We can affirm the objectivity of biblical truth AND acknowledge we are finite interpreters shaped by our time and place in history.
We can acknowledge the author-given meaning of biblical texts AND apply the text in different ways in different cultural settings.
We can acknowledge the author-given meaning of biblical texts AND apply the text in different ways in different cultural settings.
The hard work of hermeneutics helps us alleviate misunderstandings of Scripture, but it doesn’t guarantee infallible interpretations of Scripture.
For example, Western interpreters struggle to make sense of 1 Cor. 8:1-13 because (1) we are chronologically far removed from the cultural practice of meat offered to idols ane (2) we are culturally far removed from this practice as well.
Contemporary Christian interpreters know little of the struggle first-century Jews would have had with this practice, or the tension/conflict this would have brought in the church.
We can better understand this practice and its offense by historical and cultural investigation into the world of the Bible, but even this is an imprecise art, not an exact science.
Presuming we have a correct understanding of Paul’s intentions of the text, how then do we apply it in a culture without literal idol statues to which food is offered?
The discussion of wounding weaker consciences has been applied (and misapplied) to numerous social disagreements / matters of conscience in our culture today.
The very fact that we disagree about how best to apply this passage is evidence that our time and place in history can shape the way we seek to apply the objective truth of Scripture (and that our subjective applications are open to scrutiny and criticism).
