Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes:

Removing Cultural Blinders To Better Understand The Bible

Richards, E. Randolph, and Brandon J. O’Brien. Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible. Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2012. 217 pp. $17.00

Brandon O’Brien and Randolph Richard’s book, Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible, addresses the important issues of historical and cultural context. The purpose of the authors is to focus on the basic hermeneutical principle that meaning resides within the historical and cultural context of the original writers and readers. However, the challenge is that modern readers live outside the culture of biblical times so “there is no purely objective biblical interpretation,” because “there’s no way around the fact that our cultural and historical contexts supply us with habits of mind that lead us to read the Bible differently than Christians in other cultural and historical contexts” (12). Accordingly, the authors provide a number of goals to accomplish their purpose, which include helping readers become aware of their cultural differences with the original biblical participants, assisting readers in recognizing that these differences, and their corresponding presuppositions, may cause interpreters to miss the intended meaning of the biblical text, and most importantly, to “help us learn to read ourselves” (12-16). Ultimately, the importance of the topic cannot be overestimated as proper biblical interpretation depends on understanding the historical and cultural context of Scripture.

Summary

The authors use two devices to help accomplish their goals. First, they compare and contrast Western versus non-Western cultures to highlight that not all cultures hold the same beliefs and that just because a culture is different does not necessarily make it incorrect. Second, the authors use the metaphor of an iceberg to provide a three-part structure for the book. The iceberg assists the authors in explaining that the interpreter’s worldview, which empowers his or her presuppositions, resides above, below, and deep below the surface. Each of the three parts is then divided into three sub-topics that dive into an exploration of a specific cultural difference.

First, with regard to cultural differences that reside above the surface, the authors address the topics of mores, ethnicity, and language. Mores are beliefs supported by a specific culture that go without saying and often go without even being questioned. For example, the authors suggest Western mores may include the idea that playing cards is a sin, marriage is better than singleness, and poverty is immoral, even though these views do not necessarily align with Scripture. Regarding ethnicity, the authors suggest Westerners are colorblind, which is “the belief that ethnic differences don’t matter,” thus “everyone should be treated as if they were the same” (55). Unfortunately, “same” is often not about being treated equally, but about treating everyone as if they were the majority. However, in reality, ethnic differences do matter in the way people are treated and in the way we read Scripture. Finally, language may be the most important and obvious cultural difference above the surface. In particular, the authors address sufficiency, the issue that English does not have a word for every word in ancient languages; equivalency, the issue that an English word translation is not necessarily equivalent to an original Greek or Hebrew word; and clarity, the issue that biblical writers used colorful figures of speech that do not easily translate into English.

Second, with regard to cultural differences that reside below the surface, the authors address the topics of individualism, honor, and time. First, Westerners view life through the perspective of the individual, whereas other cultures, including certain cultures during biblical times, hold the importance of community higher than self. Similarly, a Western worldview perceives sin from an individualistic perspective, which highlights the importance of guilt. However, in a collectivistic society, the honor of the community is held supreme and, if ignored, results in shame. The culture of antiquity often exemplified honor and shame where the lens of society determined morality, which is an important observation for biblical interpreters. Third, Westerners focus on time in a general sense and then drills down to specific times for meetings and appointments. Alternatively, Greek utilizes two words for time – chronos and kairos. The former provides a perspective of time that has a quantitative or sequential meaning, while the latter is qualitative. Qualitative time often evades Western thinking and could cause misinterpretation if not considered.

Finally, with regard to cultural differences that reside deep below the surface, the authors address the topics of rules and relationships, virtues and vices, and self as the center of the universe. Western eyes often view rules with an “all or nothing” perspective where they trump relationships. Alternatively, relationships often triumph over rules within a biblical culture, which create valid cases for exceptions to rules. Next, all cultures, including the West, often determine which behaviors are virtuous, which are vices, and then rank them based on cultural influences. For example, Westerners often view self-sufficiency, freedom through force, and tolerance as virtues, even though biblical evidence exists to the contrary. Finally, Western eyes often read Scripture through the lens of self against the biblical evidence. In other words, when the interpreter is preoccupied with how each individual passages pertains to self, the original meaning could be entirely missed in light of the original context. In sum, each of these observations highlight how the influence of modern cultures can cause an interpreter to completely fail to understand God’s Word.

The authors conclude their work by avoiding the risks associated with a simple step-by-step formulaic approach to addressing cultural differences and context. Instead, they astutely suggest six general tenets of interpretation: embrace complexity, avoid overcorrection, be teachable, face mistakes, and read together. Each one of these general tenets for removing cultural blinders assist the reader in properly interpreting Scripture.

Critical Evaluation

The following critical analysis of the book includes an evaluation of the authors perspectives and their supporting evidence, as well as an analysis of the strengths of their arguments alongside a presentation of weaknesses. The point of view of the book is primarily in the first person plural as the authors place themselves as part of the recipients of the message. The authors explicitly state their perspective as evangelical “white, Western males” (20). The authors provide two primary types of evidence to highlight the importance of historical and cultural context when interpreting Scripture and the goal of helping readers understand cultural differences that can interfere with biblical interpretation. First, the authors provide anecdotal evidence from Richards’s missionary experiences to highlight cultural differences. The stories support the concept of cultural differences and help the reader recognize that differences do exist between cultures, which are not necessarily an issue of morality. However, beyond these distinctions, the anecdotal evidence from modern non-Western cultures provides limited value in correctly interpreting the Bible unless they align more closely with the Bible than the West, which, at times, they can. Nevertheless, the authors admit to the risks associated with anecdotal evidence acknowledge that interpreting Scripture through Eastern eyes could be just as problematic as interpreting Scripture through Western eyes (22). The second type of evidence used by the authors is biblical evidence. As will be addressed below, the authors often used biblical evidence to effectively support their viewpoint. However, weaknesses in their arguments and logic also exist. The following analysis first analyzes the strengths of the authors’ arguments and then addresses the weaknesses.

Without question, the strengths of Richards and O’Brien’s work are numerous. Two specific strengths include highlighting the risks of cross-cultural ignorance and the danger of an obsession with self, which both can skew proper biblical interpretation. First, regarding the risks of cross-cultural ignorance, the authors use non-Western stories to increase awareness of cultural differences. For example, the authors challenge Western cultural assumptions with stories from missionary experiences in Indonesia regarding exams, privacy, and time. Westerners would likely be surprised by Indonesian students who felt that guessing at multiple choice questions was a form of cheating, be violated by neighbors entering a house thought to be shared, and be offended by individuals showing up late to a church service. However, the irony set against a Westerners mind when focusing on higher forms of honesty, sharing one’s house, and waiting patiently for guests is an effective device used by the authors to jolt Westerners into cross-cultural awareness and appreciation. However, it is important not to miss the point of the exercise. The ultimate point is not to stage East against West, but to assist Western readers in recognizing that the culture of antiquity is significantly different than modernity, and in order for proper biblical interpretation to occur, the interpreter must identify and appreciate these cultural differences.

A second strength of the book is highlighting the dangers of the West’s obsession with self when interpreting Scripture. For example, the authors suggest that the Western self-focused lens has caused misinterpretations of 1 Cor. 6:19 and Jer. 29:11. In 1 Cor. 6:19, Paul states, “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own” (NASB). The authors note that many English interpreters suggest that the body is meant to apply to a single individual. However, they explain that “in the original Greek, the you is plural and the temple is singular. Paul is saying, ‘All of you together are a singular temple for the Holy Spirit'” (108). Additionally, Jeremiah 29:11 states, “‘For I know the plans that I have for you,’ declares the Lord, ‘plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope.'” Western readers often attempt to apply the verse to self and, more specifically, to the success of an individual. However, the authors point out that the context of the passage and second person plural pronouns in the original Hebrew suggest the verse pertains to the future welfare of a collective group of exiles in Babylon. Once again, a self-focused Western perspective can cause readers to misinterpret the verse. Along with the two specific strengths, a number of weaknesses also exist.

A number of weaknesses are explicitly identified by the authors themselves, which include generalized statements, anecdotal evidence, the limited cultural perspectives that necessarily exist as white Western males, and an oversimplification of the material. Since these weaknesses are already assumed and evident, the following weaknesses will address specific questionable biblical assumptions and a lack of clear definitions, which may cause confusion. First, the authors, at times, state that certain biblical assumptions are correct, without acknowledging valid alternative views. For example, the authors suggest that Paul is using an ethnic slur when stating, “You foolish Galatians!” (Gal. 3:1, [NASB]). The authors assume that Paul is talking to the “uneducated barbarians in the north” (58). However, F. F. Bruce states that the “weight of the evidence…favours the South Galatian view.”[1] In other words, it is possible Paul was using an ethnic slur, but it is just as likely he was not, which would undermine the authors’ argument. Since the book appears to be written for the layperson who may not know the valid academic alternatives, the necessity of these caveats may be particularly important. Another example occurs when the authors partially blame Bathsheba for David’s sin by stating that the story implied “she intended to be seen by the king,” and “probably got what she wanted” (122-125). The assumption is certainly not conclusive.[2]

Second, the authors create ambiguity by not explicitly defining terms. Admittedly, the authors attempt to define innocence and guilt, and then juxtapose them with honor and shame. However, when using illustrations, the definitions between types of shame become muddled and cause confusion. For example, the authors state, “shame is not negative in honor/shame cultures; shaming is” (119). Furthermore, the authors also state that in Gal. 2 “Paul’s goal was to shame Peter into appropriate behavior” (136). The reader is left wondering if Paul was right or wrong in his approach, which may cause a reader to miss the essential point of cultural distinctions, and simultaneously, risk a misapplication of religious power. A similar concern arises when attempting to address the issue of the church. For example, the authors state, “as long as church provides the services I want, I’ll stick around,” and then explain that this is not biblical because when we become Christians, “we become – permanently and spiritually – a part of the church” (107). Unfortunately, the former specifically pertains to institutional events and the latter pertains to a body of believers in Christ. No definitional distinctions are made between the two and they are even used interchangeably within a given sentence. The pattern continues throughout the chapter, and again, confusion can ensue within the mind of the reader when addressing the important topic of individualism versus collectivism.

Conclusion

Certainly, Richards and O’Brien’s book provides a highly accessible and essential contribution to biblical interpretation. Although certain weaknesses do detract, the strengths outweigh the weaknesses. It appears the authors successfully accomplished the goals set forth in the introduction. Specifically, the authors successfully highlighted the importance of reading Scripture within its historical and cultural context. It also insightfully prompts readers to internally reflect on their own presuppositions and worldview that may undermine correct biblical interpretation. Due to its accessibility and importance in properly interpreting Scripture, the relevant audience is broad in scope and would include laypeople, students, pastors and scholars. Furthermore, it would be an appropriate study for Bible study groups, small group curriculum, as well as academic coursework. Finally, the practical application primarily involves using the insights provided within the book to spur further exploration of the history and culture of the Ancient Near East and Second Temple Judaism in order to do understand the Bible within its historical and cultural context.

Bibliography

Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Galatians. Edited by I. Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1982.

Davidson, Richard M. “Did King David Rape Bathsheba? A Case Study in Narrative Theology.” Journal of Adventist Theological Society 17, no. 2 (Autumn 2006): 81–95.

[1] F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, ed. I. Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1982), 18.

[2] See Richard M. Davidson, “Did King David Rape Bathsheba? A Case Study in Narrative Theology,” Journal of Adventist Theological Society 17, no. 2 (Autumn 2006).