MysteriousFaith

Of Divine Origins, But Cultural In Authorship

God does not need the Bible to reach man kind. Such a limitation results in agnosticism over the unreached who have never held or heard the Bible. God reveals Himself to man in various ways. Yes, the Bible is the fullest revelation of His will for us - but it is not the only revelation. Where natural revelation, specifically the revelation that occurs through science, seems to cause us to question certain Biblical stories of the Bible I suggest a honest response: with God all things are possible - so yes, these could have literally happened. However, the point is not the factualness of the event, it is the spiritual truth revealed within the story.

Of Divine Origins, But Cultural In Authorship

Ahemmm … Excuse me, Mr. Seeker - a couple of questions for you:

1. Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?
2. Do you believe it is inerrant?
3. Do you believe it is infallible?

Pssst … You, Mr. Christian - a couple of questions if you don’t mind! Since I already know you believe the Bible is the Word of God, and you believe it is inerrant and infallible, I have a couple of different questions:

1. Was the earth created in six literal 24-hour periods, or is that a metaphor? (Genesis chapters 1-2)
2. Do you believe Jonah was swallowed by a whale and then spat back onto dry land? (Jonah 2:10)
3. Do women have to stay silent in the church now? (I Corinthians 14:34)
4. Do you still have to abstain from clothing woven of two different kinds of material? (Leviticus 19:19)
5. When did it stop being OK for men to have umpteen hundred wives like David and Solomon? (I Chronicles 14:3-7, I Kings 11:1-8)
6. If the Bible is about A God of love, why is a critical social issue like slavery not explicitly eliminated within Biblical law? (Exodus 21:20-36)
7. Why does your God of love allow whole cultures to be exterminated? How do you rectify that with the message of being a God of love? (I Samuel 15:1-3)

In case you can’t tell from my writing I am a Christian. For me, being a Christian means that as my mind is fully engaged I will come to know and experience God’s ultimate spiritual truths all the more fully. To not use my mind is to not experience and fully appreciate the mysteries of knowing God. Avoiding questions like those presented above is to not understand some part of God’s outworking in the human story; and so, I must seek to understand what these rules - these stories mean. How are we to interpret portions of the Bible that strike a modern reader as mythology? Are we to allegorize everything? On one hand if we allegorize it all, what real truth are we left upon which to pin our hope? If we bifurcate saying some of the Bible is literal and some is figurative, how do we decide which part is which?

Concerns over consistency within Holy Scriptures are very important to me. Obviously, articles of faith have to be read, understood and applied. It is the synthesizing of Scriptural passages across time that have created disparities in how various religions view Old Testament law and New Testament objectives. Some denominations take a fully literal perspective, arguing for word-by-word literal interpretation - regardless of the complexities and obvious disagreements that can exist when such a literal position is taken. Most denominations argue for a perspective on the Bible that embraces infallibility. The point of infallibility is slightly different than the argument for inerrancy; in the case of infallibility, the position is that the spiritual truths within the Bible are completely true. Taking the position of infallibility does not suggest Scripture does not contain historical truth, but rather that even the most historical of events is designed to support an ultimate spiritual reality.

Let me also suggest to my Christian brothers and sisters that we view these struggles openly. As a former atheist, I am sensitive to the questions non-religious people ask. Yes, some ask informed questions with the objective being to trip up simple minded believers who have not struggled to reconcile Scripture fully - people who live with blind faith where some level of reason is demanded. But others ask these type of questions with sincerity - they struggle to accommodate a view of Scripture that is holy and inspired with a recognition that certain parts of the Bible - the Old Testament law specifically - seem incongruent with New Testament guidelines and how the church lives today. A more detailed exploration of cultural hermeneutics will allow genuine spiritual seekers to better understand what is revealed spiritual truth and what is cultural commentary.

Understanding the Application Technique of Cultural Hermeneutics

In his book Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis, Dr. William Webb puts forward a basic model for his application of cultural hermeneutics. He calls it the “X => Y => Z Principle” (page 31). Three components are critical to understand and apply what Dr. Webb calls his redemptive-movement hermeneutic. The first component, “X”, represents the position of an issue within the original culture the idea being discussed was committed to one’s mind, oral tradition or paper. “X” is a perspective of an issue, viewed through the lens of the day. Properly acknowledging the role of “X” in understanding difficult Scriptural passages is critical to getting to ultimate spiritual truth. Christians are so focused, and rightly so, on maintaining the divine origins of Holy Scripture that it is forgotten and often-times even denied that the Bible was composed, transferred and interpreted by human hands.

The second component, “Y”, is the central position of the idea being presented. “Y” is the actual statement of belief, the point of fact if you will, that is “an ethic ‘frozen in time.’” (page 32) The best way of looking at this mid-point is as a distillation of what the actual words represent as the Bible is developing a subject in that day and time.

The third component, “Z”, is the ultimate ethic of the Biblical text. It is, to borrow from a phrase we used earlier, the representation of ultimate spiritual truth. As we will see, divisive issues in our day exist primarily when people focus on literal application of “X” or “Y” instead of focusing on the ultimate redemption outworking revealed in the spiritual truth “Z” is representing.

Taken together, this technique suggests a more balanced way of looking at Scripture: “The X => Y => Z principle illustrates how numerous aspects of the biblical text were not written to establish a utopian society with complete justice and equity. They were written within a cultural framework with limited moves toward an ultimate ethic.” (page 31)

Weaving this hermeneutic together is an overarching theme to any means of attempting to interpret Scripture: “Nothing surpasses the need to live out the redemptive spirit of Scripture.” (page 31) Complexities, tension within supposed systematic theologies and surface level disagreements all disappear in a heart given over to seeing the ultimate redemptive value of Scripture. Where we fixate on the factualness of these particular segments of Scripture, we do so at the expense of spiritual truths that can fundamentally change lives.

Slaves, Women and Homosexuals

Using the X => Y => Z principle offers wonderful insight into the contentious discussions revolving around the Bible’s acceptance of slavery, its comfort at the subjugation of women, and its treatment of homosexuals.

The case of slavery best illustrates the mechanism behind Dr. Webb’s cultural hermeneutic. In the original culture of the Old Testament era, slavery was expected, condoned and practiced regularly. Slaves were the spoils of war and the sign of affluence. Those who struggle with the authenticity of Scripture rightly question why a divinely inspired document could not rise above the culture of the day and completely condemn slavery, mandating its abolition. People who do not understand how the Bible can be divine but can also accept such a social institution are asking a very good question.

Examples of the Bible not going far enough in relation to slavery are plentiful: slaves are expected to be property of the owner (Exodus 21:21) and they can be acceptably used for the purposes of reproduction (Genesis 16:1-4; 30:3-4, 9-10; cf. Genesis 35:22). In addition sexual liaisons with a woman slave are forgiven if the man offers a guilt-offering to the Lord (Leviticus 19:20-22, cf. Deuteronomy 22:25-27). If that same man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife he and the woman must both be put to death (Leviticus 20:10). Why the double standard? In Exodus 21:20-21 the response to the death of a slave from the beating given him or her by the master is for the master to “be punished.” If the slave “survives for a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property” (Exodus 21:20-21). That same passage goes on to say in verses 28-32 that the life of a slave that has been gored by an ox is worth less than a free child or a free Israeli citizen. In fact, the owner of an ox that gores a slave must pay thirty shekels and have the ox killed; had that same ox killed an Israelite, the ox and the owner are both put to death.

Dr. Webb’s model is appealing because it allows Scripture to be seen through the eyes of the culture, rather than imposing a strict standard of infallibility for every passage. Through Dr. Webb’s model we can look at the issue of slavery and ask ourselves if the Bible holds out any redemptive progression within its discussion of slavery. The answer to such a question is yes. In Exodus 23:12 Israel is commanded to provide a seventh-day rest to slaves. Slaves set free are to be provided for according to Deuteronomy 15:12-18. Limitations are placed on physical mistreatment (Exodus 21:20-21, 26-27). Safety must be offered to foreign runaway slaves (Deuteronomy 23:15; cf. Exodus 21:26-27). Men who make their living in the slave trade are condemned in Deuteronomy 24:7, Exodus 21:16 and I Timothy 1:10.

Dr. Webb’s model says that the issue of slavery and women can be shown, by the standards of their day, to be clearly redemptive. I prefer the word progressive to define the movement from the ethic of the day to the ultimate ethic that spiritual truth would require. In the case of slaves, the Bible shows progress from the standard of the day where slaves were property and could be treated however the master desired to a more progressive standard where slaves had rights and should be ultimately released.

In a similar vein, Dr. Webb’s hermeneutic principle shows more clearly that the role of women is progressive in relation to the culture of the day. People read various parts of the Pauline epistles where women are commanded to be silent in church and to not teach men from the perspective of our culture today. What is missed in this is an appreciation for the culture’s view of women at that moment and time. While the Roman view of women had advanced, affording increased liberties and freedom when compared to Stoic Rome (508-202 B.C.), Paul is writing to a culture still bound by chauvinism. Will Durant’s Caesar and Christ tracks among many other things the progression of women’s rights in the Roman republic. Paul’s comments about women are viewed through the lens of our culture today - a culture that has finally dealt with women’s rights, sexism, chauvinism and suffrage. When Paul stipulates that women should save their questions for home and not for the church he was no-doubt making such a statement because of his realization that the culture of the day did not educate women. Wanting the service to be edifying for all, Paul suggested a means of answering questions from women, but doing so in a way that would be culturally accepted and institutionally reasonable.

Homosexuality presents a different challenge to Dr. Webb’s hermeneutic. In the case of homosexuality, the culture of the day accepted it completely. Durant’s book on the Roman empire reinforces this point as do any number of original Roman manuscripts. With slavery and the subjugation of women, both were accepted in the culture of the day and in both cases, a strong case can be made that the Bible argues for progressive redemptive action. No such redemptive progression can be shown for homosexuality. Dr. Webb thus argues that the original mandates against homosexual behavior can and should be maintained cross-cultures and trans-historically.

The single biggest question I have in applying Dr. Webb’s model is this: if the addressing of slavery within the Bible is not fully redemptive and is bound within the culture of the day, what are we to take away from Old Testament Law? Is it, as some have suggested, a means of articulating to Israel that no human life, regardless of how pious and restricted, could earn God’s favor? An impossible standard to illustrate an illogical love?

Contrasting Myth Versus Fact

In C.S. Lewis’ The Weight of Glory, he addresses the role mythology played in his view of Christianity. Lewis’ conversion to Christianity was heavily impacted by his close friend J.R.R. Tolkien. Tolkien shared with Lewis his view that much of the Bible should be read as a story - the greatest story of all - but as story. This willingness to view the Bible through the same lens that educated men had viewed the greatest stories of antiquity allowed Lewis to embrace the ultimate spiritual truth behind Christianity.

“Theology, while saying that a special illumination has been vouchsafed to Christians and (earlier) to Jews, also says that there is some divine illumination vouchsafed to all men. The Divine light, we are told, ‘lighteneth every man.’ We should, therefore, expect to find in the imagination of great Pagan teachers and myth makers some glimpse of that theme which we believe to be the very plot of the whole cosmic story - the theme of incarnation, death, and rebirth. And the differences between the Pagan Christs (Balder, Osiris, etc.) and the Christ Himself is much what we should expect to find. The Pagan stories are all about someone dying and risking, either every year, or else nobody knows where and nobody knows when. The Christian story is about a historical personage, whose execution can be dated pretty accurately, under a named Roman magistrate, and with whom the society that He founded is in a continuous relation down to the present day. It is not the difference between falsehood and truth. It is the difference between a real event on the one hand and dim dreams or premonitions of that same event on the other. It is like watching something come gradually into focus; first it hangs in the clouds of myth and ritual, vast and vague, then it condenses, grows hard and in a sense small, as a historical event in first century Palestine. This gradual focusing goes on even inside the Christian tradition itself. The earliest stratum of the Old Testament contains many truths in a form which I take to be legendary, or even mythical - hanging in the clouds, but gradually the truth condenses, becomes more and more historical. From things like Noah’s Ark or the sun standing still upon Ajalon, you come down to the court memoirs of King David. Finally you reach the New Testament and history reigns supreme, and the Truth is incarnate. And ‘incarnate’ is here more than a metaphor. It is not an accidental resemblance that what, from the point of view of being, is stated in the form ‘God became Man,’ should involve, from the point of view of human knowledge, the statement ‘Myth became Fact.’ The essential meaning of all things came down from the ‘heaven’ of myth to the ‘earth’ of history. In so doing, it partly emptied itself of its glory, as Christ emptied Himself of His glory to be Man. That is the real explanation of the fact that Theology, far from defeating its rivals by a superior poetry, is, in a superficial but quite real sense, less poetical than they. That is why the New Testament is, in the same sense, less poetical than the Old. Have you not often felt in Church, if the first lesson is some great passage, that the second lesson is somehow small by comparison - almost, if one might say so, humdrum? So it is and so it must be. That is the humiliation of myth into fact, of God into Man; what is everywhere and always, imageless and ineffable, only to be glimpsed in drama and symbol and acted poetry of ritual becomes small, solid - no bigger than a man who can lie asleep in a rowing boat on the Lake of Galilee.” (pages 128-130)

In a culture that values fiction only for entertainment, we too easily forget that stories have historically been the primary means of passing down history, social values and spiritual truth. Our scientific culture requires that we read a book of antiquity - the Bible - through the eyes of a society lost in facts, dying to understand a story.

The Sticky Question of Biblical Genocide

One of my intellectual heroes is Noam Chomsky. Arguably the world’s leading intellectual, Dr. Chomsky is a meek, mild and very approachable man. He remains to this day a man that is willing to personally answer questions from readers and students from around the world. While watching a documentary on his thoughts on the US media - Manufacturing Consent - he was shown speaking to a small group of people. In this quick shot Dr. Chomsky was shown stating “the Bible is one of the most genocidal books on the planet.” His comment about the atrocities, especially those in the Old Testament, inflicted at the request of God are not easy to avoid. Many reasonable people struggle with accepting Christianity because they can not reconcile the figure of Jesus - a man whose teaching the world has loved since His resurrection - with the violent and wrathful God of the Old Testament. For too long Christians have avoided an honest discussion of these passages - in large part because it would force upon them a need to more clearly define what in the Bible is cultural and what is revealed spiritual truth.

Only God knows my heart - I have confessed to Him as I wrote this article my fear that these thoughts and ideas were driven from a desire to intellectualize my faith or to excuse passages of Scripture I am unwilling to live by. I can easily recognize my own inability and perhaps more honestly, unwillingness to peer deeply into my own soul and know what it is I genuinely desire: head knowledge or personal relationship. I struggle immensely with the intellectualization of my faith as opposed to the simple outworking of it in my life. Spiritual truth is not based entirely on knowledge - it is experiential and relational - it is shown by how I live my life. I say this in the interests of full disclosure on this point: I wonder if some of the passages of Scripture where Israel wipes out entire cultures are “inspired” or whether they are guilty of the nationalism common to war-like people of the day.

Saying this raises the obvious response from conservatives that while God is a God of love, He ultimately punishes those that rebel against Him. I do not disagree; however, I believe the punishment is always redemptive in its design as opposed to being punitive in its outworking. Were the cultures Israel destroyed violent and God-less cultures? Some no doubt were. But I again think it makes more sense to view these passages as being overly nationalistic and not indicative of the ultimate spiritual truth behind punishment.

Let me go, if I may, one step further: in their book When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties, Dr. Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe address various supposed Biblical errors and disparities. Within their 615 page tome, the issue of slavery is not addressed in their comments on Exodus 21, 23, Leviticus 25, Deuteronomy 15, 23, 24 Jeremiah 34, Colossians 4, I Timothy 1. Their only comment is on Philemon 16. In contrast, the various passages like I Samuel 15:1-3 with the genocide of an entire race of people (in this case the Amalekites) time is taken to strongly defend God’s right to wrath. Why the strident defense on the part of Geisler and Howe of a God who encourages genocide and the flippant treatment of slavery - an issue that has plagued humanity since the foundation of civilization?

Were one to summarize the response by Geisler and Howe of such genocidal passages, the following argument would be put forward: God provides ample time for people to repent. When their sin has gotten out of hand, God’s patience is tried and, in an act of what appears to us as punishment but is really divine love, every member of the culture is exterminated. My problem with this line of reasoning is that I just can not equate it with Jesus’ message. Yes, punishment is a clear and consistent part of Christ’s message; however, his punishment seems to have a clear redemptive purpose to it. It is not punishment to reinforce His holiness (otherwise we would all be exterminated - none of us matching His standard of holiness) and set up a standard for the world to see - a divine object lesson if you will; rather, it is punishment whose end is to redeem and reconcile a lost and dying world to Him.

Geisler and Howe are wonderful expositors of God’s word and are leading intellectuals in the evangelical community; perhaps they would not consider me their brother in Christ, but I would certainly count them as fellow brothers. I would suggest that their fundamentalist - in this case a better word might be foundationalist - roots make it very difficult to reconcile their view of Scripture with difficult passages on slavery and women. I would also suggest that their willingness to accommodate passages of Scripture where babies are killed at the request of God is not being critical enough. Perhaps their view of God is so profoundly submissive that they rightly do not question any command they believe He has given - that is a beautiful spirit and one I would not question. What I would question is an unwillingness to appreciate that such submission troubles those sensitive souls like myself that find such a command from God wholly inconsistent with the most direct manifestation of deity we were given: the life of Christ.

Conclusion

My one negative thought on this book was that it did not go far enough. Perhaps it could not in the space allotted to it; however, too many questions exist relative to how to draw lines between what is cultural in the Bible and what is revealed spiritual truth. To me, to discuss the issue of slavery without a fuller discussion of the place interpretation of Old Testament law is leaving too much out. I have too many unanswered questions after reading this book - specifically questions about the purpose of the law and the portions of it we are committed to live by now.

My understanding of proper hermeneutics is based on the following principles - which I sincerely share in the hopes it helps those who, as I have, struggle with understanding the Bible:

The authors of the Bible are not above the culture, knowledge and history of its day; as a result the fullest understanding of the spiritual truths within the Bible require a culturally sensitive approach.

The portions of the Bible that we must understand and apply are those spiritual truths that are clearly trans-historical and cross-cultural. We must make every effort to dig into Scripture with the goal being to get to the ultimate spiritual ethic embodied in the passages we study.

Certain sections of the Bible, in particular certain parts of the Old Testament, bear resemblance to mythologies contemporary to their day. These Biblical stories may be completely true - but the point is not their factual truth, but rather the revealed spiritual truth behind the potentially mythologized allegory. The crutch of this point is what it reveals about your view of God. Is your God big enough to circumvent the very science He created to work a miracle? If not, your God is not the God of the Bible. If you believe that God is capable of doing this, but that the story was myth designed to remind Israelites that God should receive the credit for their military victories or of the ultimate power of God, then you have a view of God that is fully Scriptural.

God does not need the Bible to reach man kind. Such a limitation results in agnosticism over the unsaved who have never held or heard the Bible. God reveals Himself to man in various ways. Yes, the Bible is the fullest revelation of His will for us - but it is not the only revelation. Where natural revelation, specifically the revelation that occurs through science, seems to cause us to question certain Biblical stories of the Bible I suggest a honest response: with God all things are possible - so yes, these could have literally happened. However, the point is not the factualness of the event, it is the spiritual truth revealed within the story.

Lastly, I would suggest that we should be much more willing to actualize the role the Holy Spirit plays in the interpretation of Scripture. Too many Christians, myself included, do not really embrace the fullness and outworking of the Trinity. For me, I must fall back into the arms of God - believing He will be patient with me and allow me to question and probe. Regardless of where I wander, I believe He will act in mercy and love - showing me my errors and giving me the chance to correct my mistakes. If others, as I do, struggle to accommodate certain parts of the Bible - the sections that command genocide are good examples - I believe the Holy Spirit will lead us to understand the value, role and meaning we are to place on these sections. The Holy Spirit will also allow us to understand what is ultimate spiritual truth and what is cultural commentary. Only in the arms of our God can we hope to know truth - we should rest here more often.

previous post: Can It Ever Happen Again?
next post: Reflections on the Iraqi War

• Posted in Theology
• no comments
• Trackback
• May 29, 2004

• Bookmark on del.icio.us
• Bookmark on Digg

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website