an outlet of encouragement, explanation, and exhortation

Category: Bible Study (Page 4 of 4)

6. Cultural and Social Norms and Scripture

Some have found it helpful, when seeking to understand the scripture passages that speak of the place of women in the church and in marriage, to consider also those passages that speak of Christians in the context of slavery. These passages assume that there is slavery, and describe how to live the life of Christ within the context of a society that includes slavery. In the past, these passages were used by some to justify the institution of slavery. This type of argument for slavery is rarely heard today – and rightly so. We can appreciate a Christ-like attitude in the social context of slavery while understanding that slavery is a social institution that God does not endorse as his ideal. It is an evil of a fallen world; slavery is a form that cannot remain intact as the kingdom of God comes in its fullness.

Therefore, we interpret passages that teach about the behavior of masters and slaves to be culturally or socially conditioned rather than as establishing the institution of slavery as God’s plan for human relationships. We can learn how to live in testimony to Christ when embedded in the social context of slavery. We can see how living the radical life of love and truth embodied by Christ would begin to bring into question the underlying assumptions upon which distorted social structures of a fallen world are founded. We extrapolate from these teachings to other similar but different contexts such as the relationship between employees and employers. We understand that these scripture passages teach us Christ-like relational attitudes toward work and authority in the context of slavery, while not teaching slavery as a Christian social ideal.

Texts about women in ministry roles and about marriage often parallel texts about Christians in the context of slavery. So, many see a parallel between the social context of marriage and the social context of slavery in scripture. Could there be some parallel between women in patriarchal societies and slaves in a social context of slavery? However, we know that marriage is not parallel to slavery in that marriage is a creation of God. And yet scripture testifies to the effect of the fall and the resulting curse upon marriage relationships: “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” This effect can be seen in the roles to which women have been relegated in fallen human society. We cannot help but see the corruption brought by the fall in our marriages and in our society’s attitudes toward marriage. It is important to work towards views of the place of women in society and marriage that honor God’s creative goodness in giving us the gift of marriage. It is important that we seek to move beyond that which is less than God intended.

We can readily see that not all attitudes and beliefs about marriage honor the teaching of scripture about human relationships and love. Similarly, Christians have realized that not all attitudes and beliefs about the place of women in society honor the teaching of scripture regarding human relationships and love. Might it be that some scriptures that speak of the relationship between men and women are speaking from within and to the social context of the time without endorsing the patriarchal order of that social context? Might they be speaking into that context regarding how to live in it as a follower of Jesus? Judging by the precedent of texts speaking in the context of slavery, it could be so. It seems to me that it certainly is so! For an example of this approach, see Gordon Fee’s article The Cultural Context of Ephesians 5:18 to 6:9.

Of course, the key is discerning what is inherent in God’s pattern for marriage and the relationship between men and women. God is author of the difference between men and women. What in our culture reflects God-created difference and what is a refection of sinful humans living in a fallen world? Do any of the scriptures that discuss the place of women in the church or in marriage teach within a context of cultural patterns that are less than ideal? Might these scriptures in some ways be similar to the scriptures that discuss how a follower of Christ is to live as a slave or a master of slaves – not teaching the cultural pattern of slavery or patriarchal marriage but rather teaching how one lives as a Christian faced with an imperfect or unjust pattern in one’s culture?

Most cultures at the time of the early church were strongly patriarchal, with some instances of local reaction against patriarchy. Women were generally not well-educated or formally prepared for leadership. Women were not allowed to be the disciples of rabbis who taught young men to understand and apply the Hebrew scripture they had memorized as boys.

Other parallels may also be helpful. Moses was given laws governing divorce. And yet Jesus taught that these laws were not a reflection that divorce was pleasing to God, but rather a concession to the hard hearts of men. There is a clue that may help us from Jesus’ response when questioned about divorce. Consider Matthew 19:3-8 [niv]:

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

In verses four and eight, Jesus refers to “the beginning.” Marriage since the fall is not as it was “in the beginning.” The relationship between men and women in general is not as it was “in the beginning.” What was it like in the beginning?

Next: 7. Beginnings

Listen to audio from Regent College!

Regent College has a treasure-trove of good stuff at their online bookstore. Check it out.. Many classes and lectures and chapel talks are downloadable as MP3 files. I listen to them while I exercise at the Y rather that dying the slow death of exercise boredom or watching ESPN on the elliptical machine’s TV. It’s my post-basketball low-impact fitness regime. You can read about Regent College on Wikipedia also. The class audio comes with a syllabus so you can read the texts along with listening to the lectures. You’ll learn a lot!

The chapel talks are often available as free downloads. They are by faculty and visiting teachers. Many are superb. They’re great as devotionals. Get on the bookstore email list. The sign-up (as of right now in March, 2011) is a couple of items down on the left-had column of this page. They’ll send you nearly weekly links to free lectures and special offers for discounted items. Wait for holidays and sales to get great class audio offers; you can often get 50% off. Stock up over the holidays with the money your mother-in-law gives you! (That’s what I do. Too bad if you’re not married or your mother-in-law doesn’t like you.)

Lest there be any doubt, I am not connected to Regent College or their bookstore in any way. I don’t even know anyone who is. This is a free tip. I did visit Vancouver for a day last summer and drove within a mile or so of the campus on my way to do some sightseeing. Vancouver was lovely and we enjoyed it a lot. But the cheese was expensive. I think that may mean the the US subsidizes cheese more than Canada does. And that’s why I need something constructively high-impact with which to occupy my mind while I’m low-impact ellipticalizing for the sake of cardio.

Your doctrine of inspiration and revelation should arise from the data of the Bible…

Your doctrine of inspiration and revelation should arise from the data of the Bible, not from somewhere else. And if the Bible doesn’t fit your doctrine of inspiration and revelation then the problem’s with your doctrine; the problem’s not with the Bible. So change your doctrine. Or adjust it. Don’t abandon it, but adjust it. Think about the question ‘what does it mean that the Bible is inspired and revelatory? Why am I having a problem with this or that theory about process?’

This is a quote of Iain Provan, Professor of Biblical Studies, Regent College. You can read about Regent College on Wikipedia also. The quote is from lecture #5 of Old Testament Foundations near the 21st minute. I’m learning quite a lot from working through this class. On my own, of course! The textbooks are An Introduction to the Old Testament: Second Edition by Longman and Dillard and A Biblical History of Israel by Provan, Long and Longman.

It’s not that I haven’t studied this stuff before, mostly through reading and often assisted by various R.C. Sproul’s lecture series (among others). It’s that having taught through the Bible several times now, I have better questions and a better context to understand what I’m learning. Regent College has a treasure-trove of good stuff at their online bookstore. Check it out.

How can one reconcile Exodus 20:5-6 with Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18?

Colin asks:

I had a question. In verses 5 & 6, as part of the command to not worship false gods, God says “…for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand of those who love me and keep my commandments.”

I’m confused, because in Deuteronomy chapter 24:16 and again in Ezekiel 18, and also when Jesus healed the man who was blind from birth in John 9, it is made clear that children are not punished for the sins of their parents.

The literal Hebrew in Exodus 20 is that the “guilt” (awvone) of the “father” is “visited” (pawkod) on the “sons”. As with many Hebrew words, there is a lot of judgment involved in translating them into English.

The Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18 passages teach that the one who sins is the one who will die for the sin. So, the vocabulary is different between the Exodus 20 passage and the other two. I expect that is significant. The key words in Exodus 20 are the ones translated “guilt” and “visited”. The idea can be that punishment extends to the third and fourth generation or that the guilt of the father extends in its impact to the third and fourth generation.

The way I’ve come to put it together is something like this. The ultimate penalty for sin comes to the one who sins. The ultimate penalty is that which is between the sinner and God, in which sin leads to eternal death and separation from God. So, no one other than the sinner suffers the ultimate penalty for a sin. That seems pretty clear from the Deuteronomy and Ezekiel passages. But sin is not so neat and clean. As a father, I’m all too aware of the impact my sin has on my children and grandchildren. As a pastor, I shudder to think of the wider consequences of falling into any sin that shakes the faith of those whom I have led and taught and shepherded. God created us to live in community, and our sin is a community matter. Community and family ties are there because God has created a world in which it is so. The impact of my sin on the community or family around me is serious, and God says it will be serious right up front. Think of the complaints directed at God by those who proclaim the suffering of the innocent children and others who are “innocent”. Well, God created the world so that people are connected. It is a precondition for love and for good to flow between humans, just as it enables bad things to be communicated. People don’t give God credit for the good that can be transmitted between us in the connected world that he created, but they do blame him for the evil that is transmitted!

So, by God’s design, our sin impacts those around us – even to the third and fourth generation. However, God says that he will personally show love to a thousand generations of those who love him, magnifying the good that can be communicated . One might suppose that “a thousand” in this context means that he never stops showing love to the generations of those who love him; faithfulness and love toward him cannot be stopped. Big numbers like “a thousand” or “seventy times seven” are usually standing in for the idea of “way more than can be counted”. In modern western terms, we might say “never ending” or “infinite”.

There is likely some significance to “third and fourth” generation. This probably is idiom for “and all his living descendants”. Covenants were made between families, not just between individuals. When A makes a covenant with B, their families are expected to uphold that covenant or face the consequences – as families. I think of the young in Jerusalem when it fell. They suffered the punishment that was brought about by the sin of their fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers… and so on. I expect the siege of Jerusalem and its fall took a toll on more than a few who were faithful to God, who suffered only because of the “big picture” of sin in the southern kingdom. And yet, in the ultimate sense of justice, those who were trusting in God would not suffer eternal separation from him, even if they died in the horror of the city’s fall.

That’s how I reconcile it. I wouldn’t pretend that there might not be more to it or deeper things I still don’t grasp; but that’s how I sort it out in my thinking given the whole testimony of scripture and my trust in God.

Aren’t the early stories in Genesis repetitions of the stories from earlier cultures?

Aren’t the early stories in Genesis repetitions of the stories from earlier cultures? We read similar stories from older sources elsewhere.

Perhaps they are. Let’s consider. If significant event events in human history happened before the time of the Israelites, wouldn’t one expect there might be echoes of these events in the stories of many peoples? So, no problem there.

Well then, one might ask, shouldn’t we be like good historians and go with the older accounts of what happened, separated by less time from the actual events? Speaking as a Christian who believes in God and believes God inspired the books of the Bible, I would say no. God chose to retell his version of the stories to the Israelites so they would understand the past accurately and pass the stories on to us. If God is real and was there to see what happened, then we are hearing from a reliable eyewitness. Of course, such a view depends on taking God and his action in history seriously.

Newer posts »