WTAMU 32, (#1) ACU 21

On the bright side, perhaps you might like to let that remind you that a World Series involving the Yankees need not be a foregone conclusion.

Discovering the Buff in me,

amarillo qb

Moreover, this is not a question of SUBSTITUTING experience for scripture, but rather understanding and using each in light of the other. Where the two fail to intersect, we have to ask ourselves a couple of questions, both of which require a certain degree of exegetical, hermeneutical, and psychological humility: first, am I interpreting the scripture correctly? And second, am I construing my experience correctly?

If something is true, ought it not be true in all three dimensions of knowledge (experience, revelation, reason)? If it is not, it is incoherent, which is to say that it’s not really knowledge at all in any useful sense. We put the three dimensions of knowledge in dialogue with one another as mutual correctives.

(You undoubtedly do it, too, perhaps without consciously recognizing it. The very act of making exegetical assumptions is an exercise of your reasoning faculties, and your subsequent exegesis is contingent on that exercise.)

—–

When John 17:3 says that “eternal life” is “knowledge of [Christ],” surely we ought to understand that as having an experiential dimension. Not exclusively, of course. But nobody is saying that. That’s your basic error in rendering the question Mike is raising.

qb

Correcting faulty interpretations of scripture, considering other relevant scriptures, and using only relevant scriptures – as you recommend, Terry – is exactly the goal that Mr. Cope pursues in this post.

He wrote, “Those who opposed the mission to the Gentiles on the terms being offered were, strictly speaking, right. They had scripture on their side.” In fact, James pointed out that the Scriptures supported the mission to the Gentiles on the terms being offered when he said, “The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written, ‘After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’ that have been known for ages” (Acts 15:15-18). James was referring to the words of Amos.

Mr. Cope also wrote, “Those who said that the Messiah couldn’t have been crucified on a tree had scripture on their side. Such a person was deemed to be accursed.” This is only partially true. They had a scripture, but they did not consider the ramifications of messianic passages such as Isaiah 53. They had not considered other relevant passages.

Finally, Mr. Cope wrote, “Those who argued against abolition had scripture after scripture to help make their case: scripture seemed to regulate the practice of slavery but not abolish it.” Again, this is partially true. Slavery in the New Testament was regulated. In fact, selling oneself into slavery was considered an honorable way of paying off one’s debts. However, kidnapping someone in order to sell him or her into slavery was considered contrary to sound doctrine and the gospel (1 Timothy 1:9-11). And that’s the type of slavery that was being opposed in the 19th century abolitionist movement.

It’s improper to allow our experiences to trump biblical principles. A man who is committing adultery may tell his pastors that he knows what the Bible teaches about adultery, but he feels so good about his relationship with the other woman that he knows he is experiencing the grace of God in his adultery. His experience is not the basis for properly interpreting Scriptures.

The argument that the slavery referenced in the Bible and practiced in ancient times was somehow “kinder and gentler” than slavery in the American South has been refuted repeatedly, but many Bible defenders still cling to it. Slavery in ancient times was often far more cruel than typical 19th century Southern slavery, and Southern slave owners were often kinder than typical slaveowners in ancient days. The fact is that slavery is slavery and the Bible endorses it over and over.

Southern pro-slavery apologists routinely used Genesis 9 (the condemnation of Ham’s descendants to slavery since he had seen Noah naked) to defend racialized slavery. Race-based slavery is clearly endorsed in Leviticus 25:44-46

44 ” ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.”

For a moment, let’s suppose that the Bible did not endorse race-based slavery. Are you saying that you’re ok with non-race-based slavery? Is slavery fine with you as long as all races are enslaved on an equal basis?

You ask if I’m okay with my daughter being a slave. I’m not okay with slavery ever for anyone. Slavery is wrong now, was wrong in America from 1619 to 1865 and was wrong in biblical times. With regard to daughters, the Bible even provides a mechanism for Israelites to sell their daughters into slavery (see verse 7) in Exodus 21:

2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life. ”

7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do.”

Regarding the main topic of this discussion – the role of women – it is incomprehensible to me that a modern woman would care to follow a God who has over and over demonstrated such a low regard for women. You can re-interpret and massage the texts all you want, but the God of the Bible is a blatant and unrepentent misogynist. Ponder this lovely text from God’s perfect law on the punishment of rapists as commanded in Deuteronomy 22:

28 “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”