Clothesline #9

Greetings to all on 6 OCT 2006

Word for the Day
Rationalism - theological or philosophical position which values reason as the ultimate judge of all statements. [1]

Quote for the Day
It is possible to learn all about the mysteries of the Bible and never be affected by it in one’s own soul. Great knowledge is not enough.
John Bunyan, The Pilgrim’s Progress [2]

Website for the Day
www.wadehodges.com
Read the blog entry dated 13 JUL 2006; it is the excerpt from the book mentioned below.

Thought for the Day
Several weeks ago I came across an excerpt from Luke Timothy Johnson [3] on Wade Hodges’ website. Johnson was exploring the concept that when we read scriptures that don’t seem to fit with what we know or practice; we do not have to fabricate some kind of harmony of all the passages on a particular topic. Instead, he suggests that the messages we read are intentionally in tension one with the other so that we must make decisions that are “critically contextual.” [4] Let’s consider a couple of examples to see what this looks like in real life.

In Deuteronomy 24.1-4 we read that a man cannot take back his wife that has been put away because she is considered impure. This is clearly a command, part of the Mosaic law. Now recall the story about how Saul’s daughter, Michal, was given to David because of his valor. [1SAM 18.27] We are not given the details; apparently he wasn’t interested (and was busy eluding Saul) and she became married to Paltiel. [2SAM 3.12-16] When David ascends to the throne he demands her back as his wife - a clear violation of the Torah. Now, I’m not condoning what he did but it is noteworthy that there is no condemnation, no visit from the prophet Nathan regarding this matter. We can read later that David “did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, and did not turn aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.” [1KIN 15.5]

Next, let’s look at the story of Hosea and Gomer. Hosea was told to “Go, take to yourself a wife of harlotry and have children.” [HOS 1.2] We know the rest of the story about how she left him and returned to her former lifestyle. In the first part of chapter three Hosea is told to bring her back, “even as the Lord loves the people of Israel.” Hosea illustrated with his own life how God will take us back, even after we commit adultery, whether it be literal or figurative. But wait a moment; didn’t we have a clear command that a man could not take back a polluted wife? The original command is in conflict with the actual practice and yet is not characterized as sin. In fact, Hosea is instructed to do so. Did not God take back his own people many times? The text is in tension so that we must make decisions.

The Jews believed that the commandments were purposefully set at odds, one against the other. In Jesus’ day each rabbi promoted the commandment which he felt was the most important. For some, it was to keep the Sabbath holy. If the ox fell into the ditch, you just left it there to die despite the command in Deuteronomy 22.1-4 to render aid to animals. A person had to decide which command would take preeminence. Jesus addressed this when he asked, “Which of you, having a son or an ox that has fallen into a well, will not immediately pull him out on a sabbath day?” [LUK 14.5] Who would leave their son in the well because of the sabbath restriction against work?

See how he answers their question with a question? The next time you read through the gospels notice how often this technique is used. This was the way rabbis debated among themselves and their students. The teaching of a rabbi was referred to as his yoke and the questioning back and forth was referred to as testing the yoke. [5] Sometimes the text actually says that they were putting him to the test. Matthew [22.34-40], Mark [12.28-34] and Luke [10.25-28] all record Jesus’ response when he was put to the test concerning which command was the greatest. Jesus encouraged people to follow him because his “yoke is easy and my burden is light.” [MAT 11.30] He was not making a comparison to the physical yoke of an ox as we have always been taught.

In Matthew 12 we read the story of Jesus and his disciples eating from the grain field on the sabbath. Of course this drew comments of disapproval from the leaders. Jesus tried to show them that “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.” [MAR 2.27]

Which to obey - keep the sabbath or get the ox out of the ditch? Keep the sabbath or go hungry? Now, just as back then, we constantly make decisions regarding which commands take precedence in our daily life. What if, instead of expending time and energy trying to make agreement where there is none, we concluded that “the NT actually legitimates a healthy pluralism of practice within the same basic identity”? [6] Just as the rabbis were free to engage in healthy debate about which command was the greatest, so are we free to discuss and, even, diverge on many applications of the text. Both Johnson and Brueggemann [7] recognize the dichotomy of honoring the authority of the text as normative while at the same time allowing, even forcing, us to wrestle with the text in view of our experience and our culture. Next month we will consider our power to exercise reinterpretation.

May God Bless
Mike Toole

My friend and editor had to step down because of other commitments. She will be missed. She has proofread, critiqued and contributed ideas for about a year. If you know of someone who might be interested in assuming that role, send me a note.

1. Carroll Osburne, Women in the Church, ACU Press, Abilene TX, 2001, p.xviii

2. Reflections, Christianity Today, September 2006, p.112

3. Luke Timothy Johnson, Scripture and Discernment: Decision Making in the Church, Abingdon Press, Nashville TN, 1996

4. Walter Brueggemann, Rethinking Church Models Through Scripture, http://theologytoday.pstem.edu/jul1991/v48-2article1.htmI believe the “critical” refers to the study and application of the text and the “contextual” refers to the context of our culture and experience.

5. Ray Vander Laan, Lessons from www.followtherabbi.com

6. Johnson, op. cit.

7. Walter Brueggemann, Interpretation and Obedience - From Faithful Reading to Faithful Living, Augsburg Press, Minneapolis MN, 1991, p.152