Re: Biblical Interpretation Reconsidered

PASAlist@aol.com wrote:

> I wrote,
>
> >Jack tells us of a lady who wrote,
> >
> > And in the passage above, Jesus taught about the moral
> issue
> > of marriage by connecting it with the fact of the
> creation
> > of man and woman as Genesis says!
> >
> >When this example of Jesus' faith in Scripture is used, I
> tell the
> >person it is true that Jesus referred to Genesis 2:24 as
> morally
> >authoritative (Matt 19:4,5), but he contrasted it ("BUT
> from the
> >beginning it was NOT so.") with the law given by God
> through Moses in
> >Deut 24:1-4 (Matt 19:7). He accepted Gen 2:24 as
> authoritative, but
> >rejected Deut 24:1-4 because it was a concession to man's
> "hardness of
> >heart." So, Jesus did not accept every verse of Scripture
> as being
> >authoritative---even in the realm of morals. How then can a
> follower
> >of Jesus be sure that every verse is authoritative in the
> realm of
> >science?
> >
> >The teaching of Jesus in Matt 19:3-8 logically implies that
> the
> >inspiration of Scripture does not guarantee complete
> inerrancy for
> >every verse. An inspired verse may contain a concession to
> the merely
> >human concepts of the times.
> >
> >You can either follow Jesus or you can follow the doctrine
> of the
> >absolute inerrancy of Scripture, but you cannot follow
> both.............................................
>
> George replied,
>
> "I wouldn't take this approach. 1st, Jesus doesn't "reject"
> Dt.24:1-4. He says
>
> that Gen.1 &2 represent God's will for marriage and that the
> allowance of divorce is a provision due to the reality of
> human sin. (& BTW, because some people's hearts
> continue to be hard, this text shouldn't be understood as
> Jesus' abrogation of the
> possibility of divorce.)"
>
> The issue was, Is divorce lawful for any reason at all (kata pasan
> aitian, Matt 19:3) that is, is divorce for any reason whatsoever in
> accordance with God's law and hence morally acceptable to him? God's
> law in Deut 24:1-4 allows divorce for reasons other than
> adultery---without any indication that
>
> such a divorce would be displeasing to God. Divorce for
> reasons other than adultery is lawful, not sinful, as far as
> Deut 24:1-4 is concerned. Jesus took an opposing position:
> He makes divorce a sin for any reason other than adultery
> (Matt 19:19). So, as a guide to what is morally acceptable
> to God (lawful) he rejects Deut 24:1-4.
>
> Divorce may in some cases be the lesser of two evils, but it is always
> an evil according to Jesus.

Paul -
        I'm not sure here how much we really disagree & how much we're simply saying
things differently. Scripture is not simply a collection of correct propositions of
equal value. When asked about the lawfulness of divorce Jesus goes not to the legal
parts of torah that speak explicitly about divorce but to another part of torah which he
cites as expressing God's fundamental will for marriage. The passage from Dt which
alows divorce must then be seen as an accomodation to human sinfulness. (Phillips
paraphrases "because of your hardness of heart" with "because you knew so little of the
meaning of love.") I.e., Dt 24 must be interpreted in light of Gen 1 & 2, not vice
versa. But this is not the same thing as simply "rejecting" Dt 24 or saying "Moses was
wrong."

        There's a similar situation with the ordination of women, for which I have
argued at times rather passionately. In light of Gal.3:28, I Cor.14:34 & I Tim.2:11-12
should be seen as regulations for particular situations in the 1st century church, not
as fundamental principles. I.e., those two passages are to be read in light of Gal 3,
not vice versa. But I am not happy with the kind of argument sometimes presented by
advocates for ordination of women that simply says "Paul was wrong." (Of course the
issue is more complex & I'd be happy to send a couple of my articles on this to anyone
interested.)

        Whether, & under what circumstances, divorce may be legitimate for Christians is
another question. I.e., does the argument "because of your hardness o heart" still
apply? The fact that (if one accepts Mt redaction of Mk - which you may not) Mt has
modified Mk's absolute prohibition of divorce _with remarriage_ (N.B.) with /me epi
porneia/ suggests that some people in the early church were wrestlintg with this
question.

        In addition to the basic theological issues involved here, there's a practical
concern. If we're going to try to convince YECs & others to accept approaches to
biblical interpretation more adequate than those cited in Jack's post, using the
language of "rejecting" parts of scripture probably isn't a good way to go about it.

                                                        Shalom,
                                                        George
                                                         
        

George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Sat Dec 20 13:00:11 2003