Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Sources and Repetition (Genesis 17/Lent2B)

    In dealing with source criticism there are two broad questions for the Biblical exegete, as opposed to the actual source critic.  The first is whether there are identifiable sources at all, or at least in any substantial sense, and the second is how important these sources are for exegesis.  Though I’m not going to go into detail here, for me it is very clear that there are, in fact, extended sources in the Pentateuch, and I’ll go along with the identification of the Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly, and Deteronomist sources.  I’m a little more hesitant on identifying a Holiness source in what used to be regarded as Priestly material, but there is some pretty good evidence for it.

    One of the places we identify such sources is in stories that repeat.  For example, why do we have Abraham’s call in Genesis 12, a presentation of the covenant in Genesis 15, and another covenant story in Genesis 17.  Much of the data in the latter two especially overlap.  Without sources, we may look either to advancing revelation of the covenant, or to repetition for purposes of teaching.  The covenant might indeed be forgotten.  Such explanations are quite workable for much material, and if the repetition of the covenant was the only source of evidence, it would not be adequate to present sources.

    But in fact we do have some differences in these stories.  I’m indebted to Gerhard von Rad in his Genesis commentary, pages 197-203 for much of the following.  The major difference is the focus of the Priestly source on theology.  The Yahwist tends to focus on Abraham’s human situation.  For the priests the major concern was God, what he was going to do for Abraham and what his ultimate purpose was.  Note that in Genesis 15 we have several verses of Abraham talking.  He enters into conversation with God, and part of God’s assurance of the covenant results from Abraham’s fear.  In Genesis 17, God speaks, Abraham falls on his face (v.3), and God continues speaking and pretty much takes up the rest of the chapter.  Abraham finally gets involved again when he pleads for Ishmael in verse 18.

    I think there is a good likelihood that we have two sources relating essentially the same experience.  You may differ–demonstrating my conclusion would go well beyond the space I intend to use here.  But the second question is just how much does knowing about the sources, if you accept them, help you in understanding the passage?

    I find a little bit of help in knowing who’s telling the story each time.  The Yahwist is a great teller of folk tales, and he and his sort likely entertained people around the campfires of early Israel.  They are telling a human story, and it is more story than history.  They ignore chronology and deep theological questions for the most part.  The priests like to keep things straight.  They’re more interested in God than in people, and they’re more interested in historical details, such as chronology.

    But in the end, while it’s important to realize that there are two stories, and that their perspective is different, you can get the same emphasis whether you see them as two incidents reported by the same narrator or as the result of different sources.  We can tell the story of God’s interaction with us and with our community from the perspective of people, or from our best try for a divine perspective, yet it still is the story of God with us.  We may have one incident told twice, giving us a more complete picture, or we may have two incidents in which God gave Abraham a bigger picture.

    The result is similar, and its available to the student who takes the time to look back and forth, to gather in all the elements of the context, and ask just why such a thing may be there.

     

  • The Confession and other Gospels (Mark 8:31-38/Lent 2B)

    Some of my readers who know that I employ historical-critical methodologies in my Bible study may be surprised to know that one of my most useful books on the gospels is Darrel Bock’s Jesus according to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels.

    There is a simple reason for this.  I believe that before you can properly understand a critical view of a passage, you have to understand the passage in relation to others, and know how it has been interpreted in the past.  Many people reject views of scripture without understanding them.  They reject chronologies based on the early geneaologies of Genesis 5 & 11, but have often never read them.  On the other hand, people reject source theories of the Pentateuch without actually being able to state the theories themselves.  In the gospels, many reject a reconciling approach to the various synoptic passages without every trying to do it.

    Now in the end, I think the reconciliation of these passages tends to fail.  There’s no complete reconstruction that is actually historically probable, even if one allows miracles.  At the same time there are two benefits at least to checking out how passages are reconciled.  First, the church has used this approach for centuries, and it’s worthwhile understanding how it was done.  Second, attempting reconciliation helps fill out the complete picture of how a set of passages can relate.  Before you have done that, you are on questionable ground if you choose a particular understanding of the history of the passage in question.

    So having spent that much time on why I want to do this occasionally, what does Bock have to say about this passage?

    There are two elements that I’d like to mention. To get all the details you’ll need the book as he outlines the items where Matthew, Mark, and Luke differ on this passage. These differences are not that great.

    The first issue is the authenticity of the story. For many historical Jesus scholars, it is a basic criterion of authenticity that Jesus never claims to be the Messiah during his lifetime. I think this is not so much a criterion as a conclusion, and it is a conclusion that is questionable at best. So I wouldn’t reject the authenticity of this saying on that basis. It clearly comes from a single source, i.e. all three gospels are working from the same material.

    Bock notes three reasons to regard this as authentic (p. 232):

    1. There is already a pattern of response that shows opposition. I would note that this indicates that Jesus was something more than an innocuous teacher; he roused opposition.
    2. There is the precendent of John the Baptist. In other words, it is not unreasonable for Jesus to expect that such a fate might await him if he continued his activity.
    3. The prediction itself presents an ambiguity. If you were creating a prediction after the fact, would you not make it a bit more ironclad?

    While none of Bock’s reasons for regarding this as authentic are absolutely conclusive, they are suggestive, and again tend to make me question the certainty with which some scholars maintain that Jesus never made such a claim but that it was made for him after the fact.

    The second area of interest is in the prediction that some there would not taste death. Bock points out the differences in the predictions. Mark says “the kingdom of God has come with power.” Luke simply says “the kingdom,” while Matthew says “Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” There is ambiguity here as well, though I think most hearers would interpret this as saying that there might be suffering now, but eventually the son of man would come in his kingdom. The disciples would have heard it as an early inkling that there would be a second appearing. There must be some other way to handle the meaning of the passage, such as the conditional nature of prophecy (Jonah, Jeremiah 18).

  • Leviticus 5:14-6:7

    I’m still following the division of David W. Baker’s commentary on Leviticus in the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary on Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.  Today’s passage equates to Leviticus 5:14-26 in the Hebrew text, and the Hebrew text is indeed better divided than the English or the LXX.

    While the section is indeed properly grouped together, the priests have snuck in a pretty major doctrine into the passage.  The first part deals with violation of holy things (through 5:19), along with the possibility that one has done so but doesn’t know.  I think there’s good reason to believe, with Milgrom and others, that this also involves that horrible sense of guilt that has no known source; one feels that one has done something very wrong, but can’t be sure.  The early part of this passage provides an opportunity to deal with that guilt.  One can pity the bank account of someone who had a guilt complex, however!

    Some call this a guilt offering.  I prefer “reparation” offering, again following a number of commentators.  The offering accompanies a reparation.  It is this reparation portion that presumably connects the violation of sacred things at the end of chapter 5 with the violation of one’s neighbor at the beginning of chapter 6.

    I recall quite vividly how I encountered this chapter when reading Leviticus with Milgrom’s AB commentary.  I read the passage ahead in Hebrew before reading the commentary and so I had studied through the previous chapters and noted the sacrifices for inadvertent sins, but no sacrifices for intentional sins.  There was no statement that these sins were intentional, but it’s hard to imagine finding someone’s property and then lying about it as “inadvertent.”

    Baker notes this, but the best discussion comes from Milgrom (373-378) in a section titled “The Priestly Doctrine of Repentance.”  In his words, “…The Priestly authors took a postulate of their own tradition, that God mitigates punishment for unintentional sins, and empowered it with a new doctrine, that the voluntary repentance of a deliberate crime transforms the crime itself into an involuntary act.”  NISB emphasizes the voluntary part of this repentance, i.e. one must repent without being caught.

    The passage also provides the elements of repentance:

    1. A realization of feeling of guilt; one acknowledges that what was done was a wrong.
    2. Payment of reparation
    3. Confession
    4. Desire for atonement and sacrifice
    5. Forgiveness

    These days we frequently forget the first part and often the second.  I doubt one gets to #5 without going through those elements.

    The OSB notes that the sacrifices here for damage done to another are not gradated, unlike the previous sacrifices.  The poor must offer the same thing as the rich.  Being poor, they note, does not provide the right to steal (p. 124 on 5:15, 21, 25).

    Abbreviations:

    OSB – Orthodox Study Bible

    NISB – New Interpreter’s Study Bible

    Milgrom – Milgrom, Jacob.  Anchor Bible:  Leviticus 1-16.

    Baker – Leviticus portion written by David H. Baker, of the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary on Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

    Chapter 6 deals with sacrifices for sins that appear to be quite deliberate.

  • Biblical, Convinced, and Wrong! (Lent 2B)

    The story in Mark 8:31-38 fascinates me because the disciples were, in one sense, so right, yet they were so wrong.  What we often forget is that there was good reason for the disciples to expect the Messiah to take over the throne of David immediately, to rescue their nation from the Romans, and to become the ruler of the world.  He would not be divine, as such, but he would be divinely anointed.  If Jesus was the Messiah, they would be standing next to power.

    And what was wrong with that?  Shouldn’t patriots want to be involved in freeing their country from foreign rule, unjust taxation, and foreign rule?

    Though there is debate on the background of the use of “son of man”  as a title for Jesus, I tend to suspect it comes from Daniel 7:13-14:

    13I saw in the night visions, and behold, there came with the clouds of the sky one like a son of man, and he came even to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. 14There was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.  (WEB)

    So here is their quite Biblical view of who the Messiah would be and what he would do.  And Jesus is telling them that they have got it wrong.  He’s telling them to give up on one whole set of proof texts and take hold of another.  Why?  Because they knew from being with him that he must be the Messiah, the anointed one.  He, in his person, would reveal God to them, and therefore God’s plans and what the real future would be like.  And it wouldn’t be pretty or easy.

    Now consider this:  How truly convinced must those disciples have been that they didn’t just say, “Well, I guess you’re really not the one.  I didn’t sign up for this, and I don’t think that’s what the Bible says.”  No!  They stuck around and let Jesus convince them.  While they ran in fear at the crucifixion, they came back, confused, yes, but ready to hear the new message–“He is risen!”

    We often focus on the negative, how slow the disciples were to believe, and how cowardly they were during the trial and the crucifixion.  I have to confess that I’m pretty sure I would have been slower and more cowardly than the twelve.  If I had been a disciple, I’m not sure how bad the story would have gotten, but it would have been pretty bad.

    Consider this:  When you’re convinced of something what does it take to change your mind?  Are you too quick, blown about by every wind, or are you stuck in concrete when you really should be flexible?

     

  • Romans 4:13-25 – Abraham and God (Lent 2B)

    There are two questions I think will prove very much worth some meditation time.  This is a rich passage, so obviously there are more, but let me emphasize just two.

    First, Paul uses Abraham a great deal.  In an excursus on page 2015, amongst the notes on chapter 4, the New Interpreter’s Study Bible notes that “Abraham is cited more frequently in Paul’s letters than any other historical figure except Jesus.”  What is it about Abraham that makes him such an excellent example?  Paul uses him, James uses him in a seemingly contradictory manner, though one that I think is quite reconcilable.

    Abraham is “caught” by God outside of God’s community.  Though he is a descendant of the patriarchal line, he is known for worshiping other Gods (Joshua 24:2).  He has done no works to earn God’s favor.  God simply selects him and takes action.  Paul uses this to illustrate how God’s salvation is grace based, and I would reemphasize that it was always based on grace.  While there are distinctions in the way God interacted with those who had been saved by grace, there was never a time when one could earn a place in relationship to God.

    Don’t take the word “relationship” lightly.  We sometimes here this as a sort of “casual dating” relationship.  Not at all!  A relationship with God is a covenant relationship, a complete reordering of who one is.  This is a relationship that defines one’s identity.  There are works done “in” relationship, and works done to gain a relationship.  The latter will not work.  To me it seems pretty clear and obvious.  If God is the creator, he can not only create a million of me if he wants, he can create millions of planets with millions more of me.  So there is no way to make myself necessary to God.  It won’t work.

    God chooses to love me!  That is the amazing story of grace.  Thus Paul is right that Abraham is “made right” by faith, apart from works (Galatians 2:16), yet James can be quite correct, looking at this from a few moments forward when he says we are made right by works (James 2:24).  Part of the complete reorientation is the simple fact that works done in the relationship with Christ are completely different from works done outside.

    The second question is this:  How is it that Abraham gets treated as an unblemished character of faith?  As I mentioned previously, Paul ignores the negatives, and our lectionary passage cuts out Abraham’s laughter.

    I like to call this the faith view.  Compare all the heroes of the faith as described in Hebrews 11 with their stories in the Old Testament.  You’ll find that there are rose colored glasses involved here.  There are two views of heroes.  One encourages us by seeing them as real people with failings.  The Bible provides clear and honest stories in this sense.  The other encourages us by seeing them as extraordinary.  In a spiritual sense, I believe, both are true.

     

  • Interpreting the Bible VII – Christians Contribute to Confusion

    In reality I’m going to discuss framing the questions on the test passages I quoted last time, but in doing so, I need to highlight the way Christians contribute to a misunderstanding of one another, and by non-Christians who don’t understand how many of us use the Bible.

    There is, of course, that vocal group of Christians who claim that they take the Bible literally and follow all of it. Their loud voice tends to drown the rest of us out. But one can easily debunk any claim to follow all of the Bible, unless that claim is properly defined by a tradition or method of interpretation.

    But non-fundamentalists contribute to the idea that the really, truly holy and most valid Christian approach to the Bible is Biblical literalism. We do so primarily in two ways:

    1. We use the claim that we don’t take the Bible literally as an answer to anything.
      This is not so much a liberal thing as a mainline thing. In this case by “mainline” I mean those old and established denominations to which so many people belong just to be known as church-going people. When confronted by almost any Biblical claim that is counter to their tradition, they will say: “We don’t take the Bible that literally around here.” Or something like that.

      But that may not be the point at all. One may be hearing a passage that was intended quite literally. For example, if you are reading Leviticus and it commands animal sacrifice, the point is not that you don’t take it literally; it’s a literal command to do a literal thing. As Christians we don’t do that because of a number of passages such as Acts 15. I will probably spend a whole post on Acts 15 before I’m done.

      The reason for this kind of abuse of the word “literal” is simply that many Christians are quite unaware of what the Bible actually says, and so they feel the need of an easy way to dismiss any claim regarding what they do or don’t do in church.

    2. They discount passages without admitting it.
      Now let me be clear here. Many of these passages need some sort of discounting in order to apply in the modern world.

      I discussed this in my essay Facing the Proof-Text Method, in which I called it “text trimming.” The problem is not that the texts are trimmed; the problem is that they are trimmed without consideration to any consistent style of interpretation.

      I use as an example Exodus 21:15 & 17 which call for the death penalty for cursing one’s parents. I recall one class in which numerous members were willing to accept this as a command that should be applied today. I was a bit surprised and asked them if they would then take their children out to be stoned to death should they utter a curse against their parents. They were shocked and told me that wasn’t what they meant. “We mean that you should discipline your children properly!”

      They really didn’t even see the text itself until well into the discussion. They’d discounted it so quickly on reading they were hardly aware that they were worlds away from that in which the command was given. For them, this meant corporal punishment. For others, it might well be discounted more. And I’m happy that it should be discounted. It is not, however, a figurative command.

    Now how does this apply to my test passages? I want to make clear here that the problem with the passages I cited is not that I don’t like what they say. My feelings about what a passage says do not impact what it’s now dead author meant to say. The ancients said many things that I don’t like. God is represented as saying things that I don’t like in scripture. My dislike of the statement doesn’t alter the intent of that statement.

    When we phrase the problem in that way we open things up for non-Christians to point out that we are simply taking what we like from scripture, for more conservative Christians to suggest that we are discarding passages at will, and for those more liberal to suggest that we haven’t moved far enough.

    So when Numbers 31:17 says, “Now kill every male among the children, and kill every woman who has had sexual relations with a man” I don’t like it. But that is not a problem for interpretation. The meaning is clear. You can read it in context. This is a command. Moses did not like the fact that the people preserved the women and the boys alive and he is now ordering them to be killed. He will exempt virgin girls, who may be taken as spoil. There’s no problem figuring out what the command would mean at the time.

    So what does constitute a problem for interpretation? If I were working strictly within Judaism I would have to look eventually at the prophetic statements regarding eventual salvation for the gentiles. At a minimum I would have to ask when and why the attitude changed. If the Israelites were to treat the aliens living among them as their own (Lev. 19:33-34), why the difference here? I’m skipping over numerous answers to those questions because here I’m simply wanting to point out what does create a question that must be answered, however easy it may be.

    Finally, if you represent God as a God of love, who does not desire the death of anyone (Ezekiel 18:32), then how can God command all of these deaths? Again, I’m using the Old Testament, and one closely tied to the priestly tradition, in order to keep the two viewpoints close. Again, I’m not continuing into attempts to answer these questions. Some readers are going to see obvious answers, but I’m not ready to go there.

    Thus what I believe constitutes a genuine issue of Biblical interpretation is not my dislike of a text, but rather the fact that I am presented with at least two pictures in the Bible which seem not to be wholly consistent. The interpretation of the passage for its time and place may be clear, but what it means for me or what it meant for other generations of believers who used it as scripture becomes less clear because of apparently conflicting pictures.

    Procedural Notes: I’m going to try to write these a bit shorter, though it will take me several more posts at least to get where I’m going. I also need to do an excursus (or more) showing the prevalence of non-literal interpretation throughout Christian history.

    Continued from Interpreting the Bible VI

  • Leviticus 4:1-5:13

    It is not entirely helpful to include these two sections under the same heading, but there is certainly a break between 5:13 and 5:14, so the division is understandable as Baker does it.

    We’re moving here to sacrifices that are required, first for inadvertent acts in chapter 4, and then for acts of omission that result in prolonged impurity (Milgrom: 307ff), only some of which are inadvertent in chapter 5.  Milgrom maintains, I think convincingly, that the distinction in chapter 5 is that the acts in question result in prolonged impurity, and prolonged impurity gets worse.

    Baker does well in presenting the major lesson I think we can take from these chapters, that wrongs are not just a personal thing, but they have a lasting impact on others.  We have a tendency to think that if something was a mistake there is no real guilt attached.  “I goofed,” is supposed to forgive all.  Here errors, most notably amongst the leadership, even if inadvertent, are highlighted as damaging the entire congregation and particular as polluting the sanctuary, and thus the congregation’s relationship with God.

    There is a secondary point, in that chapter 5 provides gradated levels of offerings and includes one even the poorest could bring–a grain offering.  I think this should be discussed in terms of atonement, in which we regularly quote Hebrews 9:22, which in turn quotes Leviticus 17:11.  Perhaps while blood provides the strongest metaphor for atonement, it is not the absolute requirement that some make it.  An exception to the blood sacrifice as in Leviticus 5:11-13, would not in that case be a minor point.  I’ll discuss this further when we get to Leviticus 17:11.

    The OSB emphasizes the difference between the sins of the priesthood and the laity, and quotes St. John Chrysostom thus:

    Wishing to show that sins receive more serious punishment by far when they occur in the case of the priest than in the case of the laity, Moses enjoins as great a sacrifice to be offered for the priest as for the whole people, and this amounts to a proof on his part, that the wounds of the priesthood need more assistance, that is, as great as those of all the people together.”

    OSB further applies this to the modern priesthood as well.  I could wish they would both quote the fathers more and would indicate the particular work.  In this case I have been unable to find the reference by search at CCEL–I’m probably doing something wrong.

    Again, I commend Baker for providing the elements that a preacher would need quickly and with the minimum of fuss.  You will frequently find you want to know more, but there are other reference works for that purpose.

    Abbreviations:

    OSB – Orthodox Study Bible

    NISB – New Interpreter’s Study Bible

    Milgrom – Milgrom, Jacob.  Anchor Bible:  Leviticus 1-16.

    Baker – Leviticus portion written by David H. Baker, of the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary on Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

  • Missing from Lent 2B

    One thing that always interests me in the lectionary is the passages we don’t read.  Often these are signaled by commas indicating a number of verses left out.  At other times it may be interesting portions before and after.  I see three interesting cases in the lectionary for Lent 2B.

    The first is in Genesis 17, where part of the omission is obvious.  We are told to read Genesis 17:1-7 and then skip to 15 and 16.  What happens in the intervening verses?  The sign of circumcision is instituted.  Christians don’t comprehend circumcision all that well, and perhaps it is good that the pastor won’t have to explain that portion, but I find the omission interesting, considering that we will also read Romans 4 in which Paul will use this passage for something quite different than what it was originally intended for.  In fact, he uses quotes from it mixed with those from Genesis 15 to point away from the sign of circumcision.

    A few years ago I wrote an essay, Was Paul an Exegete?, in which I maintain that clearly he was not.  The problem is that the word “exegesis” has so positive of a connotation amongst many pastors and Bible scholars that suggesting Paul isn’t an exegete sounds positively sacriligious.  Paul isn’t doing exegesis when he uses Hebrew scripture, but that doesn’t mean that he’s either a liar or a bad person.  Rather, he’s doing something else entirely.  Shouldn’t we be interested in seeing just what?  Reading the whole passage will help.  I would suggest at least reading Genesis 17:1-16 straight through if you are using the lectionary in a Bible study group.  For a scripture reading, it’s possible you should use it as is.

    But there’s more!  If we read forward, verse 17 informs us that Abraham fell on his face and laughed.  He didn’t believe the promise.  We see that also in chapter 18, where it is Sarah who laughs.  Yet in Romans 4:20-21 we’re informed that Abraham’s faith was strong and he was convinced God could do what he had promised.  I call this the “faith” view, one that makes the heroes of the faith look better as we give them credit for what they grew into, not what they were at the time.  But Paul’s view and that of the author of Genesis are not quite in line, and we miss that if we don’t read the whole passage.

    Then there is Psalm 22:23-31.  Here we have a contiguous block of praise, but we lack the reason for the praise, which is that the Psalmist has been ill and suffering and prayed for healing.  The praise is thanks to God for bringing him through (possibly prospectively) that situation.  Now we will read the rest of the Psalm on another day in the lectionary, but it’s omitted here.

    Finally, in Mark, we have Peter’s rebuke of Jesus and Jesus’ rebuke of Peter in return, but we don’t have the story that brought it on.  The positive part of Mark’s passage is removed, while the negative part of the Psalm is removed.

    The Romans passage is in good shape, other than the fact that it is well-nigh impossible to get the right balance from any small portion of Romans.  Yet we could hardly read the whole book, could we?

     

  • Interpreting the Bible VI – Introducing some Test Passages

    I’ve been delinquent on this series since January 24, but here goes again. My major point has been to show first that there is no obvious interpretation which one should take from the Bible, but rather that how one applies the Bible to one’s life, if at all, is based on an interpretive framework.

    It’s generally not so much that we cannot determine what a particular author meant to say, though that can be difficult. For example, the arguments over how literally one should take the first 11 chapters of Genesis are all based on a certain amount of evidence. The literary form is debatable, which is demonstrated by the number of people who debate it.

    What is most difficult, however, is determining how something applies to another time, if at all. We all have things we ignore from scripture. I’m blogging through Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy over on my Participatory Bible Study Blog right now, and those books contain many things that Christians do not do, and do not believe they have to do. In fact, it is so ingrained in Christian thought that animal sacrifices, for example, don’t apply to us, that often people don’t even think of it as something they ignore. They will tell me that’s not a real example–it’s too obvious. But the fact that Seventh-day Adventists, for example, keep Saturday as the Sabbath shows that we don’t all agree on where the line is drawn. Further, other small groups keep certain other laws or observe feasts.

    But to get to the idea of test examples, there are two very interesting topics on which Christians debate, but which tend to result in some interesting interpretation.

    The first of these examples is homosexuality. In almost any discussion of gay and lesbian rights in the church, Leviticus 18:22 will surface somewhere. It’s one of those, “But it’s obvious! The Bible says it right here!” sorts of texts. Now my purpose is not to try to tie the entire issue to this one text.

    In my experience, however, I’ve encountered an interesting phenomenon. If I ask the person who has just referred to Leviticus to read Leviticus 19:33-34, which is often just across the page–it is in the Bible I’m using right now–the tone changes. “Well,” I am told, “that passage obviously doesn’t apply today.” The argument usually has to do with welfare and how aliens might get government money to which they are not entitled.

    Now it’s quite possible that one passage applies and one doesn’t, but that isn’t an adequate hermeneutical argument. It doesn’t deal with various reasons one might find to consider Leviticus 18:22 equally inapplicable, for example. And just where does the idea that having some of your money go to people who are not legally entitled to it come from? There are, after all, many other things called “abominations” in Leviticus, yet we don’t avoid them.

    This leads me to ask this of any set of principles of interpretation: Can these principles explain why one passage is applicable and one is not?

    You’ll find that disagreement on that point lies behind many, many debates about scripture, especially debates that are particularly intractable. One side accuses the other of ignoring scripture, while in turn the second side is quite certain the first is intentionally misrepresenting their position. This is because the two don’t use similar principles.

    Once you have identified the principles being used, the next good question is just how those principles are derived. Often, the practical principle that people apply is simply whether something sounds good. “Love your enemies (Matthew 5:44) is good and literally applicable (except when you really don’t want to), whereas cutting off your hand is not (Matthew 5:30).

    Which examples lead me to the second test case. Can your approach to interpretation deal with Numbers 31 in relation to Matthew 5, or perhaps more importantly 1 John 4:13-21. You’ll have to read Numbers 31 for yourself, but I’ll just let you know that in it Moses is quite angry at the way in which the Israelites have not killed an adequate number of women and children in battle.

    In the following posts, which I hope will follow more quickly than this one did, I will look at those two issues and the principles of interpretation that might be involved. For better or worse, I must tell you now that I doubt anyone will consider my approach “obvious.” But that’s OK. I don’t consider anyone else’s all that obvious either!

    Previous posts in this series:

  • Christian Carnival CCLXVI Posted

    … at C.Orthodoxy.