There’s a new wind over on Lingamish, and this one brings us The Bible Puzzler. I’m waiting with interest to see what this is going to be, and watching my schedule with interest to see how much time I’ll have to get involved. But this can’t help but be a good thing. If at all possible, watch Lingamish for the first puzzle and get involved.
How do you read? What do you think it means? Can you back that up?
“Do not judge, so that you may not be judged.” — Matthew 7:1 (NRSV)
I have often called this little verse the most violated verse in the New Testament. Christians regularly take it upon themselves to judge one another and also to judge non-Christians. At the same time, this is one of the most misinterpreted verses on the New Testament, and perhaps those two factors come together. When we cannot be sure just what a text means, it’s quite possible we’ll find it hard to obey.
Some Christians treat this as a command to shut down their brains. No judgment, no opinion, no decision can be criticized, especially when made by someone else who claims to be a Christian. In the eyes of this group of Christians it is especially wrong to judge whether someone is or is not a Christian. Thus if a politician claims to be born again, they are likely to provide support. How can you question this person’s sincere testimony? It is also wrong, according to this view, to make a judgment about a ministry and whether it is serving God or not. Any form of criticism is called “going against God’s anointed” and is regarded as a dangerous sin.
Under this view, church pastors and leaders of ministries can often get by with very dangerous teachings and grievous sins because the membership feels that they cannot come to a decision, cannot judge, and cannot come to a verdict. Often people will continue to support a ministry concerning which they have serious questions because they are afraid of violating the command not to judge.
On the other hand we have a group of folks who go straight to Matthew 7:15-20. “Not so,” they say to the first group. “You can’t judge, but you can inspect fruit.” And it turns out that in this view there is really nothing that is actually forbidden; you just have to rename it. Am I judging a pastor when I accuse him of heresy? No, I’m not. I’m just inspecting the fruit. Is the church board judging when it removes someone from a church office because of an offense? No, they are just exercising their job and inspecting the fruit. Is the church congregation judging when they hound someone caught in sexual sin out of the church? No, they just inspected the fruit and then made sure that the body of Christ in their congregation was pure, that the sin was eliminated.
Many readers will likely complain at this point that I have mixed good and bad examples together on both sides, and I do believe that I have done precisely that. The point is that we have two ways in view here of missing the point. The first group makes Matthew 7:1 an absolute, irrespective of other commands, and if they carry their view to its logical conclusion (fortunately few do), they can make it impossible to act either as individuals or as a church congregation. The second group really can’t live with Matthew 7:1, so they have found a ready made excuse in “fruit inspection.” The result in their case can be dissension and destruction of spiritual lives, and may even extend to the destruction of physical lives.
I’d like to recommend my essay on wisdom literature, and particularly the part about the toolkit. I recommend that when you find two passages of scripture recommending radically different courses of action, you check to see if the toolkit metaphor will help untangle the situation.
Those who try to solve the problems of Matthew 7:1 by using Matthew 7:15-20 as an exception have some difficulty here. If you look at the context of Matthew 7:1 by reading on into verse two, you find the reasoning behind the command in the first verse. You’re going to get judged in the way that you judge. So how do you want to be judged? But you could apply the same reasoning to fruit inspection. According to the standards you use in fruit inspection, you’re going to have your fruit inspected. Do you like this second possibility any better than the first?
Then you might consider the skeptical position. Isn’t Matthew 7:1 an example of moral cowardice? If you just don’t pass judgment on anyone else, they’ll let you by with everything too. Do you think that is what Jesus was aiming at here? Especially considering the rest of the chapter, I think not.
That’s why I brought up interpreting proverbs, even though this isn’t precisely a collection of proverbs. A proverb states something briefly, but doesn’t have time or space to deal with all the circumstances, the possible exceptions, and the nuances. It provides a general rule. When we come upon this, we have to first consider the precise meaning of the statement, then look at the circumstances, and then see what task this tool fits.
Now if you’re following through on some of my study methods, this would be a good time to read through the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5-7) a couple of times, and then also to compare several translations of Matthew 7:1. The CEV and The Message both have interesting perspectives on this verse. I have looked at the uses of the Greek word for “judge” in this passage, but I’m not going to use them in my discussion.
I think we can get what we need simply by using the context and being careful with our definitions of English words. Let’s start by looking at the word judge. What options does this word bring to mind? What are the various things we migh call “judging?” What we’re doing here is getting the range of meaning that the word has. Amongst the common uses you may think of are:
We should notice that item #1, acting as a judge, generally involves all of the activities I listed.
So what is it that Jesus is telling us not to do? If we continue reading verses 2-4 we’ll find first that we are going to receive judgment in the way that we judge. Then in verse 3 and 4, we are pointed to the odd situation of how small our own defects can seem beside what appear to us huge defects in our neighbor. Jesus very quickly provides the context for his short, pithy statement. He’s talking about criticizing and condemning one another. So we eliminate the options of simply acting as a judge or making decisions about one’s life; these are not what Jesus is talking about. We’re specifically concerned with how we relate to one another in our community.
That still leaves some questions. We get to verse 15, and we find that we are to be wary of false prophets. OK, in this case, if someone in the community claims to be a prophet, and they are not, then there is an action that we must take. We are now required to be critical–use critical judgment on–a member of the community and keep away from them under a particular set of circumstances. If I might call in an Old Testament context here, Deuteronomy 13 comes to mind, in which one is commanded to pass judgment on a false prophet, defined there as one who tells you to worship other gods, and to condemn such a person to death. Jesus doesn’t specify any penalty here, other than to be wary of them.
He also tells us how we are to locate them–by their fruits. The specific example of false prophets is used, but do you think this might apply to other people who are bringing a false message? Jesus is telling us that there is a need to be wary. In fact, if you continue through the chapter, verses 21-23 tell us that there will be people who show signs of being followers of Jesus, and who turn out not to be followers. Their fruit does not include obedience to Jesus.
Time to bring out the toolkit again! I think we can all recall circumstances in which the ministry of a church was severely damaged by either extreme that I’ve mentioned. But I would suggest its not merely an extreme; it’s not merely that you need to find some sort of balance between forgiveness and criticism. What’s needed is wisdom and discernment to appy the right tool at the right time. And I would suggest that Matthew 7:15-20 provides us a way to discover which tool is to be used. Simply ask the question, which is going to produce the best fruit?
It may be that sin needs to be removed from the congregation in order for the kingdom to be built. But beware of using condemnation to make your life more comfortable. What will forgiveness accomplish? What can be done by taking a stand? To belabor my point about definitions, before you decide whether your tool is tolerance (judge not) or fruit inspection (be very careful), you need to judge the situation wisely.
God has given you a toolkit, but you have to judge the right tool for the job.
I have now added an essay on interpreting wisdom literature to my set of very basic interpretation essays. This essay was already supposed to be there, and had links to it, but it hadn’t been posted. One by one I’m filling the holes in the participatory study method files. I have quite a bit of information to add to the Isaiah and Acts outlines as I get time to polish it a bit, format it, and get it online.
Peter Kirk has an interesting post on Bible Deists, those who believe that God spoke only through the Bible and has basically been out of touch in the intervening time. He quotes extensively from Jack Deere’s Surprised by the Voice of God. Deere makes many of these points.
One of the elements I emphasize in the participatory Bible study method is the importance of prayer and listening to the Holy Spirit (See the pamphlet I Want to Study the Bible!). In addition, I emphasize the importance of continuing revelation and the broader nature of the word of God as God’s expressed will throughout creation (What is the Word of God? and Seven Barriers to Hearing the Word).
Peter Kirk makes some excellent points in his post, and I recommend reading it. One can indeed stray from hearing the God of scripture in either direction–fundamentalist or scholarly.
This is a follow-up to my post Information or Conversation, and it would probably be a good idea to read that entry first.
One element of God’s method of revealing himself to people is that he chooses specific people to accomplish specific missions. I want to look at the time of the exile, and three of God’s messengers, Jeremiah, Daniel, and Ezekiel. Now there will be those who accept a later date for Daniel and will question my using him in this part of the story. Let me simply state that I do believe that the stories of Daniel, though not likely the entire book, date from the time of the exile,were later written down and collected in what we now have as the Aramaic portions of Daniel. For more discussion see Dating the Book of Daniel.
At the time of the exile there were three distinct situations, three distinct groups of people to whom God needed to communicate his message. The first was the people of Judah who were rapidly heading toward exile and destruction. The second group was those who were already exiled and living in Babylon. The third was the Babylonian court, both the Babylonian king and officials for whom God had a mission, but also the exiles who were living in a state of privelege and facing the temptation to compromise away their faith.
The inhabitants of Judah were living in a dreamworld of security, based on the belief that the presence of the temple, and thus God’s presence, protected Jerusalem no matter what. The exiles in Babylon generally felt abandoned by God and either waited expectantly for their soon return or began to simply give up. At the same time the king of Babylon took the view that he was favored of the gods because of his successes, and those who lived in his court faced the constant danger of compromise of their principles in order to gain power and favor and even permanence in their new situation. Any of these attitudes presented a barrier to God’s plan.
God’s response was not merely to protect the facts. The facts were that the exile would be long but temporary, and that in the end the people would return. Jerusalem would be destroyed, but it would be rebuilt. Nebuchadnezzar was a great king and conqueror, but he also was limited and temporary and the way to success for the Jewish young people who found themselves there was faithfulness, not compromise. But even if they suffered for their faithfulness, the consequences of compromise would be even deeper.
Those were the facts, but God still needed messengers. None of the audiences actually wanted to listen, but there were ways to make things clear.
For Judah, there was Jeremiah, the weeping prophet. Not only one who could speak the message, but one who could weep the message, whose very life symbolized God’s love for Judah and his unwillingness to give up his people. God’s sorrow was expressed in the form of a prophet who spoke, suffered, cried, and was ignored, but who never gave up, who kept speaking until there was nothing left.
Ezekiel was himself an exile, capable of understanding the situation of the exiles. His inaugural vision (Ezekiel 1) reassured Ezekiel that God was still with the exiles, that in spite of judgment there was hope. The message became a part of Ezekiel. But the presentation was different from that of Jeremiah. Ezekiel was not allowed to mourn his own wife’s death (Ezekiel 24:15-27). Both his visions and his methods of expression were powerful and creative.
Daniel was one tempted to compromise in the court of the king. He had every opportunity to go over to the side of the winner, and to accept Nebuchadnezzar as the once and always king of the world. But he stood quietly for God and for faithfulness to his message.
Three messengers with similar messages, but different audiences, and different means to present that message–God involved in the daily activities of human beings, a microcosm of God acting in the flesh.
I frequently get into discussions about the inspiration of the Bible. These discussions generally center around such texts as 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21, or Hebrews 4:12. Now all of these are good texts from which to study about the nature of scripture, but it interests me that we build theology from these texts which we then try to impose on the remainder of scripture, rarely bothering to spend time observing just how the process of revelation has functioned.
My idea here is not to find a different set of texts from which to extract theological propositions, but rather to look at the narrative, and ask how God has managed to reveal himself at various times and under various circumstances. By observing the narrative of scripture, we can get a better idea of what the propositions of scripture mean in practice. When 2 Timothy 3:16 says that scripture is profitable for certain things, we can ask precisely how scripture was used in accomplishing such things.
I’m suggesting here a focus on the story rather than on the commentary, or one might say the experience rather than the propositions. This is not because the scripture does not contain propositional truth. I believe one can derive propositional truths from the story and from the explicit statements, but if we read these always in the context of the story, we will get better defined and understood propositions. After all, there must be some reason why God put so much story in scripture, and why even all those propositions arrived in the framework of the story.
In a discussion some time ago, I annoyed someone when I made my normal suggestion to look at places other than these standard texts in discussing inspiration. In particular, I was recommending the story of Jeremiah and Baruch as they produced the scroll of Jeremiah’s prophecies (Jeremiah 36), to help us understand just how inspiration works.
What can we learn from this story?
Those are just a few things. As we read the story of Jeremiah we can learn not only about God’s method of revelation but how God’s inspiration works with the inspired person. This is one of the things I mean by participatory Bible study. “Participatory” can mean simply to participate in the process of study–everyone in a group reads a text, makes a comment, looks something up in a reference source, etc. What I mean is investing oneself in the actual story of the scriptures. My question here is not just how Jeremiah heard from God, and what Jeremiah had to say, but how can I hear from God. My question is how I can hear from God, how I can build a relationship with God, and how Jeremiah’s experience can help mine.
We go to the Bible looking for information; God goes to the Bible looking for conversation.
God doesn’t merely want to inform you. That could be done much more easily than the process that brought us the Bible. God wants to relate to you, have a conversation with you.
And if you can see that in Jeremiah, it’s going to help. The agony of his situation as people ignore his message. His horror as his nation continues to follow the path of destruction. His frustration as people won’t listen to his message. Then we get the command to produce this scroll. We see it destroyed and replaced. Live this with Jeremiah! How much is this like our Christian experience as God tries to get through to us, to get us to listen, to get us to persevere in his word?
Off and on I’m going to present essays on this topic. I’ll be following this with one on the three prophets of the exile, but there are many more experiences of scripture that can teach us about God’s revelation and how we receive it.
I’ve been involved in occasional exchanges in another forum on the use of translations in Bible study. This individual seems to think that when he finds a translation that supports a particular point of view, he can just stick with that translation, and nobody should be able to question him. It’s one of the weirdest arguments I’ve heard about Biblical studies. It is close to the position of Peter Ruckman, who’s KJV Only stance is one of the firmest–and most ridiculous out there. Ruckman holds the KJV to be superior in authority to the Greek and Hebrew texts from which it was translated.
Even so, Ruckman’s position is much more consistent than that of the correspondent I just mentioned. Ruckman holds that the KJV is always the authoritative text, while this individual seems to believe in the authority of whatever Bible he has in his hand. (It’s still usually the KJV.)
His position is closer to one I hear from Christians in Bible study. They tell me that the English is good enough for them, and not to bother them with the source languages. Now as a practical point, provided that one studies texts in context, I think one can study the Bible in English or another language into which the Bible has been translated with little danger. Especially in English one can avoid difficulties of interpretation that arise from translation simply by comparing more than one translation. But even in that case a translation derives its authority from the source text, and not the reverse.
A little knowledge of the differences between the source languages and the one in which you study is also useful. For example, neither Hebrew nor Greek in the Bible use capital letters. The choice to capitalize is based on the interpretation of the translator, both of the meaning of the source text and of the style requirements of the target language. Do you capitalize a particualr pronoun? Let’s say you believe that pronoun might refer to the deity. Your choice to capitalize it or not will depend on an interpretational choice. Does it, in fact, refer to the deity? Does English stylistics require that a pronoun referring to the deity be capitalized? This issue becomes more complex with pronouns referring to Jesus In this case one’s trinitarian theology gets involved as well as stylistic considerations.
In John 3:5-8, the Greek word pneuma is used a number of times. It is capitalized in some cases and in some not. It is translated “spirit” in some cases and “wind” in others. The fact that a particular translator capitalizes the word in one case and not another does not constitute any sort of an argument as to the meaning of the word, other than that the particular translation team thought it should be interpreted that way. Another translation team might have thought differently. The important–and the only valid–arguments are the contextual arguments that led each translation team to its choices.
This is because the source Greek text did not have capital letters. The translation team made a choice. You can list this amongst the choices of various authorities, including commentators and other translators. But it does not decide anything.
I don’t want to discourage people from studying the Bible in translation. There are very good translations available. All you have to do is study each passage carefully in context, and where possible compare translations and interpretations so as to make sure you don’t get stuck with an interpretation that is not supported by the source texts. On the other hand, there are some things that you cannot properly investigate without recourse to the original languages. These are usually few and far between, and are generally minor. But you should be aware of the potential.
Genesis 5 continues the priestly account of origins. Now I don’t want us to get the idea that there are two separate messages here, because the two sources (priestly [P] and Yahwist [J]) have been brought together with their own message. Nonetheless, we can get some additional breadth and depth to this message by noting how we might understand these passages if we had only one of the two sources.
The priestly writer continues from the creation that is found good and moves to the patriarchal line. He mentions the curse in connection with Lamech, who believes that his son Noah represents some form of relief (see comment below), but he doesn’t mention the corruption of the world until Genesis 6:11, though the comment that Noah was found perfect in his generation suggests that there was something less than perfect going on. For P, the preservation of the patriarchal line is critical. We learn that the world became corrupt, but not how. More of the action is placed in God’s hands and less in people’s hands.
J, on the other hand, emphasizes the human side. We have an explanation for the corruption in human action, we have a line of people who are in rebellion, and then, at the end of chapter 4, we have the simple statement that there was also a patriarchal line. Seth is born, then he has a son, and with that we are told that people began to call on YHWH.
There is a certain elegance and simplicity to each of these source documents, but there is a depth that is provided by combining them. I’m reminded of the debate between Calvinists and Arminians, specifically about the sovereignty of God, and which view gives God more glory. By attitude, P could be a Calvinist and J an Arminian, as P puts all the focus on God, while J spends his time talking about the action of creatures. The redactor combines these into a story of God in relationship to people. This is one of the benefits I see in using critical methodologies. It is easy, however, to stop by observing the sources, as though identifying sources amounted to interpreting the text. It doesn’t. Sometimes it doesn’t even produce anything of real interest. But at other times it does help us get a bit closer to the author’s aim.
There will be only a few verse by verse comments. Most of Genesis 5 is self-explanatory. At the end I will deal with an overview of the type of literature involved, chronological calculations, and ways in which the chapter has been understood.
1This is Adam’s genealogical record. When God created humankind he created them like himself, 2he created them male and female, blessed them, and called them Adam (human).
Note that Adam produces a son in his likeness as God produced Adam in his own likeness. I would imagine that those who support a physical likeness, i.e. that God physically looks like a human being, might use this verse for that purpose. I would see the reverse. The likeness is not primarily physical, it is in being a choosing, acting, moral creature. This was the foundation of the patriarchal line.
The likeness of God must somehow be preserved, and as we can see in chapter 4, Cain’s clan is not doing so well at preserving it.
3Adam lived 130 years and gave birth to someone like him, in his image, and he called his son’s name Seth. 4After he gave birth to Seth Adam lived 800 years, and gave birth to sons and daughters. 5His full lifetime was 930 years. after which he died.
6Seth lived 105 years, and gave birth to Enosh. 7and Seth lived 807 years after he gave birth to Enosh, and he gave birth to sons and daughters. 8And Seth’s full lifetime was 912 years, after which he died.
9And Enosh lived 90 years, and gave birth to Kenan. 10And Enosh lived 815 years after he gave birth to Kenan, and gave birth to sons and daughters. 11Enosh’s full lifetime was 905 years, after which he died.
12Kenan lived 70 years, and gave birth to Mahalalel. 13And Kenan lived 840 years after he gave birth to Mahalalel, and gave birth to sons and daughters. 14Kenan’a full lifetime was 910 years, then he died.
15Mahalalel lived 65 years, and gave birth to Jared. 16And Mahalalel lived after 830 years after he gave birth to Jared, and he gave birth to sons and daughters. 17Mahalalel’s full lifetime was 895 years, after which he died.
18Jared lived 162 years, and gave birth to Enoch. 19And Jared lived 800 years after he gave birth to Enoch and gave birth to sons and daughters. 20Jared’s full lifetime wsa 962 years, after which he died.
Thus far note the pattern. The phrase “and he died” is not likely to be accidental, as it is repeated throughout. We are noting physical mortality.
21Enoch lived 65 years, and gave birth to Methuselah. 22Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah for 300 years, and he gave birth to sons and daughters. 23Enoch’s full lifetime was 365 years, 24but Enoch walked with God, and he was just no longer there, because God took him.
We tend to focus on long lives in reading this passage, but the focus of the Bible writer is on the walk with God. Even those who have long lives are living on the ground that is under God’s curse. The one who is truly blessed is Enoch, who lives on earth a short time, and then is taken. The structure of the chapter points an arrow at Enoch because his story is missing that one phrase: “and he died.”
Cain’s line goes seven generations, though the focus is on the sixth, named Lamech as is the ninth patriarch of Genesis 5. Lamech in Cain’s line is a murderer. The seventh in the patriarchal line walks with God and proves it is still possible. In Genesis 3 God walks in the garden, and Adam and Eve are afraid (Genesis 3:10). Enoch doesn’t have this fear of going for a walk with God. This passage affirms the possibility of a walk with God.
25Methuselah lived 187, and gave birth to Lamech. 26And Methuselah lived 782 years after he gave birth to Lamech, and gave birth to sons and daughters. 27And Methuselah’s full lifetime was 969 years, after which he died.
Methuselah is the longest lived patriarch, but he is not the hero. He is more or less a footnote to his father, Enoch, who walked with God.
28Lamech lived 182 years, then gave birth to a son. 29He called his name Noah, saying, “This child will comfort us as we work and toil with our hands as the result of the ground being cursed by YHWH.” 30And Lamech lived 595 years after he gave birth to Noah, and gave birth to sons and daughters. 31And Lamech’s full lifetime was 777 years, after which he died.
32Noah was 500 years old. He gave birth to Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (Translation taken from my TFBV project.)
Note that it can be presumed that Noah bore his three sons over the course of those 500 years, and that this is a summary. The 500 years note gives us some chronological data, and suggests that Noah’s call to build the ark may have come around this time, while the flood began, according to this chronology, when Noah was 600 years old (Genesis 7:6).
The single most discussed and debated issue of this chapter deals with chronology, which was probably a secondary consideration of the author/redactor. He was more concerned with demonstrating the preservation of the patriarchal line, which then leads to the genuineness of the call to Abraham.
But the simple fact is that on the surface, at least, it appears that one can generate some chronology from a genealogy like this. I have reproduced a portion of this chronology below.
| Name | Age at Firstborn | Remaining Years | Age at Death | Birth AM | First Child AM | Death AM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adam | 130 | 800 | 930 | 0 | 130 | 930 |
| Seth | 105 | 807 | 912 | 130 | 235 | 1042 |
| Enosh | 90 | 815 | 905 | 235 | 325 | 1140 |
| Kenan | 70 | 840 | 910 | 325 | 395 | 1235 |
| Mahalalel | 65 | 830 | 895 | 395 | 460 | 1290 |
| Jared | 162 | 800 | 962 | 460 | 622 | 1422 |
| Enoch | 65 | 300 | 365 | 622 | 687 | 987 |
| Methuselah | 187 | 782 | 969 | 687 | 874 | 1656 |
| Lamech | 182 | 595 | 777 | 874 | 1056 | 1651 |
| Noah | 500 | *600 | 500 | 1056 | 1556 | 1556 |
| *Beginning of the flood. Noah’s death will be dealt with later. | ||||||
Looking at this from the point of view of known history, there are several problems. Around the time suggested for the flood (between 2300 and 2400 BCE, depending on how one dates creation), there was a flourishing Eblaite civilization, there had been a Sumerian civilization for around a thousand years, and Egypt was being ruled by its fifth and sixth dynasties. To put it quite simply, this chronology cannot be reconciled with what we know of ancient near eastern history. It is not simply a small discrepancy; the issue would be thousands of years. You not only need to move the flood prior to the advent of Sumerian and Egyptian history, you also need to leave enough time for the population to grow such as to form the people groups involved and produce an adequate population.
There have been a number of solutions to this problem. One, of course, is to stick with the chronology as “God’s word” no matter what it may imply. This is often presented as the choice of faith. But faith in what? Actually the faith involved is in a chronology and in a particular way of reading the text. Is it truly honoring God to insist on reading the text of scripture, his written word, in such a way as to blatantly contradict his history as written in the natural world? I think we must consider the possibility that insisting that the form of chronology presented in the chart above is God’s word–the message God intended from this passage–is perhaps a bit arrogant.
Old earth creationists, though they are particularly dealing with geological evidence and the age of the earth solve this problem as well by assuming gaps in the chronology. If you look at the structure of the chronology, however, it looks as though it was put together rather tightly. The father’s birth is recorded, followed by his age at his son’s birth, followed by the years he lived after that, and then the full lifespan. In response to this, old earth advocates would note that there is also a formal element in the number of patriarchs. There are ten here and another ten in Genesis 11; ten before and ten after the flood. In addition, if one had a longer list of patriarchs, one could remove individual names while leaving the remainder of the list unchanged. Thus if there was someone removed after Seth, we would understand “gave birth to” as “starting the genealogical chain that gave birth to” Enosh.
There is a further option, which is the view that I have taken throughout these chapters. They are simply not narrative history. There is a theological point being made. There are two lines, or two categories of people: Those who follow God and those who don’t. The ultimate goal of those who follow God is to be with God (Enoch), while the ultimate goal of those who oppose God is to wind up like Lamech in further destruction. The chronology itself is simply a tradition whose form is maintained to hold together the full story that is being told–a story that teaches.
John the Methodist on Locusts and Honey has an excellent post on sexual ethics and the exegesis behind it.
He discusses the misuse of the story of David and Bathsheba in order to make a point that was nonetheless a good one. When he encountered this in a small group discussion, John was silent on the exegetical issue so as to not interfere with the main point, which was good.
This reminds me of going through 40 days of purpose in our church. As we went through the book The Purpose-Driven Church, I was regularly annoyed by the use of scripture, even when the points were good, and might have been made effectively using different scripture. With my field being Biblical languages, I was particularly disturbed by the “translation shopping” approach in which he used whatever version gave words that would let him integrate it with his text. This often resulted in a phrase taken out of context.
I kept this between my wife and myself, and didn’t tell anyone else in the church for the same reason John cites: I didn’t want to weaken the good point by pointing out the poor use of scripture. On the other hand I’m concerned that if we constantly make good points while abusing scripture, how do we deal effectively with abuse of scripture to make bad points?
I’m adding a couple of links from Christianity Today to this site, and I want to call particular attention to them. I try to keep the links, especially those near the top, as useful as possible. One of my key suggestions for Bible study is to look at different views in order to fill out your understanding of a passage. You don’t have to agree with all those views, but you will be better off for testing your own view against those other views.
There is an excellent artile on ChristianBibleStudies.com, that can help a small group with this approach. How do you generate discussion and get the members of your group profitably (to them and to all) involved in discussion? How can each individual grow. JoHannah Reardon makes some excellent suggestions in an article titled How To Lead a Good Discussion. I recommend it to all small group discussion leaders.
