Intellectuelle

Thank you very much for linking to my post!

Mark Daniels

Mark Daniels rocks.

On the other...one of the first things I do after reading a post is see who the person links to or admires. Jesus Creed links to tons of Emergent sites in admiration and I think that betrays a willingness to use cultural relativism in deciding what Scripture teaches, rather than submitting to the Scriptures themselves as the Word of God.
I think I'd avoid this one.

I think we should always be open to how the Spirit leads us, and if He inspires us in some way that may be deemed a "trend" then we can be discerning, but always willing to be obedient. I wouldn't want to pass up the Holy Spirit in the interest of avoiding a seeming "trend," but I wouldn't want to get involved in something that isn't Spirit-led.

Very quick note. This “redemptive hermeneutic” sounds a little bit like Catholic “development of doctrine”, although I’m not sure how far the similarity goes. Development of doctrine means that while the deposit of faith was given once for all to the Apostles, our understanding of it matures. The Venerable John Henry Newman wrote a famous essay on the matter, and suggested seven “notes” by which a true development could be distinguished from a corruption.

A redemptive hermenuetic essentially says that Jesus claimed he was coming to set the captives free. Just as we now believe that Paul planted the seeds of subversion (that would eventually cause us to view slavery as against the Gospel, EVEN THOUGH on the outside, Paul seemed to be supporting slavery), so the same questions are being asked about the woman's place.

These are not the same arguments used by liberals, because a redemptive hermeneutic is NOT denying the place of Scripture or it's authority. It is merely asking us if we are actually interpreting it correctly, and if we are right in making a command out of what may have been recommendations for Christians in a particular culture.

Here's another way to try and put it... Anyone take the five seperate times Paul tells us to "greet eachother with a holy kiss," literally, for example? Was that a command to the church for all time, or was that a general principle couched in language that a culture would understand?

Hence the issue regarding women comes NOT out of a desire to rid Scripture of it's (perhaps unsavory) demands, but rather to rightly comprehend it.

Patriarchy was the norm in the Jewish and Roman culture (which makes sense, since Gen. 3 says it will be a part of life--"he shall rule over you" has been the norm for all of time since the Fall, just as pain in childbirth and weeds in gardens). Not only was it the cultural norm, but also the legal norm.

So it's important for us to look into that culture and try to hear Paul's words how *they* would have heard them. What was he saying?

The heart is not to deny Scripture, but to understand it and then to obey it.

Warmly,
Molly

Thanks, Molly. I agree that interpretation is extremely important.

I am interested to know the history of the redemptive hermeneutic – how has it developed, and who are the proponents? What are their writings?

There's a difference between Webb's view and those views that simply see some kind of progressive revelation but insist on scripture's inerrancy. Progressive revelation insists that not every bit of scripture gives an exhaustive presentation of all the issues that might be at stake. But it doesn't go to the point Webb takes it. Webb allows for scripture to be wrong on certain counts. Consider his view of cosmology in relation to his view of gender.

Progressive relevation will admit that the Bible presents cosmological information from within the perspective of humanity. We see the sun rising. We describe it as rising. It isn't literally rising, but when we say the sun rises we aren't speaking literally on a cosmological scale. We're just talking from a phenomenal perspective of how things seem to us. We we describe the sun rising, the moon being full, or a surface being flat (when a microscope would reveal little bumps) we are still saying true things and not making errors. We just don't mean to speak in an exact, scientific way. Developments in science show that, and thus progressive revelation allows for subsequent revelations in science that don't contradict scripture but do causes us to rethink what people really mean when they speak from a human perspective. All we really mean is how things seem to us.

Webb, on the other hand, seems to me to be willing to describe these cosmological accounts in the Bible as simply wrong. He thus falls short of an inerrantist view. He thinks the principles of egalitarianism and abolitionism are in scripture, but he has trouble with certain statements that seem to assume the mindset of the times, thus seeming to endorse that mindset. As far as I can tell from what I've read (and I haven't read his book), he seems to be saying that these biblical statements actually assume something false and thus constitute an error. He does say that principles within scripture should help us in our more enlightened time to see that the culture of the biblical world was not as insightful as us, and thus when they assumed things and wrote them into the Bible they simply made a mistake, one God wanted us eventually to figure out based on other things in the Bible but a mistake nonetheless.

So I don't think Webb's view will work for inerrantists. The Bible simply tells us false things if Webb's view is correct. It assumes egalitarianism is wrong but gives egalitarian principles elsewhere, and thus we're left to figure out that egalitarianism is true rather than what the Bible elsewhere assumes.

I think this hermeneutic, if I understand it accurately, would be disastrous and really would open the doors to lots of things that the Bible explicitly contradicts. It's not mere cultural relativism, since he does think the principles need to be in scripture to begin with to allow them to contradict scripture's assumptions, but it's not the more innocent idea that scripture is not exhaustive in places and then clarifies but doesn't contradict itself in other places.

I went on Jesus Creed and starting reading, but didn’t have the time to read all the comments.

Much of the debate is over William Webb’s redemptive or trajectory hermeneutic from his book, “Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis.” Others have proposed the same or similar hermeneutical approach.

Redemptive or trajectory hermeneutic essentially evaluates the progress made throughout history in the area of slavery and proposes that the same progress should be made in other areas, such as with the role of women. The term “hermeneutic” is used because it is an approach to interpreting Scripture. Based on a trajectory hermeneutic, the principles taught in the OT are viewed outdated (slavery as permitted and regulated) and the principles taught in the NT are viewed as improvements (slavery as discouraged). And, from there, they attempt to envision what would be ideal (no slavery). Their argument is that Jesus intended the ideal and only implemented changes to head us in the right direction. As applied to women, the approach is used to justify egalitarianism.

This view is problematic for many reasons, here’s a few:

(1) The Bible is no longer the final word on matters of morality. It is seen as incomplete, as a work in progress. The Bible, however, clearly teaches that it is the final word—nothing should be added or taken away.

(2) Who’s to say what’s ideal? William Webb writes a book and says what he thinks is ideal. Someone else comes along and writes a book and says what he/she thinks is ideal. Without fixed standards based on the unchanging word of God, we are left with moral relativism—anyone can come along and fill in the blank: the OT taught this, the NT taught that, and I think Jesus wanted _________.

(3) A trajectory hermeneutic misconstrues the OT (and the Bible as a whole). I’m a huge fan of the OT and I think many people misinterpret and undervalue it. Jesus came to fulfill the requirements of the law. But there is nothing wrong with the law itself. The law is good (Rom. 7:12). God’s people in the OT failed to properly understand and apply the law. So Jesus came to do that for us and then clarify what God intended all along. NT believers are no longer under the ceremonial and civil laws. But the moral principles as restated in the NT still apply today. Jesus’ teachings in the NT (most notably the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7)) was not intended as a new law, but a clarification of the same moral law—all beautifully encapsulated in the idea of loving our neighbor (Lev. 19:18; Matt. 22:39). The concept of “trajectory” fails to recognize that God never changes and the underlying principles set forth in the OT are consistent with the principles in the NT. The Jews in the OT tried to follow the letter of the law and failed to apply the spirit of it. Jesus made the spirit of the law explicit—so no one could circumvent what God requires of those He sets apart as holy. There’s a lot to be said on how a trajectory hermeneutics misconstrues the OT.

"Redemptive Hermeneutics" may sound appealing, but it is nothing more than moral relativism in disguise.

Why are some abominations lifted in the new covenant but others are still loathsome to God? It's because an abomination is something that God loathes, but God might loathe something because it's inherently evil (e.g. hatred), or God may loathe something because it's contrary to his creation purposes for particular beings (e.g. misuse of sex), or God may still further loathe some things because they are contrary to a particular way of dealing with a particular people for purposes not disclosed at the time (e.g. shellfish).

It's perfectly fine to speak of a trajectory without it becoming moral relativism. The trajectory from shellfish being unclean to all foods being clean is a real trajectory. It really was wrong for Jews in the old covenant to eat it, and it was loathsome to God. That's clearly not moral relativism, because what's right and wrong depends not on the culture but on God. God can declare things to be wrong for a culture that he's working with in a particular way, and then it isn't wrong when he lifts the requirement. That's not really moral relativism.

I don't think Webb's view is really any different with respect to that kind of thing. He does think what we can know about moral principles develops over time, and thus what we can determine to be true might improve over time, but he doesn't think what's really morally true changes from culture to culture. Whatever his view is, it's not moral relativism. I think that's a deep misrepresentation of what he's up to. It's a denial of inerrancy, since the biblical authors got some things wrong (and God apparently even inspired them to get things wrong deliberately, on his view). But it's not cultural relativism, since that doesn't allow for moral error. According to cultural relativism, you're automatically right if you reflect the norms of your culture. The fact that he says a culture's norms can be wrong shows that it's not cultural relativism but is in fact an objective account of morality.

Jeremy,

You said, “Why are some abominations lifted in the new covenant but others are still loathsome to God? ….God may still further loathe some things because they are contrary to a particular way of dealing with a particular people for purposes not disclosed at the time (e.g. shellfish).”

I think an abomination is that which is inconsistent with the law of God (an egregious violation) and, therefore, inconsistent with the character of God. Because the law of God (i.e., the unchanging principles of God taught in both the OT and NT) reflects the character of God, the law of God never changes. God does not loathe something for one people group during a particular time in history and then thinks of the same thing as “kosher” for another group.

But there are differences in God’s dealings with particular people groups, but these differences, I think, are not part of God’s moral requirements. They usually reflect practical considerations and other factors. The changes in dietary restrictions would fall in this category.

In some areas (such as slavery), there is indeed a development of thought (a greater awareness of the evils of slavery and an enlightened understanding of personhood) and, consequently, a progression of moral standards. But I think this progression occurs outside of biblical teaching. Biblical teaching (God’s moral standards in the OT and NT) is consistent throughout history; it never changes. The world changes, but the law of the Lord never changes. Although God’s law accounts for societal realities (e.g., by regulating slavery in the OT), it is wrong to assume that God’s moral standards change from culture to culture. While trajectory may be a part of the world, I think it has no application to law of God.

A legitimate question, then, is what about the new covenant? This is not trajectory, this is promise and fulfillment. This is God’s plan from the beginning. The concept of trajectory should be offensive to us in light of Jesus’ words, “it is finished.” As I mentioned earlier, I think God’s moral requirements are the same under the old and new covenant. The practices differ because there is no sacrificial system and no theocracy. But the underlying moral standards are the same because they reflect the character of God.

I think those who assume that biblical teaching includes what society allowed at different times in history fail to understand what God has said in His word. God’s rules and regulations concerning a matter shouldn’t be read as an acceptance or a permission of it (e.g., divorce).

While trajectory does not imply moral relativism necessarily, I think that’s often the ultimate result. Those who say that God’s moral principles don’t change over time, but then don’t use Scripture as the final authority for setting those principles, are leaving the door open to anyone to come along and persuade us of what he or she thinks God intended as an ultimate standard of morality.