Approaching the Bible historically or culturally is a tricky task.

Endeavoring

to enter into the mind of the first-reader/hearer has to be done with a healthy dose of

humility. We must be cognizant of the vast gap between what was “then” and what is

“now” and be willing, at times, to live with the tension created (McKnight, 2008, p.

57). Consideration must also be given to the enormous cultural/historical differences

between the Biblical characters and the present reader/hearer who is, for better or

worse, also a character in the story. Nevertheless, the student of the Bible can ill

afford to dismiss how both culture and history inform the Biblical text; and as much

as is possible, ascertain what the world of the first-reader/hearer was like. The

student, nonetheless, can never presume that he or she has completely grasped the

nuances of a distant culture or people group.

This does not indicate the work of cultural/historical analysis should not be

done. It simply infers that when attempting to do so one must recognize his or her

limitations to grasp a cultural or historical setting in its totality. Even the most lauded

writings pertaining to Biblical culture or history are passed through a lens far removed

from its object. Additionally, our own reading of these works places yet another lens

in front of the object creating the possibility of further “hermeneutical/interpretive

gaps” (Thompson, 2011, p. 1). Therefore, the enterprise of cultural or historical

understanding should be seasoned with an authentic acceptance that we may never

fully grasp the original intent of a Biblical text: the variables are too great. At the

same time we must try to use available scholarship as a way to enlighten our efforts to

apply a contemporary meaning of the Bible to the church and her ministries. That is to

say, we use scholarly material to help us better grasp the missional nature of the

Bible.

“Augustine,” says McKnight (2008), “knew the Bible’s main mission: so that
we can become people who love God and love others” (p. 105). The implication in

this statement is that whether or not we have a full grasp on the historical/cultural

milieu of a given text the goal is to move the interpreter and the church closer to

God’s mission. McKnight (2005) recommends the reader be more concerned with the

God of the book of Jonah than the viability of humans living in a whale (p. 88). In

other words, human ability to survive inside a whale is secondary in importance to

discovering how God is at work in Jonah’s life and by extension how He may work in

our lives. This is the essence of N.T. Wright’s (2005) defense against the allegorical

and/or “four senses” interpretive strategies (pp. 65-70). That is, to overvalue the

secondary issues for the sake of a mystical or controllable meaning only prevents

travelers from moving toward God’s mission. Biblical mysticism is often code for

control: control the Bible and then you control the God of the Bible. Control access to

the Bible and you also control access to the God of the Bible. If control is the intent of

the church’s practice then the Bible becomes “a tame pet rather than a roaring lion”

(Wright, 2005, p. 70). The end result of this control is a self-involved domesticated

house cat looking to be served and never serving: failing to engage the mission of

God.

The opposite of this biblical docility is coined best in the book of Hebrews

who says, “The word of God is living and active…” (Hebrews 4:12, ESV). This

seems to indicate a circular but multi-faceted activity where the Bible speaks, the

reader hears and responds; this process is infinitely repeated, producing a mission

oriented sanctification. Implicit in this cycle is participation by the reader/hearer

leading (presumably) to spiritual transformation catalyzed by a faith that comes from

hearing (whether by proclamation or reading) the “word of Christ” (Romans 10:17

ESV). The end result of this cycle is not a domesticated house cat, but a personal
active faith provoked by the word of God to do the works of God (cf. Hebrews

10:24). The hope, however, is not only personal transformation but that each story of

metamorphosis also affects the larger church to come into alignment with the larger

purpose of God’s mission.

Is it better to know what the Bible “meant” or what it “means?” I would argue

that neither of these are preferred over the other. As much as possible seek to

understand the background of a text humbly accepting we have limited knowledge.

Yet, we use what is known to assist us in helping others freely access the Bible

allowing it to speak and then taking personal and corporate action to move toward the

mission of God.