Virtually every book of the New Testament was written for a particular audience. This is most obvious in the this of Paul’s letters to various churches around the Roman world, but it is equally true of the other letters, the Gospels, and even Revelation. The people who received these written documents probably had little trouble understanding what the writer was saying. To start with, they understood the language, which was most often Greek—the universal language of the first century. In addition, because they were part of the group that was being addressed, they were familiar with the cultural realities of that group.

But even then, not everyone understood everything. Peter admits that some things Paul wrote were hard to understand (2 Peter 3:15-16). There were numerous examples of individuals and groups in the late first century and the second century who distorted the Word of God, some to suit their own purposes, but others because they simply did not apply sufficient study to the message.

In the first century of the church, the Roman Empire neared the peak of its power and the spread of its borders, but there were still significant cultural differences in the various districts. It would certainly be extraordinarily difficult for a Roman citizen who had grown up in Rome itself to understand the culture of the Jews in Judea. The Roman citizen would find references to the Law and the Prophets completely incomprehensible.

Paul certainly understood that he had to tailor his message to fit the cultural understanding of his audience. The best example of this is found in Acts 17, when Paul brought the gospel to Athens. Because he knew a Greek audience would be unable to identify with the prophesies of Isaiah or Zechariah, he couched his speech to a meeting of the Areopagus (the chief magistrates) in terms of Greek culture, even quoting one of their own poets (17:28).

Likewise, in addressing local churches, Paul had to tackle issues that were sometimes specific to that culture. Here’s one example:
Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ. (Ephesians 6:5)
Does this mean Paul approved of slavery, as some critics of Christianity have suggested? Absolutely not! There is plenty of evidence that Paul abhorred slavery, but at the same time, he recognized it as an essential institution in Roman society of the day. To publicly rally for the abolishment of slavery would have rendered his preaching unacceptable to citizens. He was responding to the culture in order that the greater goal—the salvation of as many as possible—would be advanced.

20To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; 21to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. 22To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. (1 Corinthians 9:20-22)

Today, there are two sides dangers related to cultural influence: (1) some Christian groups promote change in response to culture and (2) some Christian groups refuse to change to be effective in the culture.

One good example of the way some Christian groups have caved in to cultural pressure is in the area of divorce. God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16), yet there is at least one Christian denomination performing divorce ceremonies. While the church can certainly offer comfort and guidance to those who have experienced divorce, an official church sanction of unbiblical divorce must be abhorrent to God. Since one function of the church is to promote God’s principles, groups that perform divorce ceremonies are no longer the part of the ekklesia. And since sorcery and witchcraft are similarly condemned by God, divorce ceremonies are no different than performing wicken rites within the church.

On the other hand, churches that refuse to change with the times short-change the Word of God. “The Word of God is living and active” (Hebrews 4:12), able to adapt and change with the culture. If it were not, those who claim the Bible is an irrelevant relic of a primitive past would be right! The words don’t change, the meanings don’t change, but the applications and our understandings of the relevance do.
In the Old Testament, many Israelites came to regard the Ark of the Covenant as almost God Himself—they had put their God in a box. We don’t know what happened to the Ark, but those around at the time must have been dismayed when their “God” disappeared. Today, those who insist on a literal seven-day creation and a 6,000-year old earth despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, have figuratively put their God in a box of human dimensions and are at least partially responsible for the perception among many that God has disappeared. God created science and the phenomenon it seeks to describe—to fail to incorporate new scientific understanding in our understanding of God makes Him seem irrelevant in the modern world.

Ours is a scientific, post-modern culture (at least in the West). The ekklesia must help the world to understand God in this context, not try to box Him up as a first century relic.

In the next couple of installments of ET&N, I’d like to explore a few biblical issues that are related to cultural change.

Several subscribers wrote about “contemporary” worship services at their churches, which usually focus on more contemporary music and a more relaxed atmosphere. Certainly, efforts to help unchurched people feel more comfortable in a worship service are worthy of exploration. This is an area I would like to explore in a future issue of ET&N.

NEXT ISSUE: THE HOLY KISS

© Richard M. Soule, 2003 Unlimited copy and distribution permission is hereby granted under the condition that this copyright notice is included.