From a webpage titled: History of Winnie the Pooh

Gavin (at Otagosh) posted a fairly long response to my piece Biblical marriages. Since he took the trouble to reply at some length as a post, I’ll do the same.

His critique starts

Then Tim makes an amazing statement: “In terms of the teaching of Scripture it is clear that Gen 2 is a privileged text (Jesus and Paul both cite it when discussing marriage).”

Genesis 2 is a privileged text?  In what sense?  Both Jesus and Paul cite other texts too.  Or, to be more specific, Paul and the Gospel writers cite other texts.¹

Well, yes, evidently both Jesus and Paul² also refer to other parts of Scripture. A full treatment of what the Bible says about marriage would need to treat them and yet other texts (that neither of these use) also. But still it seems to me, for a Christian reading of Scripture the fact that both Jesus and Paul (more than once) cite Gen 2 does make that passage a somewhat privileged locus for seeking a biblical understanding of marriage.³ No, Gavin, I cannot accept that all texts, or passages, are equal. Like most people⁴ I have a “canon within the canon, though it will be different for different purposes and I think that (as I began to here)⁵

From a webpage titled: History of Winnie the Pooh

Gavin continued:

There were no “red letter” options available to indicate Jesus’ actual words, quotation marks had yet to be invented, and speaking of “invented”, much (please note that I’m not saying all) of the material attributed to Jesus has clearly been put into his mouth.

This seems to assume that when I say “Jesus” my interest is historical. There is a terrible tendency in modern thought to value history and “facts”. But I am not a historian, I am a theologian, my primary interest is not in reconstructing a plausible history but in the character “Jesus” who inspires and is the centre of the New Testament. This Jesus whether or not “invented”⁶ does make special use of this passage.

This section of the post concludes:

Tim’s decision to anoint Genesis two as “privileged” is entired [sic]⁷ theological and subjective.

I hope that I have shown that the first is entirely true, but perhaps to be expected of a theologian, and that the second is true only in the most general sense. I gave a reason that Gavin did not like, and in a short post failed to present any of the others, perhaps I have begun to rectify that lack above.

Gavin then quotes something I wrote and rejects it. I wrote:

“in this (as in everything else) human sinfulness warps and twists God’s intent. All of the ‘biblical’ marriages listed in the graphic reflect this.”

Gavin replied:

The problem is that, as Tim knows full well, the documents themselves contain little or no condemnation of these customs.  If there’s warping and twisting going on, wouldn’t you assume that this would be signalled within the text? 

Well, Gavin and I might assume that, but the fact is that biblical narratives though they frequently recount the most terrible breaches of God’s desires (as expressed in the texts themselves) seldom mark them as such, we cannot rely on such explicit markers. But then the simple fact that no Bible character (with the arguable exception of Jesus) is presented without faults, sins and failings might suggest – and certainly does to my theological reading – that the Bible sees humans as sinful, warped and twisted. Nice middle-class liberal moderns may not like it, but we are all broken and in need of repair.

On the charge of biblicism that Gavin closes with, perhaps I’d be happy to plead guilty.

1. I am sorry, I have spent half an hour playing with HTML but cannot reproduce gavin’s emphasis in these quotes, something to do with the way this theme handles blockquotes :(
2. See below, I’ll continue to use these convenient shorthand designations despite Gavin’s scorning of them.
3. Much like a blog post getting lots of links would privilegeit in Google’s algorithms ;)
4. Except raging fundamentalists.
5. Though of course in a longer treatment I should have added other reasons, like the claim that Genesis serves as a preface to both the Torah and Scripture as a whole, and the further claim that the early chapters are particularly “laden” with significant teaching, and the claim that Gen 2 is “about” marriage and is one of few Old Testament texts that are…
6. I know why I put quotation marks round the word, since i seriously doubt that the gospel authors or the traditions that may stand behind them intended to “invent”, but why does Gavin use scare quotes here?
7. PS3/2/12  now corrected in the original post.

Facebook does not seen good at giving attributions, so I don't know who produced this, if it was you write to me and I'll gladly attribute it :)

I’ve seen several peopl, including Rowland Crowcher, post this ”infographic” on Facebook. Since I’ve spoken quite a bit on “Family in the Bible”, and am due to speak to a leaders group from the NZ Christian Network on the “Theology of Marriage” really soon it makes me hopping mad!

In one sense the graphic is “true”. The Bible does present all these, and more (some arguably worse) patterns of marriage. It is also true that God chose to work in and through many of these. Just looking at Abraham (the “father” of the three monotheistic religions) or Jacob (aka “Israel”) makes it clear that God does not turn aside from some convoluted and perverse human arrangements in choosing who to use as a channel of grace.

But, do any of these represent “a biblical view of marriage”. Hell no! It is time for some stakes in the ground. In terms of the teaching of Scripture it is clear that Gen 2 is a privileged text (Jesus and Paul both cite it when discussing marriage). This passage, and the teaching of Jesus and Paul make some basics clear:

Marriage:

• was ordained by God
• is the union of a man and a woman
• produces and nurtures the next generation
• provides necessary partnership

However, in this (as in everything else) human sinfulness warps and twists God’s intent. All of the “biblical” marriages listed in the graphic reflect this.

See some of my earlier posts for background to this one:

•  What is a family?
• Does the Bible present a preferred pattern of family
• Reading the Bible: seeking teaching on family

I am aware that what I have written in the very short and angry post here will be understood by some people as endorsing particular views on the currently hot and vexed topic of “Gay marriages”. It does. Gay marriage is an oxymoron since not only is marriage the partnership of a man and a woman, but also intended to produce as well as nurture the next generation. However, the view endorsed above says nothing about either Civil Unions, or about the possibility of blessing (or even solemnising) them in churches. As far as I am concerned that seem to be separate issues, and ones on which my view of marriage does not entail any particular position. I wish that we (Christians of all stripes, marriage activists of every opinion, and especially the authorities of both states and churches) would just sit back and separate the two things and issues.

Photo by unaesthetic

David Lamb has a fine rant: I hate Study Bibles. Here’s the heart of it:

Study Bible comments are kind of like stuff on the internet. Sometimes the information is good, sometimes it’s junk. But at least when you go to the internet, you know you’re going to find some junk. You don’t expect to find junk in your Bible. At least you shouldn’t.

Some Study Bibles are relatively harmless, and even helpful at times. The notes are limited and just provide context and background that most typical Bible readers just don’t know.

The curse in Rev 21:18 is fairly explicit:

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll.

A charitable interpretation would be that the curse only applies to Revelation (“this scroll”) in which case I suppose a “study bible” with ZERO additions to Revelation escapes the curse. But friends your trusty NIV Study Bible is cursed with all the plagues described in Revelation!

My title is less precise, but I think more evocative of what I see as the real problem that Randal Rauser’s How fundamentalists undermine the authority of scripture. But then no one would accuse me of being systematic, even if they do understand that I’m a theologian ;)

Randal is rapidly becoming my go-to for a Systematic Theologian or Philosopher who understands the Bible. In this post he neatly and surgically dissects the “literal where possible” claim that Fundamentalists make, and shows it to be daft, dangerous and a disaster for those of us who love, but do not worship, Scripture.

Read it!

Billy Connolly. Taken by Jemma Lambert on April 13, 2005. The image links to a video clip that illustrates some of the points made here, but which uses excessive bad language.

Humour and hurtfulness often go hand in hand. Comedians can hardly be squeamish about offending. Indeed one of the liberating possibilities humour opens for us is to make fun of the powerful. But often in everyday life the people humorists make fun of are not powerful, still less powerful and oppressive. Rather they are often weaker with less access to resources than the comedian. (If you doubt this just search on YouTube for really funny clips, and note how often the “fun” is hurtful.)

Thinking about humour in biblical books, for my series seeking signs of humour in each book of the (Hebrew) Bible, I looked at Proverbs 26:1-9.¹ Humour is used widely in proverbs, and so in Proverbs, because it is memorable, and proverbs aim to teach.

Here is the beginning of Proverbs 26 with some comments on how each couplet is either funny or hurtful, or not:

1 Like snow in summer or rain in harvest,
so honor is not fitting for a fool.

Hershey saw this one as funny, but I can’t see the joke myself.

2 Like a sparrow in its flitting, like a swallow in its flying,
an undeserved curse goes nowhere.

Having a variety of birds around to watch, here in the bush clad hills between Tauranga and Rotorua, I found this picture of an undeserved curse flitting here and there, never settling, like a sparrow, or like a swallow swooping, swerving and always returning, most amusing.

3 A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey,
and a rod for the back of fools.

Expresses clearly the biblical idea of discipline, beat someone soundly and you may knock some sense into them, but it is not funny. Unless perhaps you see yourself as wise, and have a cruel streak.

But the next pair are brilliant. The more quoted is quite good:

4 Do not answer fools according to their folly,
or you will be a fool yourself.

Just picture the last conversation you had with someone intent on “proving” that the world would end sometime back in May, or perhaps next October, or of “demonstrating” their particular form of church rules is found in this and that “verse” of Scripture. Remember how, if you opened your mouth, you were dragged into a morass of stupidity from which you were lucky to return ;)

But then read on…

5 Answer fools according to their folly,
or they will be wise in their own eyes.

Every time someone descends into the slough of verse bashing the fools whose forté it is are confirmed and built up in their folly. Now that is funny and hurtful at the same time. And a delightfully amusing complement to the previous couplet.

6 It is like cutting off one’s foot and drinking down violence,
to send a message by a fool.

The image is sufficiently incongruous, if not really funny, to be memorable, and since you are to cut off your own foot it hardly mocks the disadvantaged. Except those who make a bad choice or “messenger”.

7 The legs of a disabled person hang limp;
so does a proverb in the mouth of a fool.

However, this one is both very funny, and very hurtful, as well as memorable and effective. What do we do with it? To remove the offense would remove the point. Yet to make fun of the affliction which makes someone else less able to enjoy life than one is oneself seems deeply wrong.

8 It is like binding a stone in a sling to give honor to a fool.

Seems safe enough, though if we look at the translations and commentaries it seems the image may be a bit obscure…

9 Like a thorn in the hand of a drunkard
is a proverb in the mouth of a fool.

I have translated this one more literally than the NRSV and have preferred “thorn” to the NIV’s “thornbush” (agreeing pretty much with the NET). For the image seems to me clear, just as someone really drunk will hardly notice the prick of a thorn, so someone who is incurably stupid can learn proverbs, but their point will not prick, and no change will result.

So, what change should result from this reading of Proverbs 26:1-9?

Well for me, I resolve:

• to try to cease answering fools according to their folly – students and others who quote “verses” at me had better expect an unsympathetic response
• to try to answer fools according to their folly, and avoid honouring them, by pointing out that such verse bashing is daft

1. The passage was suggested by an article: Hershey H. Friedman, “Humor in the Bible” Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 13:3, 2000, 258-285. Although Friedman was Bernard H. Stern Professor of Humor and the journal sounds respectable the material is of varied quality and some of his examples did not tickle my funny bone, but it did suggest Pr 26 was worth consideration.

Another student pointed to this version of Amos set to contemporary music, asking if the irony is intentional, again I know what I think, what do you think?

Before I progress to Gen 2 and 3 I need to add another principle to the two I presented in the previous post. In a way it could be argued as a corollory.

We have recognised that parts (“verses”)¹ of larger texts do not necessarily convey the meaning of the whole, now I want to claim that it is the meaning of those larger “wholes” that are the meaning of a text.

Principle 3

Larger textual units take precedence, and if there is a conflict between the apparent meaning of a chapter, or book section, and that of a “verse” then we prioritise the meaning of the larger segment of text.

What this means is both, that we should be cautions of basing much on the apparent meaning of a small chunk (Principles 1 & 2) but also that we should be asking ourselves: What is (or, sometimes possibly often, are) the meaning(s) of this passage? Rather than asking: Can I see this meaning in this passage?

Although texts can and do point in many directions they are usually only teaching a limited range of things. Subsidiary ideas, even though present in a passage may not be what God intends us to learn.

Randal Rauser has a couple of posts on Paul’s use of the stereotype “All Cretans are liars” in Titus 1:12-13. Whether one agrees with his views on inerrancy or not² it is clear that in this passage Paul is not teaching about the truthfulness of Cretans, and that if we were to argue from Titus 1:12-13 that we should believe nothing any Cretan tells us, we would have misunderstood the passage.

1. For the use of this word to mean small chunks of text, not necessarily the same as the small chunks that are numbered in our Bibles, though like them parts of larger wholes see the previous post also.
2. Though I pretty much do.

Preface

Following a comment from Heather (on the post that prompted this series) I realised that I’ll need to tackle the larger and more important topic of how to read the Bible (logically before, in practice alongside) looking for a biblical understanding of gender.

The spoof post I linked to, and the Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood that it parodies, are both (in places) close to textbook examples of how NOT to read Scripture. The discussions in Christian circles about gender roles  have largely been like this, as most of us who have strong views on the subject have happily twisted the Bible to support our views. So, this time, in the hope of mitigating this tendency, I will post occasional contributions that set out the standards to which I want to be held, and to which I would expect to call my interlocutors to account.¹

Verses are meaningless

This subheading is patently untrue. Verses do carry meaning. Yet it is an untruth that mediates a deeper truth. For no fragment of text can be properly and fully understood apart from the larger discourses of which it forms part.

On the smallest scale the simple clear sentence: “There is no God.” is thoroughly biblical.² Yet only the most stupid person would claim that atheism is taught in Scripture.

On the largest scale each of Job’s friends makes long and complex speeches seeking to defend God’s justice against Job’s accusations. At the end of the book, like the “The fool says in his heart:” that precedes the sentence “There is no God.” in the psalms, stands God’s clear warning about the friends’ speeches: “The LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite: ‘My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.’” (Job 42:7) Which should warn us at the very least not to take the friends’ teaching as unequivocally the teaching of Scripture!

So “verses” (by which I mean here not only actual numbered units, but any small fragment of Scripture) should never be read alone, but always as part of a longer passage. Usually this longer passage is a chapter, paragraph or similar unit, which itself is part of a book.³

Principle 1

Therefore, to put it positively, the first standard of interpretation to which I want to be held accountable is that: When using any fragment of Scripture we consider it  in the larger discourse of which it is part and take account of the role it plays.

Beyond that, however, subtle nuances can have profound effects.⁴ Think of the error we would make in interpreting an ironic remark at face value.⁵ Because subtle nuances that we can easily miss, especially in written texts, can have such strong impacts, we should never take as “biblical” any teaching that seems to fit poorly with its surrounding text.⁶

Principle 2

If our understanding of a fragment does not “fit” with the tenor and contents of the surrounding text we should not extract “biblical teaching” from our understanding of that fragment.

1. By this I mean, if we disagree about how to handle Scripture we can deal with it slightly outside the “gender wars” forum and so perhaps render our conversations less acrimonious.
2. It only occurs as a sentence in English in the NIV in Ps 14:1 & 53:1, but there are several other places where the phrase in Hebrew might be read as a sentence.
3. The case of the proverbs in Pr 10ff. is a special one, as there often a proverb must be read with others that occur at seemingly random places in the whole. For proverbs “work” through the wisdom of knowing when to apply which. “He who hesitates is lost.” and “Look before you leap.” do not really both apply to the same situations, yet both are good proverbs.
4. And in speech these subtle nuances are often signaled, not in words, but by features like tone of voice that are not represented in writing.
5. “‘Oh good!’ I exclaimed as I slipped and fell on the wet concrete, ‘Now I’ll be hobbling when I preach in Taupo this Sunday.’” does not actually mean that I was happy to have fallen because my swollen toes would cause me to hobble, and so not appear confident and proud, when I preached in Taupo yesterday.
6. In the case of my ironic remark, in the previous note, my failure in the surrounding text, not quoted here, which was purely concerned with fitting the hot tub lid and cleaning and covering my wounds, to mention humility should signal the likelihood that this literal interpretation of my words is not the full story.

I had not come across the blog Biblical Personhood till Suzanne pointed to a fabulous post The Inverse statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood which pokes gentle fun at the perverse Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. The post neatly inverts the perverted “logic” of the Danvers statement. Read it, link to it!

Ursus Arctos Syriacus photo by מתניה

I’m marking at present, therefore in a stroppy mood.

So, when in a students comments on Amos 5:19:

Like someone escaping from a lion,

who meets a bear;

and entering the house,

leans a hand on the wall,
and a snake bites him. (Amos 5:19, TempEV)

Hubbard’s commentary is cited saying:

The lion and bear are signifiers of God; the snake of evil and craftiness.¹

1. Alan Hubbard, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries: Joel & Amos (Leicester: IVP, 1989), 180.
2. Noting on the way that few species of poisonous snake are often found in Palestine.