Category Archives: Biblical interpretation

Slippery slopes and fences

4 Replies

I’ve written before about the rabbinic principle of building a fence around the Torah. The idea is that one creates a barrier of rules around the Law to prevent the accidental breaking of the Law. According to some sources, Deuteronomy 22:8 is used to justify this practice: “When you build a new house, make a parapet around your roof so that you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your house if someone falls from the roof.”

It was, of course, this fence around the Law that led the Pharisees to condemn Jesus; they accused him of not following “the traditions of the fathers.” He didn’t violate the Torah itself, but he was willing to go beyond their fences.

I realized recently the modern day expression of the fence around the Law is the slippery slope. Things that aren’t seen as condemnable in and of themselves are condemned based on what they might lead to. That is, action A isn’t seen as sinful, but it might lead to action B, therefore action A is wrong.

One church was discussing hand clapping during worship. Someone said, “If we allow this, next thing you know they’ll be dancing in the aisles!” That’s the slippery slope.

Problem is, of course, almost anything can be seen as leading to anything else. Are the Wright brothers to blame for the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center? Slippery slope reasoning would lay the blame squarely at their feet. Reminds me of the song “Ya Got Trouble” from the musical The Music Man. In that song, Harold Hill warns the citizens of River City that the presence of a pool table in their community was a sign of impending moral corruption among their youth. (If you haven’t heard it, you can find it on YouTube)

One thing does not invariably lead to another. Slippery slopes are great for skiing on, but that’s about it. We need to judge things on their own merits, not conjectured inevitable consequences.

 

Photo by Spencer Ritenour

Form versus function

16 Replies

As I read through the comments this week, I couldn’t help but think about a missiological principle, that of form vs. function. It has to do with what is done and why it is done.

We know that. We do. We feel comfortable substituting the holy kiss with the warm handshake. We look at John 13 and say that Jesus was teaching about service, not creating a new act of worship through washing feet. Many people feel that “raising holy hands” can be accomplished with the heart. [Sometimes we misuse the word “cultural” by saying “That’s just cultural.”]

There are other areas where we feel that the form and function are inseparable. Most feel that pizza and Sprite aren’t suitable replacements for the elements of the Lord’s Supper. Most members of the churches of Christ feel that water is an intrinsic part of baptism, to such a degree that the term “water baptism” sounds foreign to our ears.

How do we decide? How do we know when fulfilling the function is enough and when to insist on the exact form?

Goats and cheeseburgers

4 Replies

Years ago, my family and I were in Buenos Aires. While there, we went to the Abasto Shopping Center. There we saw something we’d never seen: a Kosher McDonald’s. (It’s the only one outside of Israel)

What makes a McDonald’s kosher? Well, among other things, there are no dairy products on site. Exodus 23:19, 34:26 and Deuteronomy 14:21 say, “Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.” Broad interpretation of these verses forbids all mixture of meat and dairy.

The prohibition about cooking a young goat in its mother’s milk seemingly had to do with a fertility rite that was common in Canaan. The Law was addressing a specific practice from a specific historical context. It really wasn’t written to keep you from having cheese on your Big Mac.

As we look at biblical texts, we need to remember that they have a context, they have an original purpose which may not be identical to our purposes.

We need to remember that laws about not cooking baby goats in their mother’s milk shouldn’t be applied to cheeseburgers.

God’s Law

5 Replies

The first five books of the Old Testament are known as the books of the Law. Among other things, they contain the commands of the Law which Moses gave to the people. It wasn’t just Moses, of course. This was God’s law for His people.

The Law addresses everything from routine matters of daily life to specific ordinances for worship. We see an example of this in Leviticus 2:

“When anyone brings a grain offering as an offering to the LORD, his offering shall be of fine flour. He shall pour oil on it and put frankincense on it and bring it to Aaron’s sons the priests. And he shall take from it a handful of the fine flour and oil, with all of its frankincense, and the priest shall burn this as its memorial portion on the altar, a food offering with a pleasing aroma to the LORD. But the rest of the grain offering shall be for Aaron and his sons; it is a most holy part of the LORD’s food offerings. “When you bring a grain offering baked in the oven as an offering, it shall be unleavened loaves of fine flour mixed with oil or unleavened wafers smeared with oil. And if your offering is a grain offering baked on a griddle, it shall be of fine flour unleavened, mixed with oil. You shall break it in pieces and pour oil on it; it is a grain offering. And if your offering is a grain offering cooked in a pan, it shall be made of fine flour with oil. And you shall bring the grain offering that is made of these things to the LORD, and when it is presented to the priest, he shall bring it to the altar. And the priest shall take from the grain offering its memorial portion and burn this on the altar, a food offering with a pleasing aroma to the LORD. But the rest of the grain offering shall be for Aaron and his sons; it is a most holy part of the LORD’s food offerings. “No grain offering that you bring to the LORD shall be made with leaven, for you shall burn no leaven nor any honey as a food offering to the LORD. As an offering of firstfruits you may bring them to the LORD, but they shall not be offered on the altar for a pleasing aroma. You shall season all your grain offerings with salt. You shall not let the salt of the covenant with your God be missing from your grain offering; with all your offerings you shall offer salt.” (Leviticus 2:1–13)

No guesswork is involved here. No reading between the lines. No necessary inferences. No Encyclopedia Brown hermeneutic.

When God wants to specify something, He knows how to specify.

I can do all things…

10 Replies

(Hmm… no discussion about citizenship yesterday. Maybe we’ve said all there is to say on the point on this blog, at least for now.) On Facebook yesterday, I had a discussion with Keith Brenton about Philippians 4:13. He had posted a clip from the upcoming movie “Soulsurfer,” and I made the snide comment: “I can quote all texts out of context through Christ who strengthens me.” Keith pointed out that, despite being misused, that verse has helped a lot of people. [Edit, 9:20 a.m.: I should note that Keith expressed no disagreement with any of the points presented in this blog; his post was merely a springboard for these thoughts.]

I’ll concede that point, yet I’m not sure that the end justifies the means. Quoting words from the Bible because they support some idea we already have seems like a dangerous practice.

Let’s look at Philippians 4. In this part of the chapter, Paul is talking about money, about dealing with abundance and dealing with hardship. Verses 10-12 read

I rejoice greatly in the Lord that at last you have renewed your concern for me. Indeed, you have been concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it. I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want.

Then in verse 13 he says, “I can do all through Christ who gives me strength.” The problem, of course, is that just saying “all” in English doesn’t make sense. We have to do something there.

But before we look at that, let’s get the rest of the context, verses 14-19:

Yet it was good of you to share in my troubles. Moreover, as you Philippians know, in the early days of your acquaintance with the gospel, when I set out from Macedonia, not one church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving, except you only; for even when I was in Thessalonica, you sent me aid again and again when I was in need. Not that I am looking for a gift, but I am looking for what may be credited to your account. I have received full payment and even more; I am amply supplied, now that I have received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent. They are a fragrant offering, an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God. And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus.

It’s obvious, isn’t it, that verse 13 is about being able to deal with difficult financial circumstances. So how have different versions translated this verse?

Wycliffe gave it this shot: “I may all things in him that comforteth me.” Yeah, I can see why the KJV revisers saw fit to make that a little more readable. They gave us the famous: “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.” That phrasing became so popular that it was copied time and again, from translation to translation, particularly the “all things” part, even though “things” isn’t in the original.

That’s not an unreasonable way to translate this verse. The problem arose not from the translating but from the use given to the words themselves. Stripped from context, the verse came to be an inspiration to mountain climbers and wannabe millionaires, to pregnant moms and fearful soldiers. The fact that Paul was talking about being able to face financial hardship was ignored by the vast majority of the people quoting that verse.

A few translations have tried to help us:

“I have the strength to face all conditions by the power that Christ gives me.” (GNT)
“Christ gives me the strength to face anything.” (CEV)
“Whatever I have, wherever I am, I can make it through anything in the One who makes me who I am.” (The Message)
“I can do all this through him who gives me strength.” (TNIV)
“I can do all this through him who gives me strength.” (NIV 2010)


Personally, I think that the last two translations are on to something. Using “this” instead of “things” directs people back to the context. It lets them see that Paul has something specific in mind: enduring hardship. It’s not meant as a self-motivation phrase. It certainly wasn’t coined to be used in multilevel marketing seminars. It’s not a pick-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps aphorism.

It’s about being able to be content with whatever life sends. I can be content with abundance or want, because Christ gives me strength.

When your nephew is going to bat in Little League and his mom says, “Remember, you can do all things through Christ,” don’t feel that you need to stop and have a theology lesson. But now and again, you can remind your friends that this text, like all biblical texts, has a context. Without that context, it’s just a bunch of words.