Thursday, January 21, 2021

Book Review: William J. Webb. Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis.

William Webb's book, Slaves, Women & Homosexuals (IVP, 2001) really needed to be written. In the book, Webb systematizes many features of Hermeneutics that many of us have been using but never really had a basis for feeling confident that our methods are valid. Webb extracts the hermeneutical methods that tend to depend upon cultural context of the biblical text and examines the methodology and analyzes the effectiveness and validity of each method. After explaining each method, Webb applies it to the doctrines of slavery (usually), women (always) and homosexuality (usually).

The most useful method, in my opinion, is a method that Webb calls Redemptive Movement. Whenever the Bible talks about some doctrine, especially a doctrine about how God's people are supposed to treat others, we should ask ourselves what the culture was like in the context of the biblical saying. For example, the Bible has a lot to say about slaves and most of what it says somewhat turns our stomachs with respect to what our modern western culture thinks about the institution of slavery: We do not believe anybody has the right to own somebody else. However, if we look at what the Bible says about slaves, we see that God's expectation about how his people treat slaves is far more redemptive than the surrounding culture. In New Testament times, the rules about slaves is more redemptive than they are in Old Testament times and they are more redemptive than the social context of the New Testament text. Just examining the redemptive movement of the biblical doctrines surrounding slaves, we can see a movement towards total slave emancipation. The same is true for women. In the Bible, women gain more and more value as members of the faith community. So, when we observe the Biblical redemptive movement regarding women we can follow the trajectory to equal ministry value and roles for women as men within the faith community.

If we think about it, that is the whole method of the Sermon on the Mount. The Bible says, "Do not commit adultry." You should know that the trajectory of that command points to the implied command to not lust. You know that we are commanded to not murder. Don't you realize that the trajectory of that command requires that we don't get angry with people either? Don't call people names either!

We should be able to apply the trajectory of the biblical commands, especially as they reveal the heart of God. We can examine the commands against their cultural contexts and see where they are going and be able to make the contemporary application which may not be directly addressed in scripture--but is given trajectory within scripture.

When Webb applies his hermeneutical methods to the morality of homosexuality, we see that the Bible is always more restrictive about homosexuality than is the surrounding culture. The Bible never is more accepting of homosexuality. It is always less accepting of homosexuality than is the cultural context of the times.

Another of the particularly interesting methods Webb calls "Breakouts." There may be a statement that looks like a command but we look for examples where the command is broken and the ones who break it are commended for breaking what we thought was a command. Those exceptions are called "Breakouts." For example, we believe the Bible forbids women from exercising leadership over men. However, we have many breakout examples such as Deborah, Huldau, Junia, Priscilla, etc. Either what we thought was a rule has a specific and obsolete context or it is not as much of a hard and fast rule as we thought.

Webb observes that several of the popular hermeneutical methods that Bible students employ are open to poor exegesis. For example, there is a popular exegetical method that Webb calls "Closely Related Issues" (162). Some teachers attempt to condone homosexual practices by comparing those practices with the Old Testament purity laws. For example, in Old Testament times, a man engaging in sexual activity during his wife's menstruation made him unclean for a period of time. Those cultic impurity laws have been abolished in the New Testament. Therefore, the Old Testament commands against homosexuality should also be abolished. The problem is, sex during menstruation and homosexual sex really are not closely related issues. One resulted
 in ceremonial uncleanness. The other resulted in stoning. In the Old Testament, activities that resulted in ceremonial uncleanness were not sins. Homosexuality was--in both testaments. This is an example of trying to make completely dissimilar issues related. Thus, the method is really poor and open to bad exegesis.

It is interesting that Webb's approach to the women's roles study concedes that there was a curse on the woman (women) in Genesis 3:16 and there is also an injunction against women teaching men in 1 Timothy 2:11-12. Even with these concessions, Webb's cultural analysis leads to the equality of women in the church. I believe Webb is wrong in his two concessions; but I think he is clever to conceed them. It avoids arguments over the meanings of the two passages so that we can get on with the cultural and redemptive analysis of the Biblical text.

Webb is equally critical of complementarianism and egalitarianism. His criticism of egalitarianism seems almost token. He either mischaracterizes the egalitarian position or he refrences extreme approaches that tend to stray away from the biblical text.

This book will be a permanent addition to my personal library. It needs to be available for further reference.

Wednesday, December 23, 2020

Church of Christ Doctrine

Church of Christ doctrine is a meadow of sacred untouchable cows. They have not always been that way. The churches of Christ have been willing to adjust their thinking on numerous "doctrines" throughout its short history.

 1. The Churches of Christ were once universally tolerant of slavery. Churches appointed elders who were slave owners. Many preachers unabashedly advocated for the institution of slavery—race-based slavery! Today, most Christians believe it is a sin to own another person. The case for slavery is easy to make. It depends on a plain reading of scripture. Abolitionism is a difficult case to make. It requires a careful reading of scripture with a non-hermeneutical emphasis on God's character.

2. Amillennialism. The churches were almost universally premillennialist until the recent preaching of Foy Wallace and Jim McGuiggan. Those two change-agents moved the whole body of churches of Christ away from premillennialism.

3. Women's vote: The churches of Christ were universally against women voting on politics on the basis that (a) the man is the head of the household and (b) women are more easily deceived than men—as evidenced by Eve"s deception and Paul's mention of Eve's deception in several places. The church resisted the women's vote for decades after the right for the women's vote became law. The church slowly changed its view when it became abundantly clear that women are no more or less deceivable than men. Women are also equally able to excel academically as men. (An argument against the women's vote was that women were not able to achieve the level of academics that men can). 

The church has changed majorly in other non-doctrinal ways.

Sunday, April 26, 2020

Genesis 32: Be afraid


Genesis 32:6-7
The messengers returned to Jacob, saying, “We came to your brother Esau, and he is coming to meet you, and four hundred men are with him.” Then Jacob was greatly afraid and distressed; and he divided the people that were with him, and the flocks and herds and camels, into two companies,...

Sometimes fear is a good thing. Being fearless is a character flaw. Being afraid is a strength. It can keep you out of trouble.

Saturday, April 25, 2020

Genesis 31: It is best not to think too highly of one's self

The theme of Jacob's life with Laban is that God gave Jacob the increase. Laban's actions had always been to try to personally profit from God's wealthy blessing of Jacob. We see in 31:14-15 that Laban had even spent his daughters' dowry on himself so that they had no inheritance to look forward to. The girls agreed that God had blessed Jacob and that Jacob did not get wealthy at Laban's expense. In this chapter, Jacob makes explicit that whatever is Jacob's is God's blessing.

Genesis 31:42
If the God of my father, the God of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac, had not been on my side, surely now you would have sent me away empty-handed. God saw my affliction and the labor of my hands, and rebuked you last night.”

It seems that God had honored the bargain Jacob made back in chapter 28.

Genesis 28:20-22
Then Jacob made a vow, saying, “If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat and clothing to wear, so that I come again to my father’s house in peace, then the Lord shall be my God, and this stone, which I have set up for a pillar, shall be God’s house; and of all that you give me I will surely give one-tenth to you.”

It is important to note that God blesses different people in different ways and there are no guarantees of health and wealth to the faithful. God chose to bless Jacob the way God blessed him. We need to be careful to not boast improperly about whatever successes we experience by God's grace.

Romans 12:3
For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of yourself more highly than you ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.

Sunday, December 1, 2019

Genesis 30: God works even through people's goofy efforts and prayer

Gen 30:16-18
When Jacob came from the field in the evening, Leah went out to meet him, and said, “You must come in to me; for I have hired you with my son’s mandrakes.” So he lay with her that night. And God heeded Leah, and she conceived and bore Jacob a fifth son. Leah said, “God has given me my hire because I gave my maid to my husband”; so she named him Issachar.

Leah's efforts to concieve are really quite goofy but she did what she could.* This action was her work toward a certain goal; but she did not forget God in her goals. She prayed about it and God heeded Leah's prayer. In the end, she gave all the credit to God. It is also NOT the case that having female goats look at something striped when they concieve results in striped kids!

* The work we do to find our dreams are a cooperation with God (Romans 8:28, "work together," συνεργεῖ, synergy). God does what we cannot do. We do what we can. In biblical times, the human effort was sometimes silly by today's standards but God worked with it.

James 5:14 Apply medicinal ointment
2 Kings 4:33-34 Elisha placed his living eyes over the dead boy's dead eyes, etc.
2 Kings 6:6 Elisha threw a stick in the water to get an ax to float

Genesis 29: Remembering grief

Genesis 29:32
Leah conceived and bore a son, and she named him Reuben; for she said, “Because the LORD has looked on my affliction; surely now my husband will love me.”

Leah's heart is in pain. The name Reuben (and similarly the her subsequent sons' names) will always remind her of her grief.

We can weigh the wisdom of giving ourselves such an overt reminder of our pain. It is wise to have reminders of our grief if for any other reason to remind us of God's sincere sympathy and empathy for us.

The popular thought that we can bear our grief because "God is in control" is not nearly as comforting or beautiful as the knowledge that "God grieves with us."

Exodus 3:7f
Jeremiah 14:17

Monday, November 11, 2019

Gesesis 28: Unequally Yoked

We have just read about how Jacob and his mother Rebeka deceived the aged and blind Isaac to get a first-born blessing for Jacob... at Esau's expense. In the account beginning in Genesis 27:46 and continuing through 28:9, Isaac and Rebecca send Jacob to Paddan-aram where he will hopefully find a suitable wife from Rebeka's brother's daughters.

The reason given for this action is that Esau had married a couple of Hittite women who were source of bitterness for Isaac and Rebekah (Genesis 26:34-35).

The charge to not marry a Canaanite seems to speak against marrying across religious lines; but such a conclusion is not indicated by the text. The people of Paddan-aram were not really proper "God" folk. They were polytheists (Genesis 31:19). The real concern, I suspect, was about customs. The customs of the Canaanites was just too drastically different from those of Abraham's family.

There is an application here about where we look for marriage candidates but we must bring in some other scriptures to make the point.

If we look at 2 Corinthians 6:14-15 we read about the problem of being "unequally yoked" with unbelievers.
Do not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what fellowship is there between light and darkness? What agreement does Christ have with Beliar? Or what does a believer share with an unbeliever?



This passage is not specifically about marriage but it applies. Murry H. Harris explains that the passage

... clearly is not an injunction against any and all association with unbelievers (cf. 1Co 5:9-10; 10:27). Paul actually encouraged the Christian partner in a mixed marriage to maintain the relationship as long as possible (1Co 7:12-16). Rather, this is a prohibition against forming close attachments with non-Christians, using an agricultural metaphor about yoking (cf. Dt 22:10; also Lev 19:19). Although precisely what constituted a "diverse yoke" for the Corinthians remains unstated, it clearly involved compromise with heathendom, such as contracting mixed marriages (cf. Dt 7:1-3), initiating litigation before unbelievers in cases involving believers (1Co 6:1-8), or forming any relationship with unbelievers that would compromise Christian standards or jeopardize consistency of Christian witness. (Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary: Volume 2, 681)
First Peter 3:1-7 is about religiously unequally yoked marriages that have become that way because one of the partners became a believer.

So Paul advises Christians to avoid forming close relationships with unbelievers.

Now, does that mean Baptists should not form close relationships with Methodists? or First Christians shoud avoid romantic relationships with Nazarines? Considering the religious goals of these groups are hopefully similar (they want to go to heaven, they love Jesus, they have a sense of Christian mission and want to grow their faith) we can view people from these various groups on average as religious-culturally similar. Obviously, it is advisable to form close relationships with others who have the most important life goals in common and/or the most compatable as reasonably possible.

And Christians should not eschew the social company of anybody as far as it is possible.