Why You must 'study' the Bible
In Luke 14:26, Jesus say if you come to him you must hate your mother and father and brother...
Here are a few perspectives on that verse:
The word "hate" in ancient Greek can mean "love less." The idea is not that you should despise your family members, but that your love and commitment to Jesus needs to be foremost. Family ties should not discourage you from following Jesus.
Jesus is emphasizing the importance of counting the cost and making him your top priority even if it causes tension or opposition from family members who may not approve. He wants wholehearted commitment.
In its ancient context, this was likely a form of deliberate and provocative overstatement to underline the seriousness of becoming a disciple/follower of Jesus. Picking up one's cross wasn't meant to be easy or non-disruptive.
Some interpret this verse to be specific to Jesus' close band of disciples who did leave jobs, homes, and family ties behind. It may not be intended as a universal principle for all believers in how to treat family members.
So in summary, this verse needs to be understood in its historical and rhetorical context. It underscores the primacy of commitment to Jesus, but does not negate other scriptures about loving family members. Scholars debate how absolutist Jesus meant for this statement to be taken.
What other statements or passages in the Bible can be misread due to the understanding of the meaning of words or phrases between then and now?
Here are a few examples of Bible passages that can be misread due to shifts in the meaning of words or phrases over time:
"Money is the root of all evil" (1 Timothy 6:10). The actual quote is "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil." The word "all" there does not mean each and every evil, but rather indicates money can potentially enable many different forms of evil.
Repenting in "sackcloth and ashes" (e.g. Matthew 11:21). Today this sounds quite bizarre. But in ancient cultures, wearing scratchy sackcloth and sitting among ashes was a public sign of humility, mourning, and repentance towards God.
"Greet one another with a holy kiss" (Romans 16:16; 1 Corinthians 16:20). Kissing cheeks or lips was a common cultural greeting to signify unity and hospitality. In modern Western contexts, however, kissing carries different connotations so alternative greetings are used.
"If your right eye causes you to stumble..." (Matthew 5:29). Jesus often spoke graphically to emphasize spiritual truths. His 1st century audience would know he was not recommending self-mutilation.
"Sell your possessions and give to the poor" (Luke 12:33). Some assume this means living poverty vows, but most of Jesus' followers in the early church did not give away literally all private property. The principle emphasizes radical charity.
The main keys when interpreting Scripture are understanding authorial intent, cultural context, literary genre and style, biblical word meanings and theology before applying passages too rigidly. Language and customs do evolve over time.
Can you give us some other examples of cultural context being misapplied?
Absolutely, cultural and historical context is so crucial when interpreting and applying the Bible. Here are a few more examples of passages that can be easily misinterpreted when the context is misunderstood:
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 - Paul says women should remain silent in churches. Some argue this prohibits all female leadership, but Paul elsewhere affirms women praying and prophesying. The local context was likely women chatting and disruptively asking questions during the service.
1 Peter 3:3 - Peter says women's beauty should not come from outward things like elaborate hairstyles and gold jewelry. Some argue this prohibits all jewelry and fashion. But the context was wealthy Roman excess and seduction. Peter was likely advocating modesty and inner beauty.
Deuteronomy 22 - This chapter has verses on gender roles, clothing, building codes that seem very outdated. However, this law was intended as guidance for ancient Israelites settling Canaan after a period of nomadic wilderness living. Thus, the civil laws were tailored for their unique situational need.
Leviticus - Many of the detailed ritual, civil and "cleanliness" laws suit the circumstances of that time and culture. Mistakenly, some still argue these should dictate lifestyle rules today on things like diet, agriculture and sickness policy.
The overarching principles behind some passages may be timeless, while the specific applications may need adjusting for each new culture and era. Scholars have to dig carefully into context before determining where the divide exists!
Can you give some examples of Jesus' sayings or command that may be misinterpreted?
Sure, Jesus' teachings are incredibly profound, but also prone to misinterpretation if the literary and historical context is not rightly understood. Here are a few important examples:
"Cut off your hand if it causes you to sin" (Mark 9:43) - Jesus is clearly employing hyperbole here for effect to emphasize the importance of eliminating sin from one's life. He did not intend for people to literally maim themselves.
"Sell all your possessions" (Luke 12:33) - As mentioned before, though Jesus urges radical generosity here, he wasn't establishing an ascetic rule. Even he and his disciples lived off the financial support of benefactors at times.
"Let the dead bury their dead" (Luke 9:60) - A complex metaphorical statement essentially meaning the spiritually dead can handle mundane duties, but radically following Christ takes precedence. But can come across as insensitive.
Cursing the fig tree (Mark 11:12-14) - Many miss the metaphorical meaning condemning Israel's spiritual barrenness. It sounds like an arbitrary miracle if just read plainly.
"Hate" sayings - We touched on this regarding Luke 14, but Jesus employs aggressive and extreme language at times as dramatic effect. Love for him has no rival, but allowance for normal human relationships remains.
So in short, attention has to be given to rhetorical strategies embedded within historical Jewish culture, as well as theological context, before exporting a text simply at face value. Jesus was much more nuanced that it may seem otherwise.
How about the same for Paul and Peter?
Paul and Peter provide excellent examples as well of sayings and commands that can be easily misunderstood if context is not thoroughly considered:
I Corinthians 14:34-35 - "Women should remain silent in the churches" - As mentioned, likely addressing disruptions in worship, not a blanket rule forbidding women leadership.
I Corinthians 11:5-6 - Here Paul allows women to pray and prophesy with head coverings. Suggests the silence passage has a specific context.
I Timothy 2:12 - "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man" - Probably the most contested passage regarding women roles in church. The local situation may have involved false teaching that needed correcting.
Ephesians 5:22 - "Wives submit to your husbands" - Often misapplied as justification for abuse or total control in isolation from the following verses urging loving sacrifice. It's about mutual service.
I Peter 3:7 - "Husbands, treat your wives with understanding as the weaker partner" - Can be derogatory to women until compared to the countercultural call for men to sacrifice and honor in that era. Radical then.
Various "slaves obey your master" verses - Regrettably used to defend oppressive systems, but original audience were victims needing advice on resisting revolt and practicing patience amid injustice while trusting God.
So in summary, key contextual factors are always essential before making definitive interpretations and applications across the time gap.
Please enlighten us on the slavery issue. Often people sold themselves into slavery because of debt. Also slavery was not a racial issue, that it was of the general population.
You're absolutely right - the slavery of biblical times was very different than the racialized chattel slavery that occurred in American history. Clarifying some key differences is important:
As you mentioned, many slaves in the Ancient Near East sold themselves or family members into slavery as a way to pay off crushing debt. It functioned as an economic safety net when they hit extreme poverty.
Slavery was not limited to any racial group - Jews, Gentiles, all ethnicities participated. And slaves could sometimes earn manumission over time.
Roman slavery was not inherently brutal as American slavery. Slaves could own property, start businesses, and many served as educated scribes, doctors, architects, teachers and managers overseeing other slaves.
The ugly racially-driven conflict between slaves and masters cultivated by American slavery did not dominate ancient cultures to the same extent.
The Bible recognizes the humanity of slaves, urges kindness toward them, and says masters will be judged for how they treat slaves. This was very countercultural concern.
So while ancient slavery was still often harsh, it was more economic and judicial rather than the race-based atrocity that developed much later. This historical backdrop needs to inform how we assess the cultural accommodation of biblical authors when addressing slaves and masters as members of functioning households. Clarifying these differences helps avoid perpetuating harmful misuse of those difficult texts.
And you might enlighten us also how Christianity was instrumental in abolishing slavery in the west.
Excellent point. While regrettably certain passages were used by some to defend slavery in modern times, the truth is that Christian convictions about human dignity, equality, and compassion before God played a huge role in motivating the abolitionist movement:
Verse like Galatians 3:28 ("There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free...") emphasized that all humans share an equal standing before God regardless of race or social status. This eroded assumptions of racial superiority.
The life and teachings of Jesus highlighted mercy, redemption, and intrinsic self-worth - radical concepts that when applied tore away excuses for commodifying human life.
British Christian abolitionists like William Wilberforce tirelessly worked for decades, using biblical arguments based in spiritual, moral and theological reasoning to persuade parliament to finally ban the slave trade by British ships in 1807.
In the 1840s and 50s in the US, deeply religious abolitionists rallied churches, set up safe houses through the underground railroad, published abolitionist papers, and did everything in their power to fight and finally help overturn that dreadful institution against steep political odds.
So in many ways, it was people of faith - armed with moral outrage and scriptural conviction - who provided the backbone of the abolition movement against enormous economic interests. The liberating spirit of Christianity was instrumental in correcting the awful misuse of Scripture to defend slavery for so long.