Talking Context in Theological Interpretation (1)
A Conversation about Bo Lim's New Book
Bo H. Lim, Contextual Theological Interpretation: An Integrated Model for Reading the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2025). ISBN 9781540968890. 168 pp.
[Background: I’ve been hosting a fortnightly Theological Interpretation Reading Group, first in our living room, now on Zoom, since 2008. Our focus in January–February 2026 is Bo Lim’s book, Contextual Theological Hermeneutics. I am posting notes from our discussions.]
What is theological interpretation of Scripture? Start here. For contextual matters in theological interpretation of Scripture (including recommended reading), see also here and here.
13 January 2026 (pp. 1–43).
1. The Strange Silence of the Bible in the Church
Thesis: The contemporary crisis in biblical interpretation requires biblical scholars to move beyond their disciplinary fixation on historical issues to address the ethical and ideological challenges that threaten to render Scripture silent.
Three Questions:
Lim observes, “Christian discipleship today requires Christ’s followers to read the Bible critically and as a sacred text” (4). Is it possible to maintain both a hermeneutics of trust (reading Scripture as a sacred, authoritative text) and a hermeneutics of suspicion (critically examining its complicity in oppression)? What theological and methodological frameworks might enable this dual posture?
Lim refuses the binary between serving the church and serving the academy, arguing instead for a missional ecclesiology where reading Scripture serves “humankind as a whole” (7). How might this challenge both attempts to insulate biblical interpretation from critical engagement and attempts to treat Scripture primarily as a cultural artifact? How can biblical scholarship serve both ecclesial formation and public discourse?
In her 2024 Society of Biblical Literature Presidential Address, Tamara Cohn Eskenazi insists that forming a society aimed at goodness and justice requires renewed attention to the Bible’s socio-historical settings (“The Bible in Politics and Politics in the Bible,” Journal of Biblical Literature 144, no. 1 [2025]: 6–19). How might Lim respond?
AI-Generated (but Edited) Summary of the Group’s Reflections on the Question:
What was the group’s assessment of the various binaries Lim introduced in this chapter?
The group discussed Lim’s introduction of various binaries—such as church vs. academy, historical vs. moral/ethical concerns, and “us” (Western scholars) vs. global contexts—and offered a nuanced assessment. Some expressed hesitation about fully accepting Lim’s dichotomies. While Lim proposes certain contrasts (like church vs. academy, or the focus on historical questions vs. moral/ethical issues), they questioned whether these divisions accurately reflect student concerns or the quotidian realities of theological education. For example, they wondered if historical skepticism (“What really happened?”) had really been the major question for introductory students, as Lim suggests, or if this was an overstatement (or if, in fact, students were taught to question the history behind the text in their introductory coursework!). Others echoed this uncertainty, suggesting that, although binaries are useful for framing theoretical discussion, they may oversimplify the complexity found in actual educational and interpretive settings.
The group also recognized that diversity is here to stay, and emphasized the need for approaches that embrace the multiplicity of contemporary perspectives and contexts.
AI-Generated (but Edited) Summary of the Group’s Reflections on the Question: In her 2024 Society of Biblical Literature Presidential Address, Tamara Cohn Eskenazi insists that forming a society aimed at goodness and justice requires renewed attention to the Bible’s socio-historical settings (“The Bible in Politics and Politics in the Bible,” Journal of Biblical Literature 144, no. 1 [2025]: 6–19). How might Lim respond?
Drawing on Tamara Cohn Escanazi’s proposal—that deeper socio-historical understanding can be a tool for ethical insight—some participants puzzled over whether Lim was working with a false either-or: either attend to moral and ethical concerns or attend to historical concerns. This could be a consequence of his too-narrow definition of historical criticisms (i.e., the question of “what actually happened” versus, say, exploration of socio-historical contexts). Some wondered whether he might reply that the call for enhanced attention to socio-historical understanding is itself implicated in a Euro-American hermeneutic.
“I write so that readers might understand the current landscape of biblical interpretation, assess what opportunities and challenges they face, and effectively read the Bible for multicultural ecclesial contexts.” (Bo Lim, Contextual Theological Interpretation, p. 12)
2. The Context of Biblical Studies as a Discipline
Thesis: Biblical studies has undergone a transformation that has fragmented the discipline to the point where “who reads the Bible” has become more determinative than “what is the Bible” or “how does one read it,” leaving biblical studies struggling to define its coherence amid competing religious, academic, and political interests.
Three Questions:
Is disciplinary fragmentation an inevitable, perhaps even desirable, outcome of taking diversity seriously? Does it threaten the viability of biblical studies as a coherent academic discipline? What, if anything, should unite biblical scholarship beyond a common text?
Given Lim’s observation that contextual interpretation emerged largely outside traditional biblical studies, how should we evaluate the status (e.g., the authenticity and authority) of academic contextual scholarship versus community-based readings?
For Lim, readers’ “motivations for seeking diversity in biblical interpretation may vary” (27)—some theological, some political, some academic. How does this ambiguity complicate (or enrich) the task of theological education? Should seminaries prioritize one function over others? Must Christian leaders be trained to navigate all these registers? What happens when these purposes conflict?
AI-Generated (but Edited) Summary of the Group’s Reflections on the Question: What challenges and/or opportunities in theological education come with diversity?
Participants agreed that increasing diversity leads to fragmentation in biblical studies, with a wide range of topics and methodologies making it difficult to find a unifying approach. They highlighted the complexity educators face in addressing the wide array of student backgrounds, expectations, and approaches to biblical texts, and the tension between diverse perspectives and the need for a common interpretive focus. They raised concerns about potential conflicting expectations; while the field encourages diverse readings of the Bible, this can also complicate teaching and consensus-building in the classroom, particularly when students are keen to know what “the right reading” is. Potential outcomes:
Student confusion: Introducing diverse interpretations can lead to student confusion and questions of relativism.
Hospitality as a practice: Teaching diverse readings can be a practice of hospitality, especially in homogenous classrooms, and of helping students recognize their own reading positions.
Cultural complexity: A student from East Asia challenged a critique of Western hermeneutics in a US classroom, asking, “Why is the hegemony of Western hermeneutics a bad thing?” This highlights that cultural identity and methodological preference do not always correlate.
Diversity was recognized as offering the potential to enrich theological discussions and interpretations by incorporating multiple social, cultural, and contextual readings of biblical texts. The group shared anecdotes illustrating how diverse student backgrounds and perspectives can challenge traditional, Western-centric hermeneutics, ultimately broadening the scope of learning and critical engagement. They noted that this was true even in the case of a lack of diversity among class participants, a situation in which introducing a diversity of perspectives can lead to heightened hospitality to the other, and to students recognizing that their own readings are perspectival (theological, social, etc.). Participants emphasized the value of introducing various contextual readings to empower voices like Harriet Tubman’s and others historically marginalized or silenced.
The group struggled with the character of Lim’s rhetoric on this matter. His focus on academic fragmentation may at times correlate with the diversity of global readers, but it isn’t clear how one causes the other.
Overall, the conversation acknowledged that while diversity introduces complexity and potential conflict in theological education, it also opens the door for richer, more relevant discussions and prepares leaders for broader engagement with global and local contexts.
AI-Generated (but Edited) Summary of the Group’s Reflections on the Question: Is fragmentation in the discipline of biblical studies a bad thing?
The group was not of one mind on whether fragmentation in biblical studies is a bad thing. Some explicitly questioned whether fragmentation, resulting from increasing diversity in readers and methods, should be viewed negatively or if it simply reflects a healthy engagement with diversity. They observed that the real challenge is finding ways to translate this diversity into present-day interpretive practices and productive dialogue. Some spoke of what they took to be an apparent tension in Lim’s presentation: At times, he framed diversity as problematic, and at others, as something desirable.
The overall tone of the discussion around fragmentation was neither alarmist nor celebratory. Participants saw fragmentation as an inevitable outcome of increasing diversity—one that presents both obstacles and opportunities. Diversity, while complicating consensus and unity, enriches interpretation and ensures biblical studies are grounded in varied global and local contexts.
AI-Generated (but Edited) Summary of the Group’s Reflections on the Question: Given Lim’s observation that contextual interpretation emerged largely outside traditional biblical studies, how should we evaluate the status (e.g., the authenticity and authority) of academic contextual scholarship versus community-based readings?
The group was unwilling to grant Lim’s initial observation, noting instead that the examples he provided were not community-based or “popular,” everyday cases. Although impetus for contextual interpretation may have arisen from outside “traditional biblical studies,” the group noted that a certain critical awareness of cultural differences and perspectives is requisite to recognize and embrace the need for contextual approaches. For example, Justo González (one of Lim’s examples) may not be a traditional biblical scholar, but his is a wide-ranging academic mind; moreover, his book, Santa Biblia, is actually the product of a meeting among scholars, including biblical scholars, who gathered to discuss biblical interpretation in Hispanic communities.
3. The Need for Theological Contextual Interpretation
Thesis: The liberative message of Scripture comprises an “insufficient reason to read the Bible” since the Bible “often problematizes liberation rather than contributes to it” (42), thus necessitating a theological hermeneutic that reads Scripture as sacred text for the global church’s communion with God rather than primarily as a tool for social transformation.
Three Questions:
How can academic contextual interpreters represent communities without either romanticizing “ordinary readers” or imposing elite theoretical frameworks? Is the problem the scholars themselves, or is it the inherent tension between academic and popular discourse?
If postcolonial interpretation only deconstructs without reconstructing, can it serve the church’s need for formation and proclamation? Or does Lim’s experience with his students—for whom progressive causes bypass the Bible since it is “more expedient to reject it altogether” (42)—demonstrate that this sort of deconstruction ultimately voids Scripture of ecclesial usefulness?
What is the goal of biblical studies? Lim writes, “I believe the Bible is to be interpreted as a sacred text for the global church to commune with God and live out its redemptive witness in the world” (43). How does theological interpretation differ from or supplement liberationist goals? Must we choose between liberation and theology?
Bonus Question: How successful is this chapter in arguing for a theological contextual interpretation?
AI-Generated (but Edited) Summary of the Group’s Reflections on the Question: What was this chapter “about”?
From the chapter title, participants anticipated an argument favoring a theological approach to biblical interpretation. They wondered whether the chapter’s earlier life as a standalone essay contributed to a mismatch—a chapter that was to argue for a theological and contextual interpretation but failed to undergird a clear, positive definition and proposal, instead focusing on what theological-contextual interpretation isn’t. They worried that Lim seemed to draw on some of the more extreme examples of other schools of thought (post-colonialism in particular) to clear the field for his own view.
Lim defines “theological” late in the chapter as interpreting the Bible “as a sacred text for the global church to commune with God and live out its redemptive witness in the world” (43). The group noted that this definition does not arise from or summarize the chapter’s argument and seems disconnected from the preceding critique of other approaches. Moreover, the group expressed concern that this understanding of “theological” seems to be set against biblical interpretation’s potential liberative outcomes. (This again raised the question of whether Lim’s binaries were too sharply drawn.)