual truths. For instance, the parables of Jesus, as recorded in Matthew 13:3-9, use common aspects of life to teach spiritual lessons. The Tyndale House commentary on Matthew 13:3 notes that understanding a parable requires identifying its central analogy and interpreting it within its historical and Gospel context [7].
In interpreting biblical concepts, Christian commentators and theologians have long used non-biblical examples to clarify and illustrate their meanings. For example, Augustine uses the analogy of imitation to explain how individuals become "children of the devil" by imitating his sinful nature, as discussed in Jamieson, Fausset & Brown's commentary on 1 John 3:8 [1]. Similarly, Calvin's commentary on Genesis highlights the importance of understanding the image of God in humanity, though he cautions against overly subtle definitions [6].
The use of non-biblical examples can also be seen in the way biblical commentaries explain complex theological concepts. For instance, the concept of sin is illustrated through various examples from human experience. The Tyndale House commentary on Psalms 19:13 notes that deliberate sin is characterized by an attitude of rebellion against God [3]. Jamieson, Fausset & Brown's commentary on Genesis 3:13 explains the sin of Adam and Eve as not just eating a forbidden fruit, but as a manifestation of deeper issues like ingratitude and disobedience [2].
The practice of using non-biblical examples to illustrate biblical concepts is not limited to any one Christian tradition. Presbyterian, Protestant academic, Reformed, and Methodist/Wesleyan sources all demonstrate this approach in their interpretations and commentaries. For example, the Reformed tradition, as represented by Calvin's commentary, emphasizes understanding biblical concepts within their biblical context while using analogies to explain them [6]. one commentary tradition by Jamieson, Fausset & Brown also employs this method, as seen in their explanation of 1 John 3:8 [1].
The effectiveness of using non-biblical examples lies in their ability to bridge the cultural and historical gap between the biblical text and contemporary audiences. By relating biblical teachings to everyday experiences and concepts, this approach makes the biblical message more accessible and relevant. However, it is crucial to ensure that the analogies and examples used are accurate and faithful to the original biblical context.
The biblical text itself provides a model for this approach. The apostle Paul, for instance, uses analogies from everyday life and Greek culture to explain Christian teachings, as seen in 1 Corinthians. The Tyndale House commentary on 1 Corinthians 3:23 notes that Paul's teaching on the relationship between believers and Christ is illustrated through the concept of ownership and belonging [4].
Sources
- 1 John (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on 1 John 3:8: He that committeth sin is of the devil--in contrast to "He that doeth righteousness," Jo1 3:7. He is a son of the devil (Jo1 3:10; Joh 8:44). John does not, however, say, "born of the devil." as he does "born of God," for "the devil begets none, nor does he create any; but whoever imitates the devil becomes a child of the devil by imitating him, not by proper birth" [AUGUSTINE, Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John, Homily 4.10]. From the devil there is not generation, but corruption [BENGEL]. sinneth from the beginning--from the time that any beg”
- Genesis (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Genesis 3:13: beguiled--cajoled by flattering lies. This sin of the first pair was heinous and aggravated--it was not simply eating an apple, but a love of self, dishonor to God, ingratitude to a benefactor, disobedience to the best of Masters--a preference of the creature to the Creator.”
- Psalms (Protestant academic) “Tyndale House on Psalms 19:13: 19:13 An individual who commits deliberate sins does so with an insolent (86:14) or arrogant (119:21, 69) attitude. • The great sin is rebellion (see 32:1).”
- 1 Corinthians (Protestant academic) “Tyndale House on 1 Corinthians 3:23: 3:23 Just as they may now claim everything as their own, so Christ has claimed them for himself (see Rom 14:7-9), and in Christ they are ultimately claimed by God (see 1 Cor 6:19-20; 7:23).”
- John (Methodist/Wesleyan) “Adam Clarke on John 3:12: If I have told you earthly things - If, after I have illustrated this new birth by a most expressive metaphor taken from earthly things, and after all you believe not; how can you believe, should I tell you of heavenly things, in such language as angels use, where earthly images and illustrations can have no place? Or, if you, a teacher in Israel, do not understand the nature of such an earthly thing, or custom of the kingdom established over the Jewish nation, as being born of baptism, practised every day in the initiation of proselytes, how will you understand such ”
- CCEL (Reformed) “Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, Vol. 1 (Gen 1-23), section 5.31: and fourteenth books on the Trinity, also the eleventh book of the “City of God.” I acknowledge, indeed, that there is something in man which refers to the Father and the Son, and the Spirit: and I have no difficulty in admitting the above distinction of the faculties of the soul: although the simpler division into two parts, which is more used in Scripture, is better adapted to the sound doctrine of piety; but a definition of the image of God ought to rest on a firmer basis than such subtleties. As for myself, before I define the”
- Matthew (Protestant academic) “Tyndale House on Matthew 13:3: 13:3-9 This parable (interpreted in 13:18-23) addresses the mostly negative responses of the Jewish nation to Jesus and his message. • Parables (Greek parabolē) are stories that usually express an analogy between a common aspect of life and a spiritual truth. To understand a parable, it is necessary to locate the central analogy and understand it in its historical context and in the context of the Gospel text; then the central message can be understood. Speculative allegorical meanings that were not intended should not be found in every element of a parable.”