"Terry M. Gray" wrote:
> George,
>
> While I'm not sure exactly where I come down on the issue of
> accomodation as a general principle. A question here is "is there a
> difference between accomodationist language and phenomenological
> language (e.g., the sun rising and setting--we still use that
> language despite our nearly universal knowledge that it is the earth
> which moves and not the sun)?"
I wasn't using "accomodation" in any technical sense. I think it
highly likely that the biblical writers thought that there were real waters
above the firmament & that polygamy was OK.
> I'm not sure of all your examples:
>
> 1. polygamy -- Jesus points to the creation account as the basis for
> the argument against divorce/polygamy. Why it was tolerated/not
> condemned in the OT is a different question, but I think that the
> norm is there.
It is a mistake to think that Jesus simply pointed out the correct
interpretation of the creation accounts which anybody else could have, in
principle, seen beforehand. It would be more accurate to say that he puts new
meaning into them, just as he does with the story of burning bush which in no
obvious sense is a proof of the resurrection.
> 2.holy war/genocide -- Are you familiar with intrusion ethics--the
> idea that the final judgment intrudes into this present age? On this
> point, if the final judgment and destruction of the wicked is just,
> then so is this divinely commanded judgment against the Canannites. I
> don't think there is any Biblical warrant for such activity today,
> but I don't have a problem with it.
I have a problem with it (i.e., with military holy war) & the vast
majority of the Christian church, which has (formally at least) adopted either
a just war or a pacifist position, also rejects it.
Ethics evolves. Jesus supersedes lex talionis, which in turn is an
advance on the primitive idea of unlimited vengeance.
> 3. slavery -- Again, a Biblical case can and has been made (by the
> Old School Presbyterians) for the institution of slavery. I'm not
> sure that slavery in and of itself is wrong (other than a consequence
> of the fall). Ill-treatment of slaves is immoral, as was, the
> 18th-19th century slave trade. But, I'm not sure that I can declare
> immoral a "kind and gentle" slavery of prisoners of war or of
> criminals or a voluntary slavery for economic security. Of course, in
> modern America we don't see such slavery, but I'm not so sure that
> I'm ready to declare it un-Biblical.
Yes, & Lutherans in the US also got into this debate. Even though not
many of them were slaveholders, some of them thought that they couldn't
condemn slavery in principle. I'm embarassed by that. While there are not
explicit condemnations of all slavery in scripture, there is the beginning
there of a trajectory toward such a view, & I think that that means for us now
that slavery (i.e., people as property - we're not talking about incarcerating
criminals) is wrong. The situation is similar with the ordination of women.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 08 2002 - 22:21:11 EDT