One of the many manifestations of racism is that of slavery. As I mentioned in an earlier essay, racism can be defined as the attitude or belief that one ethnic group or race is inherently intellectually, morally, and spiritually superior to others. Those who believe this also believe that because of their supposed "superiority" they have the God-given right to relegate the supposed "inferior" groups to a lower social class status, including, but not limited to that of slavery.
In this essay, I will focus on slavery as a manifestation in the U.S.A. Some may object to this because to them "slavery is a thing of the past," and "institutional slavery no longer exists." Others will object because they don't like to be reminded that there is a discrepancy between the claim to freedom on the one hand, and the fact that many of those who were slaves, fought for those freedoms which we now enjoy. One writer referred to slavery as the "peculiar institution."
The labor of Blacks, forced to come to the New World as slaves, was essential to the economic development not only of the new colonies, whether in the Caribbean, Latin America, or North America, but also the major powers of the Old World. But slavery did not come innocent of ideological trappings. A historically distinct ideology designed to justify and maintain the oppression of the slaves developed with the rise of the Atlantic slave trade (Ahmed Shawki, Black Liberation and Socialism. Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2006, p.18).
Racism and racial oppression have been features of everyday life for Blacks in the United States for more than 350 years. But the persistence of racism is not inevitable, and racism, certainly in its modern form, has not always existed. Far from being the unavoidable result of interaction between different peoples, racism and racial oppression emerged in Europe's transition from feudalism to capitalism. Ancient and feudal societies before capitalism were able to do without this form of oppression (Shawki, p.18).
Specifically, racism emerged in Western Europe and the New World as a consequence of the slave trade, as the ideological justification for slavery. Prejudice against strangers (xenophobia) and distinctions between "barbarian" and "civilized" existed, but did not take the form of modern racism (Shawki, p.18).
Northern American Indians whom European settlers first encountered had a conception of "outsider," i.e. non-members of the band, tribe, or nation. But the fact that it carried no racial connotation is shown not only by the practice of adoption of Indian captives of other nations into their tribe to replace lost loved ones, but also of the adoption of captured white Europeans as full-fledged members of the tribe (James Axell, White Indians of Colonial America. Washington: Ye Galleon Press, 1979, p.8).
The question for us would be did racism lead to slavery or did slavery lead to racial attitudes of superiority? There have been arguments on both sides of this question. This writer does note support either one. This writer believes that both racism and the attendant institution of slavery are rooted in the divine-human rupture and also in the human-human rupture. The attitude of superiority on the basis of both race and social class is generated by a denial of all humankind being made in the image and likeness of God. While my position might seen crude and elementary to some, I humbly submit it for consideration and dialogue. Please feel free to submit your own comments, ideas, and opinions on this position or on the previous two positions described. Your input is valuable and will be appreciated.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer,
Dr. Juan A.Ayala-Carmona
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
Sunday, September 20, 2015
Racism in a Biblical and Theological Perspective- The Origins of Racism
In many of the classes that I have taught in the past (especially those of a historical nature), one of the things that I focus on is "Como fue que comenzo el bochinche (how did the gossip begin)?" I think that in order for us to address any vital issue that affects human relationships, that it is necessary to put them in a historical perspective. We ask questions of when, why, and how certain issues began. We might even ask who were the "key players" in the origins of the issue.
In the next several essays, I will address the historical origins of racism. The first of these historically-focused essays will be theological in nature, i.e. it will focus on a biblical-theological frame of reference. Some may object to this approach because they believe that biblical-theological history does not resonate with secular accounts of history in that it is culturally conditioned and biased. They subscribe to the notion that there is a differentiation between "history" as such, on the one hand, and on the other, "interpreted history." To these objections, I respond that all history is culturally conditioned and biased. There is no such thing as "objective and pure history." History is always written and told from the social standpoint of the person who is writing it. Every history is interpreted history, in that the meaning of it is assumed right from the beginning by the person who is narrating the events of the past.
A perfect example of what I am sayings is that when I was in seminary, the Church History professor had the audacity to say that in the Middle Ages there was nothing significant happening relative to Church history outside of Europe. I pointedly asked the professor if nothing was going on, or if it was that Church history was written for the most part, from the ethno-centric standpoint of the European Church historians. He responded and said to me "I wouldn't put that crassly." Well, crassly or not, I humbly and respectfully submit that historians write from an ethno-centric standpoint, even without realizing it, and in many cases, tend to arrogantly assume that they are rendering an objective and neutral history, devoid of bias and cultural presuppositions. To this I say "absolutely not."
I submit that racism began with the Fall. In other words, I believe that when sin first entered the world, racism, classism, sexism, and all the other "isms" crept in. Whether one believes that the biblical account of the Fall is a literal historical event, or a myth, or a legend, the point remains that from a theological standpoint, sin brought about a rupture in human relationships. No only was there a disruption between God and humankind, but there was also a disruption between humans. The man began to lord it over the woman, the rulers began to lord it over the ruled, social classes (castes, if you will) emerged, and eventually, people of lighter complexion of skin began to rule over people with darker complexion of skin. We see examples of the latter in India, where for many centuries, people of darker skin were at the bottom of the social "barrel."
Some may argue that economics gave way to racism, while others argue that racism generated an economic system that resulted in the emergence of "lower" and "higher" social classes. The argument is similar to the argument as to which came first between the chicken and the egg. In this case, the writer says neither. What came first was sin, i.e humankind's decision to live independently of God and of God-given standards.
If we fail to take seriously that nature of sin, we miss the point as to "how the gossip began." I invite and challenge you the reader to consider taking a theological approach to history. In this manner, the issue of the origins of social maladies like racism might take on a different meaning. We will be, in that case, looking at history from the standpoint of God's history. This is a golden opportunity to shift our lenses through which we view historical events.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A.Ayala-Carmona
In the next several essays, I will address the historical origins of racism. The first of these historically-focused essays will be theological in nature, i.e. it will focus on a biblical-theological frame of reference. Some may object to this approach because they believe that biblical-theological history does not resonate with secular accounts of history in that it is culturally conditioned and biased. They subscribe to the notion that there is a differentiation between "history" as such, on the one hand, and on the other, "interpreted history." To these objections, I respond that all history is culturally conditioned and biased. There is no such thing as "objective and pure history." History is always written and told from the social standpoint of the person who is writing it. Every history is interpreted history, in that the meaning of it is assumed right from the beginning by the person who is narrating the events of the past.
A perfect example of what I am sayings is that when I was in seminary, the Church History professor had the audacity to say that in the Middle Ages there was nothing significant happening relative to Church history outside of Europe. I pointedly asked the professor if nothing was going on, or if it was that Church history was written for the most part, from the ethno-centric standpoint of the European Church historians. He responded and said to me "I wouldn't put that crassly." Well, crassly or not, I humbly and respectfully submit that historians write from an ethno-centric standpoint, even without realizing it, and in many cases, tend to arrogantly assume that they are rendering an objective and neutral history, devoid of bias and cultural presuppositions. To this I say "absolutely not."
I submit that racism began with the Fall. In other words, I believe that when sin first entered the world, racism, classism, sexism, and all the other "isms" crept in. Whether one believes that the biblical account of the Fall is a literal historical event, or a myth, or a legend, the point remains that from a theological standpoint, sin brought about a rupture in human relationships. No only was there a disruption between God and humankind, but there was also a disruption between humans. The man began to lord it over the woman, the rulers began to lord it over the ruled, social classes (castes, if you will) emerged, and eventually, people of lighter complexion of skin began to rule over people with darker complexion of skin. We see examples of the latter in India, where for many centuries, people of darker skin were at the bottom of the social "barrel."
Some may argue that economics gave way to racism, while others argue that racism generated an economic system that resulted in the emergence of "lower" and "higher" social classes. The argument is similar to the argument as to which came first between the chicken and the egg. In this case, the writer says neither. What came first was sin, i.e humankind's decision to live independently of God and of God-given standards.
If we fail to take seriously that nature of sin, we miss the point as to "how the gossip began." I invite and challenge you the reader to consider taking a theological approach to history. In this manner, the issue of the origins of social maladies like racism might take on a different meaning. We will be, in that case, looking at history from the standpoint of God's history. This is a golden opportunity to shift our lenses through which we view historical events.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A.Ayala-Carmona
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Racism in a Biblical and Theological Perspective-Manifrestations of Racism
As I stated in the first essay, racism takes on many forms. In some instances, racism manifests itself in blatant and outward manners. In other instances, it takes on a more subtle character. The latter is somewhat more dangerous in that it becomes difficult to identify. There are conscious and unconscious forms of racism. Subsequently, there are both intentional and unintentional elements in racism,
One expression which is often used is "counter-racism," or "racism in reverse." This term is used to describe the attitudes of people who are members of ethnic-racial groups that have been discriminated and mistreated on the basis of ethnicity and race. These people are said to be "racist" against those who have oppressed them. They might even express hatred against their oppressors, and even do and say things which call for their annihilation.
Since economic, military, social, and political power usually accompanies racism, I find it difficult to believe in the concept of "racism in reverse." There may be cases, for example, where African Americans and Hispanics may hate Caucasian people for the way they have been brutalized and mistreated. And there just may be the extreme cases of African American and Hispanic people believing that they are inherently intellectually, morally, and spiritually superior to Caucasian people. However, since African Americans and Hispanics have not enjoyed the military, social, and political power that accompanies racism, it is almost moot to talk about "counter racism." So-called "minority groups" do not have the power base from which to enact and implement policies and structures of institutional, systemic, and structural racism.
In either case, what has been said before stands, i.e. that attitudes and actions of racism go totally against the biblical and theological grain of full equality. The notion of ethnic and racial superiority contradict the notion that all are creatures of God, made in the image and likeness of God, and subsequently entitled to be treated with dignity and respect.
In subsequent essays, I will be dealing with racism in a historical perspective, and then with the ways in which racism has had an impact on human relations world-wide. In the meantime, feel free to comment on this essay, or on the two preceding it. Your input is very valuable.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmna
One expression which is often used is "counter-racism," or "racism in reverse." This term is used to describe the attitudes of people who are members of ethnic-racial groups that have been discriminated and mistreated on the basis of ethnicity and race. These people are said to be "racist" against those who have oppressed them. They might even express hatred against their oppressors, and even do and say things which call for their annihilation.
Since economic, military, social, and political power usually accompanies racism, I find it difficult to believe in the concept of "racism in reverse." There may be cases, for example, where African Americans and Hispanics may hate Caucasian people for the way they have been brutalized and mistreated. And there just may be the extreme cases of African American and Hispanic people believing that they are inherently intellectually, morally, and spiritually superior to Caucasian people. However, since African Americans and Hispanics have not enjoyed the military, social, and political power that accompanies racism, it is almost moot to talk about "counter racism." So-called "minority groups" do not have the power base from which to enact and implement policies and structures of institutional, systemic, and structural racism.
In either case, what has been said before stands, i.e. that attitudes and actions of racism go totally against the biblical and theological grain of full equality. The notion of ethnic and racial superiority contradict the notion that all are creatures of God, made in the image and likeness of God, and subsequently entitled to be treated with dignity and respect.
In subsequent essays, I will be dealing with racism in a historical perspective, and then with the ways in which racism has had an impact on human relations world-wide. In the meantime, feel free to comment on this essay, or on the two preceding it. Your input is very valuable.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmna
Monday, September 14, 2015
Racism in Biblical and Theological Perspective- A General Overview
For the purposes of this discussion on racism within a theological framework, I will define the term racism as the "belief in the inherent intellectual, moral, and spiritual superiority" of a race or ethnic group. This belief and attitude carries with it the notion that all other racial and ethnic groups are innately inferior, and therefore, should be relegated to second-class status in all human relations.
Racism goes against the grain of biblical theology. The Scriptures are very clear in indicating that all humankind is a direct creation by God. To affirm that one race or ethnic group is superior to the other would be tantamount to saying that God didn't know what He/She was doing at the time of creation. It would also be another indication that God has preferences for ethnic and racial groups. The hymn "Jesus love the little children, all the children of the world," while carrying a slight note of paternalism, points to the thrust of the biblical message of the equality of all. In a very general sense, we are all sisters and brothers by virtue of being created by God. Unless we believe in a "multiple" creation by God at the beginning, we all stem from one set of parents. That would also make us all sisters and brothers.
While the Scriptures do speak about the notion of "God's chosen people (Israel and the Church)," and while there is mention of believers as a "peculiar people," the biblical notion of being "chosen" has been distorted, misunderstood, twisted, and warped. The biblical concept of being "chosen" has absolutely nothing to do with God having preference for an ethnic or racial group per se, but rather with God having "chosen" certain people to carry out the liberating mission of God in the world. In subsequent essays, I will be talking about God's "preferential option for the poor and oppressed of the world," but this has absolutely nothing to do with God having "favorites," so to speak. This series of essays rests on the foundation that no ethnic or racial group is inferior or superior to others. Full equality is assumed throughout these essays. Please feel free to comment and share your opinion and perspective.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Racism goes against the grain of biblical theology. The Scriptures are very clear in indicating that all humankind is a direct creation by God. To affirm that one race or ethnic group is superior to the other would be tantamount to saying that God didn't know what He/She was doing at the time of creation. It would also be another indication that God has preferences for ethnic and racial groups. The hymn "Jesus love the little children, all the children of the world," while carrying a slight note of paternalism, points to the thrust of the biblical message of the equality of all. In a very general sense, we are all sisters and brothers by virtue of being created by God. Unless we believe in a "multiple" creation by God at the beginning, we all stem from one set of parents. That would also make us all sisters and brothers.
While the Scriptures do speak about the notion of "God's chosen people (Israel and the Church)," and while there is mention of believers as a "peculiar people," the biblical notion of being "chosen" has been distorted, misunderstood, twisted, and warped. The biblical concept of being "chosen" has absolutely nothing to do with God having preference for an ethnic or racial group per se, but rather with God having "chosen" certain people to carry out the liberating mission of God in the world. In subsequent essays, I will be talking about God's "preferential option for the poor and oppressed of the world," but this has absolutely nothing to do with God having "favorites," so to speak. This series of essays rests on the foundation that no ethnic or racial group is inferior or superior to others. Full equality is assumed throughout these essays. Please feel free to comment and share your opinion and perspective.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Friday, September 11, 2015
Racism in Biblical and Theological Perspective
This next series of essays will be dedicated to the issue of racism. I realize that it is a very uncomfortable subject for many of us, to even talk about. For some of us, it is uncomfortable to talk about because it reminds us and makes us come to grips with the reality that racism is ingrained in our psyche, whether consciously or sub-consciously. For others of us, it is uncomfortable because we tend to think that racism no longer exists. When we are confronted with the reality of its continued existence, our naivete and innocence are exposed and deconstructed. For others of us, the discomfort comes from the fact that it is a divisive issue. My focus on racism will be from a biblical and theological standpoint.
Let me begin my saying that racism is not a new phenomenon. It is as old as humankind itself. It takes on different forms, and manifests itself in a variety of ways. It exists in individuals and in social institutions and systems, including, but not limited to, communities of faith. In the Church, the Bible has been used and misused to justify racism. Even the first-century Church experienced episodes of ethnic and racial discrimination. In the book of Acts we have two such incidents. One was where the Gentile (Greek) members of the Church were complaining that their widows were not being as well taken care of or provided for as were the Jewish widows in the Church. The other episode had to do with the Apostle Peter being shown a vision by God concerning his view that Gentiles were "unclean."
The Church, as an institution of society, has mirrored and reflected the same racist attitudes and tendencies as the society itself. One would think that the Church would devote itself, in light of the message of the Gospel, to work for the eradication of racism, both individual and systemic. What we have seen throughout history, is that the Church has been, to a certain extent, a harbinger of racism.
I invite you, the reader, to explore this issue with us and to contribute your views and perspectives with us. Your comments will be a great contribution in helping us ameliorate this social ill from the standpoint of the reign of God in Christ. Please feel free to comment on this, or on any of the ensuing essays.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Let me begin my saying that racism is not a new phenomenon. It is as old as humankind itself. It takes on different forms, and manifests itself in a variety of ways. It exists in individuals and in social institutions and systems, including, but not limited to, communities of faith. In the Church, the Bible has been used and misused to justify racism. Even the first-century Church experienced episodes of ethnic and racial discrimination. In the book of Acts we have two such incidents. One was where the Gentile (Greek) members of the Church were complaining that their widows were not being as well taken care of or provided for as were the Jewish widows in the Church. The other episode had to do with the Apostle Peter being shown a vision by God concerning his view that Gentiles were "unclean."
The Church, as an institution of society, has mirrored and reflected the same racist attitudes and tendencies as the society itself. One would think that the Church would devote itself, in light of the message of the Gospel, to work for the eradication of racism, both individual and systemic. What we have seen throughout history, is that the Church has been, to a certain extent, a harbinger of racism.
I invite you, the reader, to explore this issue with us and to contribute your views and perspectives with us. Your comments will be a great contribution in helping us ameliorate this social ill from the standpoint of the reign of God in Christ. Please feel free to comment on this, or on any of the ensuing essays.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
Interpreting the Bible-Step Eleven: The Social Location- The Finale.
This particular approach to biblical interpretation is a very complex one. It calls into question and deconstructs the supposedly "objective" way of interpreting the Bible. It demonstrates that there is no pure "objectivity" in biblical interpretation. Any claim to "objectivity" and "universality" is a farce.
There are basically three social locations from which people interpret and apply the biblical message. They are the following.
1. Class- People of a particularly "superior" social class will interpret the Bible in such a way as to justify their domination and control of the "lower" classes. They will find and quote those Scriptures which appear to support the notion that their socio-economic condition is a "blessing" of God that has not been given to the "lower" classes because of their "laziness and indolence." On the other hand, people of the supposedly "lower" social-economic groups will see in the Scriptures (especially the prophets and the Gospel), a message that God is on the side of the oppressed, poor, and socially marginalized. They see passages in the Bible which speak about God establishing solidarity with the downtrodden and social outcasts.
2. Gender-Historically speaking, men have interpreted and quoted the Bible in such a way as to justify male control and male domination. They will quote those Scripture passages which speak about women being "silent" and "submissive" to the man. Women, on the other hand, will see in the biblical message, a communication that in Christ, God has torn down the barriers of gender. They will quote those passages in Scripture which support female roles of leadership in the home and in the Church.
3. Ethnicity/Race- People of certain ethnic and/or racial groups will interpret the Bible in such a way as to justify their holding positions of authority and power over other ethnic and racial groups. They will quote passage after passage that appears to convey the message that God favors one group over the other. On the other hand, people of those ethnic and racial groups which have been relegated to "inferior" status, see in the Bible a message that God favors them and will help them overthrow and dethrone those who exert power over them. They see in the Bible a message of "liberation" which promises them to be "delivered" from the yoke of of oppression.
What is the right interpretation of the Bible? Who has it? This writer sincerely hopes that if nothing else, the readers of these essays will see that no particular biblical interpretation is purely "objective," or "universally valid and correct." Each interpretation has truth to it. Each hermeneutical approach has its limits. Each interpretation is culturally biased and conditioned. I respectfully submit this series of essays to you in the hope that it would have provided for the readers an exposure to various hermeneutical approaches. Please feel free to comment and give your input.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Word, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
There are basically three social locations from which people interpret and apply the biblical message. They are the following.
1. Class- People of a particularly "superior" social class will interpret the Bible in such a way as to justify their domination and control of the "lower" classes. They will find and quote those Scriptures which appear to support the notion that their socio-economic condition is a "blessing" of God that has not been given to the "lower" classes because of their "laziness and indolence." On the other hand, people of the supposedly "lower" social-economic groups will see in the Scriptures (especially the prophets and the Gospel), a message that God is on the side of the oppressed, poor, and socially marginalized. They see passages in the Bible which speak about God establishing solidarity with the downtrodden and social outcasts.
2. Gender-Historically speaking, men have interpreted and quoted the Bible in such a way as to justify male control and male domination. They will quote those Scripture passages which speak about women being "silent" and "submissive" to the man. Women, on the other hand, will see in the biblical message, a communication that in Christ, God has torn down the barriers of gender. They will quote those passages in Scripture which support female roles of leadership in the home and in the Church.
3. Ethnicity/Race- People of certain ethnic and/or racial groups will interpret the Bible in such a way as to justify their holding positions of authority and power over other ethnic and racial groups. They will quote passage after passage that appears to convey the message that God favors one group over the other. On the other hand, people of those ethnic and racial groups which have been relegated to "inferior" status, see in the Bible a message that God favors them and will help them overthrow and dethrone those who exert power over them. They see in the Bible a message of "liberation" which promises them to be "delivered" from the yoke of of oppression.
What is the right interpretation of the Bible? Who has it? This writer sincerely hopes that if nothing else, the readers of these essays will see that no particular biblical interpretation is purely "objective," or "universally valid and correct." Each interpretation has truth to it. Each hermeneutical approach has its limits. Each interpretation is culturally biased and conditioned. I respectfully submit this series of essays to you in the hope that it would have provided for the readers an exposure to various hermeneutical approaches. Please feel free to comment and give your input.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Word, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
Interpreting the Bible-Step Ten: The Cultural Context
There is a tendency for many, if not most, readers of Scripture to read the Bible without asking questions about or paying attention to the issue of its cultural background. The tendency is to read the Bible superficially, and totally disregard and ignore the issues of the context from which it emerges. Many readers treat the Bible as if it were written in Heaven and thrown down to Earth. They also treat it as if it were written in a cultural vacuum. The attitude tends to be "Since this is the Word of God," we can bypass all this 'razzle dazzle,' and just continue to read. We don't need to know about culture. We just need to know what God said. The Bible says so, end of story." I often time quote the Baptist preacher that I heard on the radio some years ago saying "I believe in the Bible from cover to cover, and I even believe the cover." Really? Hmm! Is this the way we do things relative to Scripture?
I humbly and respectfully submit that this is a careless and irresponsible approach to biblical understanding. Because it is careless and irresponsible, it tends to result in distortions, misapplication, and misunderstanding of all types. I also submit that precisely because the Bible is a witness to the Word, we are called to be careful in the way we read and apply it.
One does not need to be a rocket scientist to acknowledge cultural elements in Scripture. Neither does it take a special type of intellect or scholarship for one to know that the Bible, like any other literary document, emerges from a particular cultural context, and that much of what it "says," reflects that cultural context.
There are many people that do everything in their power to avoid dealing with the cultural context of Scripture. There are at least two reasons for that. The first is that they are allergic to rigorous study of any kind. They simply "don't want to do all that work." The second reason is that they fear that a rigorous contextual study of Scripture will result in their assumptions, beliefs, and presuppositions being exposed for their weaknesses and called into question. They "can't have that." It is much easier for them to hold on to their assumptions, and not to have them challenged or questioned. I remember hearing the story about one dear Christian sister who said "If the Bible tells me that Jonah swallowed the fish, I believe it." Well, bless her heart! That is a perfect example of people who are sincere, but as our evangelical sisters and brothers would say "sincerely wrong." There are many readers of Scripture who are well-intended and well-meaning, but unfortunately, travel down the wrong path.
The bulk of the Bible emerges from an agricultural context. In this context, human relations were not what they are now. For example in that context, the woman was considered the property of the man. In that cultural context, marriages were arranged. Dare we propose that we should retain those cultural paradigms simply because "the Bible says so?"
The challenge for us is to discern and explore how a book that emerges from a particular cultural environment speaks to those of us who are living in a technological society. I am not proposing or even remotely implying that "God changes," or that "the Word of God changes," but rather, that the way Scripture spoke to the people of the time when it was first written, is not necessarily the way it speaks to us today.
I invite you, the reader, to join with us in exploring the relevancy of understanding the Bible in our modern cultural context. Please feel free to comment on these issues.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
I humbly and respectfully submit that this is a careless and irresponsible approach to biblical understanding. Because it is careless and irresponsible, it tends to result in distortions, misapplication, and misunderstanding of all types. I also submit that precisely because the Bible is a witness to the Word, we are called to be careful in the way we read and apply it.
One does not need to be a rocket scientist to acknowledge cultural elements in Scripture. Neither does it take a special type of intellect or scholarship for one to know that the Bible, like any other literary document, emerges from a particular cultural context, and that much of what it "says," reflects that cultural context.
There are many people that do everything in their power to avoid dealing with the cultural context of Scripture. There are at least two reasons for that. The first is that they are allergic to rigorous study of any kind. They simply "don't want to do all that work." The second reason is that they fear that a rigorous contextual study of Scripture will result in their assumptions, beliefs, and presuppositions being exposed for their weaknesses and called into question. They "can't have that." It is much easier for them to hold on to their assumptions, and not to have them challenged or questioned. I remember hearing the story about one dear Christian sister who said "If the Bible tells me that Jonah swallowed the fish, I believe it." Well, bless her heart! That is a perfect example of people who are sincere, but as our evangelical sisters and brothers would say "sincerely wrong." There are many readers of Scripture who are well-intended and well-meaning, but unfortunately, travel down the wrong path.
The bulk of the Bible emerges from an agricultural context. In this context, human relations were not what they are now. For example in that context, the woman was considered the property of the man. In that cultural context, marriages were arranged. Dare we propose that we should retain those cultural paradigms simply because "the Bible says so?"
The challenge for us is to discern and explore how a book that emerges from a particular cultural environment speaks to those of us who are living in a technological society. I am not proposing or even remotely implying that "God changes," or that "the Word of God changes," but rather, that the way Scripture spoke to the people of the time when it was first written, is not necessarily the way it speaks to us today.
I invite you, the reader, to join with us in exploring the relevancy of understanding the Bible in our modern cultural context. Please feel free to comment on these issues.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Monday, September 7, 2015
Biblical Theology: Top Down or Bottom Up?
One of the many issues that I have struggled with since my seminary days, and since I became engaged in ministry on a professional basis, was whether biblical theology should be done from the "bottom up" or from the "top down?" Coming out of a Pentecostal background where little or no formal training was required for ordination to the Gospel ministry, I was surrounded by people who believed that the only thing required for effective ministry was for one to be called by God. As I completed my studies at a Bible institute (the minimum required training for many Pentecostal churches), and then went on to purse college and graduate-level theological education, I would constantly hear that "much study is affliction of the flesh," and that advanced education would erode the spirituality of the candidate for ministry. After having undergone advanced training, I almost got caught up in thinking that only thoroughly trained persons would qualify for ministry and to do biblical theology. However, during my training, I was exposed to Liberation Theology, a way of doing biblical interpretation and theological reflection from the standpoint of oppressed and socially marginalized people. My training led me to be exposed that theology can be done by professionally trained "experts" who possess all types of academic and professional degrees, but that by and large, the majority of them work out their theology independently of suffering people. This type of theology is usually done from the comfort of an office in an academic institution or a library. Liberation Theology, on the other hand, emerges from the struggle of people in the so-called Third World, and of Slavetown, U.S.A. who are making every attempt to "make ends meet," and to survive with dignity.
Having been exposed to theology from both socio-economic standpoints, I continue to struggle with the question of whether is it "top down," or "bottom up?" My training and professional experience in the fields of ministry, higher education, and social work press me to believe that it is "top down." But my work and solidarity with people of limited education, and people who for the most part are engaged in menial type jobs as defined by society, and by people who struggle with limited income and inferior housing conditions, etc. lead me to believe that biblical theology should be "bottom up." While I am truly grateful for the degree of formal education that I have in the fields of religion and theology (by the grace of God), I am also grateful for the opportunity to have worked with people from whom I have learned a lot in terms of humility as well as true spirituality of dependence on God. As I prepare to teach an introductory course in theology at our church this week, I remember having taught theology in certificate-level programs at various seminaries, where the students for the most part, have been either lay folks or ordained ministers whose theological training was very limited. I also remember facilitating programs of theological studies within the prison system with the residents, some of whom have gone on to advanced studies and into the profession of the ministry upon their release.
In closing, I would invite you to accept the challenge of imagining agricultural, industrial, and blue-collar workers doing biblical interpretation and theological reflection from their social location. Then from there, find a way to bring together those who do it from the standpoint of comfort with those whose theological reflections emerge from their existential reality of suffering and struggle.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Having been exposed to theology from both socio-economic standpoints, I continue to struggle with the question of whether is it "top down," or "bottom up?" My training and professional experience in the fields of ministry, higher education, and social work press me to believe that it is "top down." But my work and solidarity with people of limited education, and people who for the most part are engaged in menial type jobs as defined by society, and by people who struggle with limited income and inferior housing conditions, etc. lead me to believe that biblical theology should be "bottom up." While I am truly grateful for the degree of formal education that I have in the fields of religion and theology (by the grace of God), I am also grateful for the opportunity to have worked with people from whom I have learned a lot in terms of humility as well as true spirituality of dependence on God. As I prepare to teach an introductory course in theology at our church this week, I remember having taught theology in certificate-level programs at various seminaries, where the students for the most part, have been either lay folks or ordained ministers whose theological training was very limited. I also remember facilitating programs of theological studies within the prison system with the residents, some of whom have gone on to advanced studies and into the profession of the ministry upon their release.
In closing, I would invite you to accept the challenge of imagining agricultural, industrial, and blue-collar workers doing biblical interpretation and theological reflection from their social location. Then from there, find a way to bring together those who do it from the standpoint of comfort with those whose theological reflections emerge from their existential reality of suffering and struggle.
In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Interpreting the Bible-Step Nine:Eliciting Meanings
This principle entails elements of previous principles, yet retains its own distinctiveness. The principle states that "no meaning should be elicited from Scriptures other than that which a fair and honest interpretation yields (Northeast Bible Institute, p.1)." By this I mean that the reader of Scripture should make use of all the tools which one has available in attempting to determine what the correct interpretation of a passage or particular book of the Bible might be. To elicit an interpretation which is not found even implicitly in Scripture, is to distort the original intentions of the writers of Scripture. If possible, one should make use of the original languages (Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew) in which the Bible was written. In this way, it is possible to come closer to the meaning which the writers sought to give (Carmona, p.35).
This particular principle guards us against "reading into" the Scriptures something which is not there, even by implication. It also prevents us from arriving at conclusions which were never intended by the writers.
The questions for us are:
What tools, in addition to the Bible itself, do we utilize in attempting to draw out the meaning of what we read in Scripture?
How do we reconcile the discrepancies that exists between the different translations of the Bible?
How do we reconcile the differences of interpretation and perspectives that exist between the different biblical commentaries?
In your opinion, is it possible for us to achieve a purely "objective" and "infallible" interpretation of the
biblical text?
Feel free to address any one or all of these questions. Your input is greatly appreciated.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A.Ayala-Carmona
This particular principle guards us against "reading into" the Scriptures something which is not there, even by implication. It also prevents us from arriving at conclusions which were never intended by the writers.
The questions for us are:
What tools, in addition to the Bible itself, do we utilize in attempting to draw out the meaning of what we read in Scripture?
How do we reconcile the discrepancies that exists between the different translations of the Bible?
How do we reconcile the differences of interpretation and perspectives that exist between the different biblical commentaries?
In your opinion, is it possible for us to achieve a purely "objective" and "infallible" interpretation of the
biblical text?
Feel free to address any one or all of these questions. Your input is greatly appreciated.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A.Ayala-Carmona
Sunday, September 6, 2015
Deutero-Isaiah-What do you Think?
In a previous essay, I had spoken about the Documentary Hypothesis, a theory that reflects multiple authorship of the first five books of the Bible (the Pentateuch) In this essay, I would like to speak about the view that the book of the prophet Isaiah was written by more than one person. This alleged second author is also referred to as Isaiah because he allegedly wanted to remain faithful to the theology of the first Isaiah.
This supposed author is referred to as Deutero-Isaiah, or Second Isaiah.
There are three basic reasons why some biblical scholars, theologians, and ministers believe that there was more than one hand involved in the composition of the work which bears Isaiah's name. Those reasons are as follows:
1. Difference of literary style between chapters 1-39 and the rest of the book. The style of writing in the first 39 chapters are of a sad and gloomy nature, reflecting despondency and depression. The writing style of chapters 40 through the rest of the book are more jovial and celebratory. Interestingly enough, some years ago, I was reading the book of Isaiah in the King James Version. I was not paying attention to issues of literary style or any of those things that normally come along with the analysis of literary documents. I was more interested in the theological content of the book. In spite of that, however, the differences in literary style between the first 39 chapters and the rest of the book imposed themselves on me. I found it amazing that a book which was written in the Hebrew language would reflect the same literary differences in the English language.
2. The scenes described from chapter 40 on, are scenes that could only be described by a person living in those times. The 40th and subsequent chapters of Isaiah describe scenes that would have only been familiar to someone living in the time of the Babylonian Exile or afterwards. So those who advocate for the Second Isaiah point of view, tend to believe that First Isaiah lived prior to the Exile and that Second Isaiah lived during or after the Exile.
3. First Isaiah speaks of a tribal, nationalistic, and provincial god, i.e. the God of Israel. Second Isaiah speaks a global and universal god, who is concerned with all the nations of humankind. Second Isaiah's god is more of a cosmic deity, where First Isaiah's god is one who is more restricted to one nation.
Our questions, then, are the following:
1. At the end of the day, does it make any difference whether there is one Isaiah or multiple Isaiahs?
2. Is the number of authors named Isaiah relevant to the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the Bible?
3. Is the issue of how many people named Isaiah relevant to the way we do biblical theology?
4. Does the issue of whether there was one or two people named Isaiah relevant to how we get "the cheese off the truck" (survive) economically and socially?
Tell us what you think relative to any or all of these questions. Your input is valuable and will be appreciated.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
This supposed author is referred to as Deutero-Isaiah, or Second Isaiah.
There are three basic reasons why some biblical scholars, theologians, and ministers believe that there was more than one hand involved in the composition of the work which bears Isaiah's name. Those reasons are as follows:
1. Difference of literary style between chapters 1-39 and the rest of the book. The style of writing in the first 39 chapters are of a sad and gloomy nature, reflecting despondency and depression. The writing style of chapters 40 through the rest of the book are more jovial and celebratory. Interestingly enough, some years ago, I was reading the book of Isaiah in the King James Version. I was not paying attention to issues of literary style or any of those things that normally come along with the analysis of literary documents. I was more interested in the theological content of the book. In spite of that, however, the differences in literary style between the first 39 chapters and the rest of the book imposed themselves on me. I found it amazing that a book which was written in the Hebrew language would reflect the same literary differences in the English language.
2. The scenes described from chapter 40 on, are scenes that could only be described by a person living in those times. The 40th and subsequent chapters of Isaiah describe scenes that would have only been familiar to someone living in the time of the Babylonian Exile or afterwards. So those who advocate for the Second Isaiah point of view, tend to believe that First Isaiah lived prior to the Exile and that Second Isaiah lived during or after the Exile.
3. First Isaiah speaks of a tribal, nationalistic, and provincial god, i.e. the God of Israel. Second Isaiah speaks a global and universal god, who is concerned with all the nations of humankind. Second Isaiah's god is more of a cosmic deity, where First Isaiah's god is one who is more restricted to one nation.
Our questions, then, are the following:
1. At the end of the day, does it make any difference whether there is one Isaiah or multiple Isaiahs?
2. Is the number of authors named Isaiah relevant to the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the Bible?
3. Is the issue of how many people named Isaiah relevant to the way we do biblical theology?
4. Does the issue of whether there was one or two people named Isaiah relevant to how we get "the cheese off the truck" (survive) economically and socially?
Tell us what you think relative to any or all of these questions. Your input is valuable and will be appreciated.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Interpreting the Bible-Step Eight-Contradictions
This particular principle of biblical interpretation challenges us to take a serious look at those parts of Scripture that appear to be in contrast or in contradiction with other parts of the Bible. It is a question of making every attempt to reconcile all those seemingly contradictory passages or statements.
This principle is the following: The Bible cannot contradict itself (Northeast Bible Institute, p.1). Its teaching in one part must agree with its teaching in every part. The contrasts and the variety which one finds in Scripture in no way indicate that there is contradiction in the Bible. Any interpretation which renders the Bible self-contradictory or inconsistent must rest on false premises (Carmona, p. 34)
One example of an apparent contradiction is the first three narratives of the crucifixion. The Gospel accounts of Matthew and Mark record that while Jesus was on the cross, both thieves that were crucified with Him were laughing at and mocking Him. Luke's Gospel account indicates that only one of the thieves was doing this, while the other showed repentance and asked Jesus for mercy. There are at least two possible explanations for these discrepancies. One would be that the first two Gospel writers were recording the events of the crucifixion from a particular angle, while the last Gospel writer was covering those same events from a different angle. This would be similar to the way that different newspapers in our time cover the same events, but yet seem to emphasize things that other newspapers overlook. Another possible explanation would be that initially both thieves were laughing at Him, and that eventually the other one "came to his senses," and repented and asked for mercy.
Have you ever encountered contradictory accounts in the Bible which you believe cannot be reconciled? If so, can you give us examples so that we can dialogue? Your input is important and will definitely be accepted as an important contribution to this conversation.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
This principle is the following: The Bible cannot contradict itself (Northeast Bible Institute, p.1). Its teaching in one part must agree with its teaching in every part. The contrasts and the variety which one finds in Scripture in no way indicate that there is contradiction in the Bible. Any interpretation which renders the Bible self-contradictory or inconsistent must rest on false premises (Carmona, p. 34)
One example of an apparent contradiction is the first three narratives of the crucifixion. The Gospel accounts of Matthew and Mark record that while Jesus was on the cross, both thieves that were crucified with Him were laughing at and mocking Him. Luke's Gospel account indicates that only one of the thieves was doing this, while the other showed repentance and asked Jesus for mercy. There are at least two possible explanations for these discrepancies. One would be that the first two Gospel writers were recording the events of the crucifixion from a particular angle, while the last Gospel writer was covering those same events from a different angle. This would be similar to the way that different newspapers in our time cover the same events, but yet seem to emphasize things that other newspapers overlook. Another possible explanation would be that initially both thieves were laughing at Him, and that eventually the other one "came to his senses," and repented and asked for mercy.
Have you ever encountered contradictory accounts in the Bible which you believe cannot be reconciled? If so, can you give us examples so that we can dialogue? Your input is important and will definitely be accepted as an important contribution to this conversation.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Saturday, September 5, 2015
Revisiting the Documentary Hypothesis
For many centuries, both the Jewish and Christian communities subscribed to the belief that the first five books of the Bible (known to many of us as the Pentateuch), i.e. Genesis, Exodus,Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, were written by Moses, the leader that God raised to take the Hebrew people out of bondage in Egypt, and eventually form the nation of Israel. They were known in both communities as "the five books of Moses," or as "the Law of Moses." This assumption was held for a long time and then came under attack in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. Certain biblical scholars and theologians who took a literary approach to Scripture, i.e. treating the Bible as any other form of literature, discarded that notion and replaced it with a theory that is known as the "Documentary Hypothesis." Of the various people that began to subscribe to the new theory, were two men, Karl Heinrich Graf, and Julius Wellhausen. Eventually, the theory became known as the Graf-Wellhausen theory.
Simply stated, this hypothesis or theory was that the first five books of the Bible were written by at least four different persons over a period of time in Israel's history. The theory also states that there were at least four strands that were eventually weaved into one volume, each strand representing representing a different name for God or reflecting the agenda of certain groups in the Hebrew/Jewish community. These four alleged documents or strands were as follows:
J- This document was allegedly written by someone who preferred the name Yahweh (or Jehovah) for God.
E- This document was allegedly written by someone who preferred the name Elohim for God.
D- This document was supposedly written by someone who wanted to emphasize the second writing of the law, Deuteronomy, supposedly edited and put into final form after the Babylonian Exile.
P- This document was supposedly written by someone who wanted to promote the interests of the priestly class in Israel.
Debates for and against have been held about this hypothesis over the last two centuries. Many of the so-called "liberal" scholars have given it their full-hearted support, while most the "conservative" scholars and believers continue to hold on to the Mosaic authorship of these books.
The questions for us are the following:
1. Does it make any difference, in the long run, whether the Pentateuch was written by Moses or by various authors?
2. Is denying the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch tantamount to denying the divine inspiration of the Bible, especially the Pentateuch?
3. Does our faith depend on who the particular authors of the Pentateuch, and for that matter, other books of the Bible, were?
4. What is the relevance, if any, of this to life in general?
Please tell us what you think.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Simply stated, this hypothesis or theory was that the first five books of the Bible were written by at least four different persons over a period of time in Israel's history. The theory also states that there were at least four strands that were eventually weaved into one volume, each strand representing representing a different name for God or reflecting the agenda of certain groups in the Hebrew/Jewish community. These four alleged documents or strands were as follows:
J- This document was allegedly written by someone who preferred the name Yahweh (or Jehovah) for God.
E- This document was allegedly written by someone who preferred the name Elohim for God.
D- This document was supposedly written by someone who wanted to emphasize the second writing of the law, Deuteronomy, supposedly edited and put into final form after the Babylonian Exile.
P- This document was supposedly written by someone who wanted to promote the interests of the priestly class in Israel.
Debates for and against have been held about this hypothesis over the last two centuries. Many of the so-called "liberal" scholars have given it their full-hearted support, while most the "conservative" scholars and believers continue to hold on to the Mosaic authorship of these books.
The questions for us are the following:
1. Does it make any difference, in the long run, whether the Pentateuch was written by Moses or by various authors?
2. Is denying the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch tantamount to denying the divine inspiration of the Bible, especially the Pentateuch?
3. Does our faith depend on who the particular authors of the Pentateuch, and for that matter, other books of the Bible, were?
4. What is the relevance, if any, of this to life in general?
Please tell us what you think.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Interpreting the Bible-Step Seven: The Unity of Scripture
This next step in biblical interpretation challenges us to see the Bible as a whole, in addition to being familiar with its individual parts. There are certain assumptions that one can question in this principle. However, there are certain things that cannot be denied when one reads the Bible in its entirety.
This principle states that "The Bible comes from God and possesses unity of design and purpose (Northeast Bible Institute, Biblical Hermeneutics. Greenlane, P.A.: n.p., n.d.,p.1) By this affirmation, I am saying that the Bible is not the mere product of the human mind. The interaction of the divine and the human spirits produced the writing of the Scriptures. In spite of the diversity which exists, there is an underlying unity which becomes apparent to the reader of Scripture. Unless one is dismissing the Bible merely as a literary document, one should approach the Scriptures with the assumption that they are inspired by God, and that the writers were expressing the mind of God in their writings. If one can accept this assumption, then there is very little difficulty in accepting the basic unity of this body of writing (Carmona, p. 34).
I invite you, the reader to challenge the assumptions of the inspiration and underlying unity of Scripture. If you can provide reasons for not working with those set of assumptions, then we have grounds for a great dialogue. Please contribute your "two cents."
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
This principle states that "The Bible comes from God and possesses unity of design and purpose (Northeast Bible Institute, Biblical Hermeneutics. Greenlane, P.A.: n.p., n.d.,p.1) By this affirmation, I am saying that the Bible is not the mere product of the human mind. The interaction of the divine and the human spirits produced the writing of the Scriptures. In spite of the diversity which exists, there is an underlying unity which becomes apparent to the reader of Scripture. Unless one is dismissing the Bible merely as a literary document, one should approach the Scriptures with the assumption that they are inspired by God, and that the writers were expressing the mind of God in their writings. If one can accept this assumption, then there is very little difficulty in accepting the basic unity of this body of writing (Carmona, p. 34).
I invite you, the reader to challenge the assumptions of the inspiration and underlying unity of Scripture. If you can provide reasons for not working with those set of assumptions, then we have grounds for a great dialogue. Please contribute your "two cents."
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Friday, September 4, 2015
Interpreting the Bible-Step Six: The Thrust of the Book
This next step in biblical interpretation calls for the reader to become thoroughly acquainted with the particular book being read in order to determine its main thrust. Simply stated, this principle states that "One should attempt to discern the purpose of the book or passage in which words or expressions occur (Lund, p.32). This rule is really an amplification of the previous ones. It is to be applied when the conjunction of the phrase and the context do not provide a clear light on the meaning of the words.
One can best determine the purpose of the writing of the book or passage when they are read in their entirety. One should study the particular book attentively and repeatedly, taking into account the people that the writer was addressing. This rule enables the reader of Scripture to have a better understanding of those passages which appear to be contradictory. It also enables one to attain a broader understanding of passages which in themselves, are clear (Carmona, p.34).
You the reader are invited to share your opinion about this particular approach to interpreting and understanding the Bible. Tell us if you think that this method helps or is detrimental to our attaining a deeper understanding of the Scriptures. Your comments will be appreciated and highly valued.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
One can best determine the purpose of the writing of the book or passage when they are read in their entirety. One should study the particular book attentively and repeatedly, taking into account the people that the writer was addressing. This rule enables the reader of Scripture to have a better understanding of those passages which appear to be contradictory. It also enables one to attain a broader understanding of passages which in themselves, are clear (Carmona, p.34).
You the reader are invited to share your opinion about this particular approach to interpreting and understanding the Bible. Tell us if you think that this method helps or is detrimental to our attaining a deeper understanding of the Scriptures. Your comments will be appreciated and highly valued.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Thursday, September 3, 2015
Interpreting the Bible-Step Five-Internal Context
This next step in biblical interpretation is basic and simple enough, but like the previous ones, calls for the reader to play close attention. The principle, basically stated, is that "words should be understood according to the context (Lund, p. 32). This is made possible when one takes into consideration the verses that precede and follow each text. Many times the conjunction of the phrase does not provide clarity as to the meaning of a particular word. In such instances, one should examine preceding and following verses so that obscure phrases can be properly understood (Carmona, p. 33).
In general, this step entails examining biblical passages in the light of their broader context. The beginning and ending of each passage shed a lot of light on the meaning of the text.
Please comment on you experience or lack thereof with this particular approach to biblical understanding.
Your input will be greatly appreciated.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
In general, this step entails examining biblical passages in the light of their broader context. The beginning and ending of each passage shed a lot of light on the meaning of the text.
Please comment on you experience or lack thereof with this particular approach to biblical understanding.
Your input will be greatly appreciated.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
Interpreting the Bible-Step Four: The Conjunction of the Phrase
We now move on to another simple, but yet challenging principle of biblical interpretation. This principle states that words should be understood according to the conjunction of the phrase (E. Lund, Hermeneutics. Springfield: Gospel Publishing House, n.d. p. 10). The meaning of some words varies according to the phrase, text, or verse.
An example of this would be the use of the word "flesh." In Romans 3:20 it states "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in God's sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin." In this passage the word "flesh" refers to persons.
In Ephesians 2:3 it states "All of us also lived lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of the flesh, and following its desires and thoughts." In this passage, the word "flesh" means sensual desires.
In 1 Timothy 3:16 we are told that "Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, and received up into glory." The word "flesh" is used here to refer to the incarnation of Jesus Christ.
This rule calls for the reader to pay very close attention to the use of certain words in Scripture (Juan A. Carmona, The Liberation of Puerto Rico: A Theological Perspective. Rochester: Colgate Rochester Divinity School, 1982, p. 33). A particular word in a given passage of Scripture may very well take on a different meaning in another passage.
I now invite and challenge you, the reader to share with us your thoughts on this particular principle of biblical interpretation. Is it helpful or more confusing? Your input is appreciated.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
Interpreting the Bible- Step Three: The Usual and Ordinary Sense
The third step in attempting to achieve an accurate interpretation of "what the Bible says" is basic and simple, but at the same time challenging in that it calls for us to pay attention to the intended audience of the writer. This dual element of complexity and simplicity make the quest for biblical understanding an exciting one.
The words of Scripture should be interpreted in their usual and ordinary sense (E. Lund, Hermeneutics. Springfield: Gospel Publishing House, n.d. p.25). What this means is that one should examine and seek to determine how the writers of Scripture made use of familiar words. The writers of Scripture were not addressing a certain caste of privileged people. Therefore, they did not seek to use language or terminology which was far and above the comprehension of ordinary people. They wrote in a way that was very intelligible to their audience. It is for that reason that we find freedom and variety in the writings of the Bible (Juan A. Carmona, The Liberation of Puerto Rico: A Theological Perspective, Rochester, New York. Colgate Rochester Divinity School, 1982. p. 33).
Please share with us your opinion as to the need to identify the intended audience and recipients of the biblical message. Does it make any difference as to whom the writings are for and being directed to?
Will or will not identifying the audience affect the way we understand the biblical message? Your input is very important in this discussion.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
The words of Scripture should be interpreted in their usual and ordinary sense (E. Lund, Hermeneutics. Springfield: Gospel Publishing House, n.d. p.25). What this means is that one should examine and seek to determine how the writers of Scripture made use of familiar words. The writers of Scripture were not addressing a certain caste of privileged people. Therefore, they did not seek to use language or terminology which was far and above the comprehension of ordinary people. They wrote in a way that was very intelligible to their audience. It is for that reason that we find freedom and variety in the writings of the Bible (Juan A. Carmona, The Liberation of Puerto Rico: A Theological Perspective, Rochester, New York. Colgate Rochester Divinity School, 1982. p. 33).
Please share with us your opinion as to the need to identify the intended audience and recipients of the biblical message. Does it make any difference as to whom the writings are for and being directed to?
Will or will not identifying the audience affect the way we understand the biblical message? Your input is very important in this discussion.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)