Stupid Scholar

Several years ago, the TNIV (Today’s New International Version) sparked some controversy by, among other things, using gender inclusive language throughout the text.

For instance, in Psalm 1:1, the text reads:

Blessed are those
who do not walk in step with the wicked
or stand in the way that sinners take
or sit in the company of mockers

The NIV on the other hand reads:

Blessed is the man
who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked
or stand in the way of sinners
or sit in the seat of mockers.

Likewise, terms like “sons of Israel” (Exodus 13:19; NIV) are often changed to “Israelites,” but not every time.

I remember at the time being rather upset by this. It felt as if the translators had tampered with the Word of God in order to accommodate the current trends, philosophies, and sensitivities of our (post)modern culture. Now, however, I think my view is a bit more nuanced.

Gender Inclusive Language is Appropriate and Beneficial

Because of our awareness to cultural diversity, differing opinions and various assumptions, much in our culture is more sensitive and understanding to such differences than before. This has made, in particular, scholarly discussions more open and welcoming than ever. The academic world of biblical studies is nothing if not diverse. The same is true of churches. This is a good thing.

More specifically, like most professions throughout history, biblical Studies and theology have been dominated by men. In our day, however, there are a large number of great, female scholars (Phyllis Tribble, Susan Niditsch, Kathleen O’Connor, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, et al). Plus, there are huge numbers of women that read the Bible for pleasure, spiritual development or worship. Thus, the move towards gender inclusive language has attempted to make these women sense that the Bible speaks to them too.*

Linguistics, in fact, help support this move.

Both Greek and Hebrew use masculine terms to refer to groups of both men and women. Hence the word אנשׁים (plural of אישׁ, meaning “man”) can refer to either a group of men (”Elders” in Ruth 4:2) or to a general group of people (”When sleep falls on men/people” in Job 4:13). The singular אישׁ can also refer to a person or mankind in general (e.g. Exodus 11:7).

Likewise, the word בנים (plural of בנ, meaning “son”) can refer to a mixed gender group. A great example is the common OT phrase, בני ישׂראל, which literally means, “Sons of Israel” but clearly refers to the entire group of Israelites. Thus, either “Children of Israel” or “Israelites” are perfectly acceptable translations.

This is also true in the New Testament where ανθρωπος often simply means, “Person” (e.g. Matthew 4:4) While sometimes it is gender specific (e.g. Matthew 19:10), in the plural, it perhaps best translated as, “People.”

In short, Hebrew has no neuter declension (a gender-neutral “it”). It is impossible for Hebrew to express a generic group or a person in general without resorting to masculine language, as shown above. Greek has a neuter declension, but it never uses it to describe people only things or ideas.

We actually have modern day examples for this. Spanish, for example, has masculine and feminine nouns and pronouns. However, it does not have a neuter. Thus, in the plural ellos is masculine and literally means, “Those men/boys/males” but more often than not just means, “They/them” without being gender specific. Likewise, the common term for parents is padres which literally means, “Fathers.” Nevertheless, the term is almost universally used to refer to both parents at the same time.

Notice that we don’t suggest that translators are distorting the message of a Mexican speaker writer when they translate ellos as “They” and padres as “Parents.” Neither should we automatically suggest that the TNIV and others distort the message of Scripture with gender inclusive language.

Cautions for Using Gender Inclusive Language

All that having been said, I do not want to suggest that I advocate gender inclusive language in all instances. While our culture has become more sensitive to such issues, we must admit that the Bible was not. There is no getting around the fact that the Bible is very andro-centric (male-centered).** The Bible is an ancient text, not a modern one. We should not force it into our image.

For instance, at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, James stands up and says, ανδρες αδελφοι (”men, brothers!”) This text must be translated in the masculine. It is clear from the context that only the elders and apostles were present for this council, not women. Gender neutral language here would obscure the text.

Furthermore, we must be careful so as not to distort theological meanings of the text. Some passages may look like appropriate for a gender neutral translation, but because the text has a certain theological (e.g. messianic or Christological) implication, it ought to be translate as masculine.

The Church throughout the centuries has seen Psalm 1:1 (above) as refering to Christ Himself. Christ is the blessed man who does not walk in the counsel of wicked, stand in the way of sinners, or sit in the seat of mockers. While this allusion could be made using gender inclusive language, this interpretation can become somewhat shrouded by such inclusiveness.

Similarly, we must realize that God is described mostly in masculine language. God is Father and Jesus is Son. Because of the cultural world in which the Bible was written, these terms have significance beyond most glosses (e.g. Creator, Sustainer, Redeemer, etc). The role of a father in Israel included procreation, provision, discipline, relationship, etc. Other modern glosses simply don’t capture this full range of meaning.

Conclusion

Therefore, gender inclusive language on the whole does not distort the biblical text, and we should not fear or oppose it unilaterally. Nevertheless, we must let the ancient text be an ancient text. If and when we use gender inclusive language, we must be very careful to avoid changing or shrouding meanings (theological or otherwise) implied in the original, masculine language.

*While we shouldn’t doubt that women throughout history doubted that God speaks to them through His Word, translations like the TNIV and others have tried to make this more explicit.

** Note: Andro-centrism does not necessarily imply misogyny. I am certainly more feline-centric (I prefer cats), but that does not mean that I am misocanine (I don’t mistreat dogs).

I was recently instructed to be wary of reading the Bible academically.  To do so, it was claimed, could potentially hurt me spiritually.  From the academic perspective, the Sacred Text becomes no more than a mere text book, and the whole endeavor becomes an exercise of scholarship rather than spiritual and personal devotion, reflection and growth.

At the risk of poo-pooing such a notion, this is one that I do not fully understand.  I have now been involved in some form of biblical academia for over 7 years now.  I have studied the Bible at a seminary, a secular institution, and a religious school.  At no time has the Bible become just a textbook.

In seminary, part of our weekly reading was to read large (I mean large) sections of Holy Writ.  We had to read the entirety of the Old Testament (except Lamentations, for some reason) and the entirety of the New Testament (Acts and Romans were read twice!).  While I must admit that I did not complete every assignment, I found these assignments to be basically mandated “Quite Times.”  Digesting that much material can be difficult and daunting, but I found it far from spiritually harmful.

Furthermore, as I have begun studying God’s Word in more “academic” depth, I have found it to be far more complex, profound, and amazing than I had ever considered.  Understanding the Hebrew and Greek, as well as the literary features, history of the text and culture of the nation only add to this.  Wordplays, implicit theological arguments, cultural implications, etc. abound, and they all serve to highlight God’s  power, wisdom, mercy and love.  The more I learn, the more I realize I do not understand, and this makes my God seem bigger and bigger than before.

In short, my intellectual knowledge either leads to or is equated with my spiritual knowledge.  I do not believe that the academic has harmed my soul, or the soul’s of many in my position, in any way. I certainly do not doubt God’s Word or question its authority.

Does this mean that I have grown spiritually in the past seven years?  Perhaps, but I am not sure I would make that claim. My sin is still obvious, prevalent, and stronger than I desire.  My arrogance, selfishness, and lust are, sadly, still hanging about.  I long for the day when they will depart forever. Kyrie Eleison! While my mind and heart understand more of God’s character and commands, my will is often too rebellious. “The Spirit is willing but the flesh is weak,” as Our Lord warned. Nevertheless, this seems to be in spite of my intellectual growth, not because of it.

So I thank God for what He has shown me in His excellent Word. I praise Him for His Revelation of Himself to humanity and for teaching sinners like me. And I pray for deliverance from the hold that sins has upon me and vice versa. I also pray that others would have the opportunity to learn some of what I have gleaned. Far from it being an exercise in my abilities, I am convinced all the more that anything I have learned has been by His grace, mercy and love.

To Him alone be the glory, now and forever. Amen!

In words that I would never have been capable of articulating, this is why I am a biblical scholar.

Sacred Scripture so incomparably transcends all human knowledge and learning that I am reduced to silence. It proclaims the truth; calls to the heavenly fatherland; changes the heart of the reader from earthly desires to embracing higher ones. It challenges the strong with its more obscure expressions, while attracting little ones with simple speech. It is not so inaccessible that one should be frightened, nor so obvious that it becomes cheap. Familiarity with it takes away boredom; and the more one meditates on it, the more one loves it. It helps the soul of the reader with simple words, raises it with sublime meanings. In a certain sense it grows with the one who reads. The uneducated, in part, appraise it, while on the other hand the learned are always finding new things in it.

- St. Gregory the Great, Moral Commentary on Job, XX.1 (circa 600).

I am so privileged to be able to spend my time studying the Sacred Text. I only wish that my admiration for it and for the God it proclaims were greater. I agree with Gregory that the Bible is both simple and extremely complex; shallow and very deep. May the Lord speak to all of us, as we read, study, and learn from His Word.

A friend just told me about a group of conservatives who are putting together a new translation of the Bible. This project, called The Conservative Bible Project, aims to correct and surpass all of the “liberal” Bible translations (ex: NIV and ESV) in our pews.  Please take the time read about the CBP using the link provided before you continue here.  You may also want to read the reviews by Mark Shea and The Huffington Post.

The Positives of the Conservative Bible Project

The CBP is right to understand that translation implies interpretation. This is denied by virtually no one. Indeed, it is impossible to translate a text, especially a religious one, without inserting one’s own bias or preferences.  Thus, the CBP is correct that a liberal minded translator (or group of translators) may intentionally or inadvertently impose a liberal agenda on the interpretation, which certainly should be avoided.

A decent example might be the modern move to include only gender inclusive language (ex: “people” instead of “men” or “children” instead of “sons”). This can result in Old Testament foreshadowings of Christ (ex. Psalm 1:1) being lost in translation. Clearly, such would be a move away from traditional Christianity, and hesitancy here is understandable.

Furthermore, the CBP is right to suggest that there are false teachers and bad theologies within our churches.  As there is no perfect church, there is no perfect translation.  If a translation leads to erroneous conceptions of God, sin, man, Hell, Jesus, etc., then it should be rejected. 

Ambiguities within the Conservative Bible Project

Nevertheless, I firmly believe the CBP to be ambiguous on certain accounts and down right wrong on others. First, the CBP defines neither “conservative” nor “liberal”. It is completely unclear what is being criticized and what is being upheld. Are they dealing with theological conservatism/liberalism or political conservatism/liberalism?

For instance, the CBP claims that the word, “government,” is a liberal word. However, there is no explanation as to why government is inherently liberal. Is this a theological issue or political issue? The same ambiguity applies to words like comrade, laborer, and fellow. Even God’s name, Yahweh, is considered “liberal wordiness”, and no defense is given. This is confusing to the say the least.

Second, the project is unclear as to whether it desires to present a entirely new translation or build upon the existing King James Version. The project cannot do both, because there are well attested problems with the underlying Greek text, Textus Receptus, of the KJV (see Bruce Metzger’s Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament and Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, And Restoration).

The CBP seems to understand this, but it fails to commit to a new translation. It is unclear how the CBP will decipher which verses/words/sections of the KJV are “defective” and which are not. If the CBP bases its work upon the Textus Receptus, then they will be off to a poor start.

Third, the CBP seems to occasionally not like the Greek itself! In Luke 16:8, the CBP is dissatisfied with the word “shrewdly” because of its “connotations of dishonesty.” They prefer to use “resourceful.” The problem is that the Greek, φρονιμως (phronimos), means, “Shrewdly, wisely, or prudently,” not “Resourceful.” Are they claiming that Luke’s words are too liberal?

Errors of the Conservative Bible Project

Furthermore, there seem to be places where the underlying philosophy and practice of the CBP is in error. The most obvious example is that the CBP equates “conservativism” with God’s truth. However, it is possible – indeed, probable – that the theology behind the CBP is flawed, at least on points. If this is the case, their theology should not be the guiding principle in translation.

Instead, they should acquire serious Greek philologists, linguists, textual critics and grammarians to translate the text as literally (whether word for word or thought for thought) as possible. Then, the CBP should conform its theology to the Biblical text, not the other way around!

For instance, topics such as social justice, which the CBP rejects, are present within the Bible, especially in the OT prophets (ex: Jeremiah and Isaiah). God cares about poor, oppressed, and exploited people. Simply because the CBP is cautious about promoting the “Christian social justice movement” – how they define this is unclear – they should not alter the text.

In short, the CBP seems to be driven by agenda, which is exactly the critique they use against their liberal opponents. Yet if God’s Word actually differs from the CBP’s theology/philosophy, the CBP should alter their philosophy not the Biblical text. The “conservative” agenda should not be allowed to alter God’s Word any more than a “liberal” one should. This is, perhaps, the most serious problem of the CBP.

Furthermore, the CBP appears deficient in its knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. For instance, they claim that the use of “word” in John 1:1 has lost its meaning in modern society – fair enough. Thus, they suggest using “truth” instead. However, the Greek is λογος (logos: word) not αληθεια (aletheia: truth). The former simply does not mean, “Truth,” (see BDAG, 2000, pp. 598-601), and to translate it as such is just wrong.

Finally, the whole project appears to be condescending and pejorative. Anytime there is a potentially liberal word or concept (remember that this includes “Yahweh!”), it is considered a distortion or intrusion. They paint of picture of pseudo-christians infiltrating the church with their radical agenda and who can only be stopped by a conservative vocabulary.

This gives no credit to the politically or theologically liberal scholars who are more qualified than CBP members in understanding Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic language, grammar, morphology, and literature. Even if we assume that the CBP’s theology is perfect, this does not guarantee that they know how to translate and understand ancient texts. Credit should be given where credit is due, but the CBP seems unwilling to acknowledge the skill that so-called “liberals” might possess. This reeks of arrogance and condescension, which is always a bad starting ground for doing the work of God, as the CBP is clearly motivated to do.

Conclusion

I appreciate what the CBP is trying to do. St. Paul was correct in predicting that there would be many false teachers in the church universal, and there certainly are today. However, stamping a movement or translation “conservative” does not solve this problem, and it may even foster it by confusing theological problems with political ones.

I agree with the CBP that new translations of the Bible are needed, especially as modern English changes with time and culture. Nevertheless, new translations should be governed by what the texts actually say, not by what a group wants them to say. Once the meaning of a text is understood, translators should seek to communicate that meaning in the vernacular, as best as possible. Sometimes this might mean using “liberal” vocabulary or even – God forbid! – promoting social justice, because that is what the texts say and mean.

In the end, since the CBP seems more motivated by agenda than faithfulness to the text, I am inclined to see it as biased, unhelpful, flawed, and even misleading. It’s not the kookiness Mark Shea suggests, but it’s not a good idea either.

Rodney R. Hutton, “Are the Parents Still Eating Sour Grapes?  Jeremiah’s Use of the Māšāl in Contrast to Ezekiel,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 71, no 2 (2009), pp. 275-85.

Both Jeremiah 31:29 and Ezekiel 18:2 contain the proverb about sour grapes, and the purpose of H’s article is to discuss its usage in each book. First, H discusses the meaning of תקהינה (root: קהה) in the proverb. Based upon its usage in Ecclesiastes 10:10, he argues that the meaning of the verb is, “To become dull,” not, “To set on edge.” Thus, as an axe does not become dull with one stroke, neither do teeth wear away after one grape. Hence, the proverb is best understood as a continuous, not momentary, eating of sour grapes.

Next, H highlights the oft-neglected tense differences between Ezekiel (imperfect = continuous) and Jeremiah (perfect = completed) regarding the verb אכל, “to eat.” In Ezekiel, the people expect the present, continuous norm to be their suffering because of their ancestors. It is their parents’ fault that their teeth are dull. Ezekiel, counters by calling the people to account for their own wrongdoing.

In contrast, Jeremiah uses the proverb in a manner similar to how he describes the Ark of the Covenant (3:16-17) and the confession of deliverance (16:14-15). His use of כי אם (”but rather”) shows that he is not countering a mistaken perception of the people but retiring this, “venerable vestige” of the past for the sake of a future promise, namely the new covenant. Here, H relies upon Schoneveld, Kilpp, and the past/completed aspect of the perfect tense.

I want to introduce what I call “The Cara Maxim,” after Dr. Bob Cara, one of my former professors at Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC. This maxim is an obvious, but important, principle whenever one interprets a text. Dr. Cara certainly harped on it enough.

Briefly stated, the Cara Maxim is:

The truth of a principle does not imply or demand the presence of that principle in a given text.

In other words, simply because something is true, does not mean that one can find it in every passage of Scripture. Likewise, the absence of a particular principle in a text does not mean that said principle is false. Hence if someone argues that proposition X is not in this text, then it does not follow that this person believes X to be false.

Now, at first glance this seems obvious, and, indeed, it needs little in the way of proof. For example, that Jesus Christ rose from the dead is true. However, this does not mean that Genesis 1 teaches that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. I claim that Genesis 1 does not teach this, but I still believe that Jesus resurrected. This is the Cara Maxim at work.

I write about this here, because it can be very easy, especially in apologetic-type discussions, to confuse truth with presence. This frequently happens with prooftexting. Another example should explain what I mean. So as not to be biased and unfair, I’ll use one from my own background, the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Question #74 asks:

What is required by the eighth commandment?

Answer: The eighth commandment requireth the lawful procuring and furthering the wealth and outward estate of ourselves and others..

I want to highlight the part about the lawful procuring and furthering the wealth of others. It is abundantly clear in Scripture that we are to help others financially, as seen in the verses referenced by the Catechism (Lev. 25:35; Phil 2:4).

However, neither Exodus 20:15 nor Deuteronomy 5:19, where the eighth commandment is explicitly stated, offer any such proscription. They only prohibit stealing. The eighth commandment says nothing about what one should do, only what one is NOT to do.

Therefore, the truth that one should help one’s neighbor financially does not imply that the eighth commandment teaches one to do this. In saying this I do not deny the moral imperative placed upon me to help my neighbor. I simply point out that Exodus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 5:19 do not teach that. This is the Cara Maxim at work.

In future posts I will reference the Cara Maxim in dissecting apologetic arguments, exegetical treatises, or devotional reflections. It is incredibly important to understand what a given text says and what it does not say. To do otherwise is to misinterpret, misunderstand, and to misapply God’s Holy Word.

Hopefully, in understanding this rather basic principle you will avoid such pitfalls in your own understanding of Scripture and be able to point it out in the writings of others, including yours truly.

Image Credit: TreyEvan

I recently had an interesting discussion based upon this post at Matthew Bellisario’s blog, Catholic Champion. While the original post was about the Reformers and contraception, the discussion in the combox centered around Genesis 38 and whether or not this text condemns such contraception, including coitus interruptus, masturbation, and modern methods like the pill.

In responding to this post, I’ll reprint the biblical text, give a short exegesis of it, and then draw theological and moral conclusions from it.  If you’re only interested in the last bit, feel free to skip to the end.

Genesis 38

1 It happened at that time that Judah went down from his brothers and turned aside to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah. 2 There Judah saw the daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua. He took her and went in to her, 3 and she conceived and bore a son, and he called his name Er. 4 She conceived again and bore a son, and she called his name Onan. 5 Yet again she bore a son, and she called his name Shelah. Judah was in Chezib when she bore him.

6 And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. 7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and the LORD put him to death. 8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother’s wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. 10 And what he did was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and he put him to death also. 11 Then Judah said to Tamar his daughter-in-law, “Remain a widow in your father’s house, till Shelah my son grows up” – for he feared that he would die, like his brothers. So Tamar went and remained in her father’s house.

(English Standard Version)

Image Credit: Brian Hillegas

Exegesis of Genesis 38:1-11

Judah was one of the twelve sons of Jacob/Israel. His mother was Leah, Jacob’s first wife and the daughter of Laban, Jacob’s uncle.

The story begins here with Judah leaving his brothers, who remained behind in Canaan shortly after Joseph had been sold by his brothers.  There he meets the daughter of Shua, a Canaanite, and he marries her.

The two of them then three sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah. Judah then selects a wife, named Tamar,  for his eldest son, Er, but he does not choose any wives for his other two sons.

Now Er, was wicked so Yahweh killed him. However, there is no description of Er’s sin or rebellion.

Judah then tells Onan to have intercourse with Tamar with the result that the offspring would be Er’s not Onan’s. This custom would later be called Levirite Marriage. A great example of this is seen in the book of Ruth, especially chapter 4, and it is made explicit in Deuteronomy:

5 If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. 6 And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. (Deut 25:5-6; ESV).

Now, the rules for Levirite Marriage were not handed down until the time of Moses. Thus, technically, Onan was obligated to fulfill a law here, but the fact that his father encourages this practice puts a large burden on Onan. Interestingly, Judah does not command Onan to take Tamar as a wife. He only commands that they produce offspring.

Apparently this burden was too much. Onan knew “that the offspring would not be his” (v. 9). Therefore, instead of fulfilling his father’s command, he decides to withdraw early and spill his semen on the ground. Obviously, this prevents pregnancy and offspring.

This means that Onan would now be considered the firstborn. Since he was the second oldest, Onan would have taken the privileged status held by Er. Thus, he was entitled to the inheritance of the firstborn, which was always greater (compare with the story of Jacob and Esau in Gen. 27). If Tamar had a son in the line of Er, that child would receive Er’s inheritance, not Onan. Onan’s actions prevent this.

Still, the text does not say that this was Onan’s motivation. All that we are told is that Onan’s action was evil in God’s sight. Therefore, God kills him, just as he had killed Er, Onan’s older brother.

Instead of sending Shellah, Judah’s last son, into Tamar, Judah fears that Shellah will suffer the same fate as Er and Onan. Therefore, he tells Tamar to wait until Shellah is older (how old, we do not know). We find out later that Tamar tricks Judah into sleeping with her, and it is Judah’s offspring that is then brought forth (Gen. 38:12-30).

Image Credit: Coach O

Genesis 38, Theology, and Morality

There are several wicked people in this story, not just Onan, and their sin(s) is/are not always clear. Both Onan and Er are said to have been wicked before the Lord. Then in v. 26 Judah admits his guilt in not sending Shellah into Tamar. There is a lot of sin in the passage but not all of it is identifiable (e.g. Er’s sin) and not all is applicable today (e.g. Levirite Marriage).

There are also multiple possibilities for Onan’s Sin. Greed is a prime suspect. In not fulfilling his duties, he guarantees the firstborn’s share for himself. This is potentially coupled with selfishness. In failing in his duties, he leaves Tamar without a lineage and without someone to care for her.

Onan also directly disobeys a command from his father. This showed rebellion, pride, selfishness, and disrespect. Although the Law would come later, in some circumstances, disobedience was worthy of death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). The details of Onan’s situation do not directly correlate to Deuteronomy 21, but the point is that Onan’s dishonoring and disobeying his father was serious and potentially deadly.

Onan also did not fulfill his duty in Levirite Marriage. Again, although the Law did not come later, it is possible that this was a common, accepted, and expected practice. While the punishment for refusing to fulfill Levirite duties was not death (Deut. 25:7-10), it was shameful to do so.

Plus, Onan does not simply tell Tamar that he refuses to take her in marriage, as described in Deuteronomy 25:7. Instead, he tricks her, seduces her, does not marry her, and then denies her children. Thus, Onan fails in his Levirite duty through deception, adultery, and stubbornness. This is more significant than Deuteronomy 25, making a stricter punishment probable.

Or it could have been coitus interruptus. This is the only place in the Old Testament that describes such an act, and Onan’s death occurs shortly thereafter. Thus, it is not unreasonable to see this as a possibility, and I do not want to disregard it outright.

Yet, as I have shown above, there are plenty of sins that Onan has committed, some of which may merit death, and the combination of them all might demand it. The problem is that the text does not specify the particular sin or sins that cause God to kill Onan. It is ambiguous. To hone in on the contraceptive act alone is to say more than the text says.

Plus, semen discharge is not counted as abortive event or one that merits any moral concern in the Old Testament. Leviticus 15 states that the results of a man’s discharge (whether semen, puss, blood, etc.) makes the man, his clothes, and anything he touches ritually unclean. He is to bathe his entire body, and then he becomes clean at night (Lev. 15:16).

Now all the examples in Leviticus 15 are involuntary, but Onan’s action was voluntary. The peculiar thing, however, is that if self-inflicted semen loss (coitus interruptus, masturbation, etc.) was a capital offense, it seems odd that the Old Testament omits any such law, while including proscriptions for nocturnal emissions. Hence, if one argues that refusing Levirite duties is not punishable by death, then one must also argue that neither is coitus interruptus or masturbation.

Conclusion

In the end, I’m forced to conclude that the text is not clear enough to specify a particular sin as “The Sin” that caused Onan’s death. It seems likely that it was some combination of greed, selfishness, deception, lust, and disobedience. Since coitus interruptus is not specifically stated as the reason, and it was neither a capital offense nor an offense discussed elsewhere in the Old Testament, it seems unlikely that this was the cause.

Therefore, I conclude that Genesis 38 is ambiguous about Onan’s sin at best and points to sins other than coitus interruptus at worst. It is, thus, unreasonable to use this text as proof against contraception.

Bibliographical Information

Barry G. Webb, Five Festal Garments: Christian Reflections on The Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000). Pp. 151. $22.

Rating: 2.5 stars out of 5.

Note: this review is an amended version of a review I will submit to the Catholic University of America.

Abstract

The stated purpose of Webb’s book is to relate the five books of the Megilloth to the Christian Gospel. Webb’s approach is, therefore, from the perspective of biblical theology, which he defines as, “An approach that sees the fundamental task of the discipline as describing as fully as possible the given, canonical shape of the Bible’s own theology. Its focus is on the unity of Scripture, while doing full justice to its diversity. The key to this unity in diversity is found in the gospel preached by Jesus and his apostles…” (p. 15; emphasis original). Consequently, Webb’s approach is essentially evangelical, that is, relating to the evangel of Jesus Christ (p. 15). In order to show the connection between the Megilloth and the gospel, each chapter discusses one of the five scrolls, and follows a three-fold procedure.

In part I of each chapter, Webb presents a reading of the book on its own terms, allowing the text to “speak for itself” (p. 16). He uses an exegetical method that is more rhetorical than historical-critical. He assumes compositional unity and internal coherence; he spends very little time discussing and critiquing modern critical methods; and he focuses on how the meaning of the text develops throughout the course of the narrative or poem. Furthermore, he looks for literary devices including refrains, repetition, and chiasm, although he is not a rhetorical critic to the extent that Muilenburg or Lundbom are. In his chapters on Ruth and Lamentations, Webb spends a lot of time examining many of the details of the book as he explores them chapter by chapter. In both, he is quite interested in plot and character development (e.g. Boaz in Ruth; and the city in Lamentations). However, in the chapters on Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes and Esther, W devotes a lot more time to general themes than to verse-by-verse exegesis. In fact, in the chapter on Ecclesiastes, only a handful of passages are even discussed, and his discussion of Esther focuses on the tragic-heroic aspects of Esther and Mordecai and the Jewish nature of the text.

In part II, Webb discuss the meaning of the book in its Old Testament context. Most of the attention is given to the meaning of the book in light of its placement within the canon. Thus, these sections do more than hint toward Childs’ method. Since the opening verse of Song of Songs links it to Solomon, as does the epilogue to Ecclesiastes, Webb relates these texts to the other Old Testament wisdom literature, particularly Proverbs. The understandings of Ruth and Lamentations change slightly depending on whether one links them with the Writings or the Prophets. However, he also compares these books to other similar passages in the Old Testament (e.g. Ecclesiastes and Genesis 1-11; Song of Songs and Genesis 1-3; Lamentations and deuteronomistic theology; and Ruth and the Law) and salvation history (Ruth and Esther).

In part III, Webb tackles the goal of his monograph, namely relating these Old Testament texts to the Christian evangel. For Lamentations, this means connecting it with Paul’s discussion of love and marriage, New Testament eschatology (e.g. Matt 22:30; Eph 5:31-32; and Rev 19:6-10), and the Christian’s love towards God. Because of its concluding genealogy, Ruth is referenced by the genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3, and Ruth’s central theme of kindness is picked up sporadically in the New Testament in texts such as Gal 5:22 and Eph 4:32. The main connections between Lamentations and the evangel are themes of suffering over sin, true repentance, and the future of Israel’s election. However, Webb also points out a few possible allusions in the New Testament that may point to Lamentations (e.g. Acts 8:23 and Lam 3:15; and 1 Cor 4:13 and Lam 3:45). Webb finds a link between Rom 8:19-24 and Ecclesiastes on the basis of creation/fall themes and universal frustration. Furthermore, the New Testament’s frequent theme of hope provides a clear solution to Qoheleth’s hebel, and Paul’s work of Christ (Phil 2:30) is a greater, less wearisome, and meaningful work in contrast to Qoheleth’s `ml. As for Esther, Webb encourages readers to make such Jewish redemptive-historical stories part of their own Christian story. In particular, God’s elect people now includes the Gentiles and Esther’s redeemer is also the Christian’s.

For Scholars

Overall, most scholars will probably not find much use for this text. It lacks critical depth, and it barely interacts with any modern scholarship. In fact, major commentaries (e.g. Seow on Ecclesiastes) are simply not addressed at all. Difficult passages are either glossed over or ignored altogether, and there is only minimal discussion of the original language. Plus, the discussions in parts II and III of each chapter are simply just too brief for the scholar to truly benefit. The exegesis and summaries in part I, likewise, also lack a lot of sophistication often sought by the biblical scholar. Part I may prove helpful as a summary tool but not as much else.

For Churchmen

Churchmen (clergy, lay leaders, and laymen) will possibly find this book somewhat helpful, especially in part I of each chapter. These sections provide helpful overviews of either the text or its themes that could prove to be helpful introductions to these oft neglected books of the Bible. Pastors and teachers would find these “summaries” useful for seeing the big picture, a safeguard against getting lost in the details. Part I may also help laymen, who are unfamiliar with these books, get a basic understanding of these texts.

However, as mentioned above, parts II and III simply lack enough depth or detail to really be helpful in the church setting. Part III may give a simple beginning towards understanding these OT texts in light of Christ, but they hardly provide enough information for a full sermon, bible study, or devotional aid.

Further Suggestions

One area that this book does not cover but ought to be discussed is the relationship between these books are their corresponding feasts. The books of the Megilloth are associated with the five major Jewish holidays. For example, Ruth is read at Passover and Ecclesiastes at the Feast of Tabernacles. Webb could easily have added a fourth part to each chapter discussing why the book is read at a particular feast and what insight that might have for understanding the teaching of the book and its relationship to the Christian evangel. This would be a great area for future research.

Image Source: Flickr Creative Commons - Laura Dunn Mark

Traditional Idols

I remember as a kid in Sunday School being taught about idolatry. We were told that idols aren’t just made of stone, gold, or wood.  Rather, I was told that an idol is anything that takes the place of God.

This made a lot of sense to me then. Things like money, family, fame, TV, music, etc. take the place of God all the time – after all, we spend tons of time worrying about and seeking fulfillment from these things – and thus, they could easily become idols to us. In and of themselves, they were OK, but taken to the extreme, they would become idols.  This is a position argued (or rather assumed) in recent book by Greg Dutcher, found here.

Scriptural Idols

Over the past few years, however, I’ve begun to question this definition. This is because idolatry implies worship. While, I’ve spent a lot of time over the years in front of my TV or literally bowed over my computer, I am not sure that I can say that I have, ‘worshiped,’ these things. Consider the sense of worship found here:

“You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself a carved image,
or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above,
or that is on the earth beneath,
or that is in the water under the earth.
You shall not bow down to them or serve them;
for I the LORD your God am a jealous God,
visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.” (Exodus 20:3-6).

Questions about Idols

Could it be that in believing our idols are entertainment, fashion, money, sports, reputation, and the Internet, we have missed what really are our modern idols? Is it possible that the things discussed above are only symptoms of the deeply rooted evil within our hearts? Could we be worshiping, bowing down to, and serving idols that we don’t yet know exist?

But what are they? Certainly, modern day Christians don’t make golden calves, bow down to statues, build sacred poles, or are convinced that such things save, at least none I’ve ever met.

I’ve been wrestling with these kinds of questions for the past year or so: What is the definition of, ‘Idol?’ What do all idols have in common? How can we make a good definition, so that we can accurately uncover them in our society? Is our culture still plagued with idolatry? Has it infiltrated the Church? How can we know?

I hope to examine these in further details in future posts by examining the 10 Commandments, narrative examples throughout Scripture, admonitions by the prophets, and even some theological confessions and catechisms.

What Do You Think?

However, I’d also be interested in some of your thoughts on the matter. Are you content with the “classical” definition given above? How do you define the term, “Idol?” How do you think that we as Christians should rid ourselves of idols?

Image from FlickR Creative Commons

One of my favorite bloggers, TurretinFan, has just graciously responded to a question I posed to him here (link). His response can be found here (link).

He argues from Exodus 32, 1 Kings 12, and Hosea 8 that when the Israelites constructed golden calves to worship, that these were, in fact, visible representations of their God, YHWH, rather than an idol of some other god. I highly recommend reading his argument.

Nevertheless, I’m afraid I have to disagree with TurretinFan here. In short, I do not believe that his arguments mandate that these texts teach Israel worshiping YHWH through the use of images (akin, but not identical, to modern uses of statues or icons in Catholic or Orthodox churches). That is, the texts do not seem to dictate that interpretation; others are possible.

Moreover, I hold to the position that these texts actually seem to show Israel worshiping not YHWH but another god altogether. Here is why:

1. The use of Elohim (God or “gods”) is inconclusive. It may refer to Yahweh, but does not have to. Something else would have to suggest that before we make that conclusion. TF seems to recognize this in the post, but he holds that the use of Elohim suggests that the reference is YHWH.

2. The link between the calves and the Exodus event is, likewise, inconclusive. It certainly fits a Yahwistic interpretation, but it fits others, as well. If the Israelites did not intend for the calf in Exod/Deut to be YHWH, surely they would claim that this new god had been the real deliverer. This is (or could be) an instance of attributing to a false god the attributes of YHWH. For instance, if they had said, “This is the elohim that created us from nothing,” then they would simply be attributing YHWH’s creative ability/acts to the idol, not necessarily claiming that the idol was (or represented) YHWH.

Hence, I don’t find the Israelites’ reference to the Exodus to be convincing proof that they intended the calf to be YHWH. Given that the Exodus was so significant and recent and that the calf would be used as their national god, it only makes sense that the new national god would be “given” credit for that deliverance.

3. There is ample evidence that calves were symbols/idols of other national gods at the time, particularly of Canaan and Phoenecia. In fact, other Jewish literature (e.g. Tobit 1:5) links the calf with the idol Baal explicitly. It seems possible, if not probable, that the Israelites were adopting the gods of other nations.

Matthew Henry (see his note on Exod 32:3, 4) actually believes that the calf was an Egyptian god rather than a Canaanite or Phoenecian god, although calves were important religious symbols there too. He supports this with reference to Ezek. 20:8; 23:8, where the prophet says that they had not forsaken their Egyptian ways. This also makes sense of Stephen’s statement in Acts 7:39, 40 that the Israelites had turned back to Egypt in heart (though not in location).

4. The fact that one idol was taken to Dan and another to Bethel does not prove that they signified YHWH. It at most indicates that the calves were to signify the same god. As with point #1, further evidence would have to be used to show that this one god was, in fact, YHWH.

5. Not one of those passages clearly identifies the idol with YHWH. The closest is the reference to the feast for YHWH, but notice that YHWH is still not associated directly with the calf, only with the feast.

Now, I must admit that these passages also do not identify the calves with any other deity either. However, there does not seem to be enough in the passages to demand that the calves were representations of YHWH, as I hope I have shown.

In fact, those Israelites that turn to these calves do not seem to have any desire to worship YHWH at all. Rather, the people turn away from Moses and (presumably) what he represented, that is YHWH (Exodus 32); Jeroboam makes the 2 calves to rival YHWH worship in Jerusalem (1 Kings 12); and Hosea 8:1-4 indicates that the people were in direct rebellion against YHWH by setting up their own kings, princes, and (probably) calves.

In other words, in each of these cases, the (self-avowed) motivation appears to be rebellion against YHWH and/or fear of some other circumstance (e.g. Moses’ absence; rivalry between the northern and southern kingdoms), rather than a desire to worship and serve YHWH. I would suggest that, in fact, they weren’t trying to worship YHWH at all but rather establishing a substitute deity.

Since this whole discussion arose in response to Catholic apologetics, I feel it is important to note that the Israelites motivation is shown to be radically different than those posed by modern Catholics (and Orthodox) in their use of statues and icons.

Therefore (finally!), I don’t find these texts showing YHWH worship through the use of symbols/idols or even YHWH worship at all. YHWH worship is possible but not explicit, and I would argue that it is also not probable. Indeed, I believe that it looks more like the Israelites are worshiping something/someone other than YHWH when they use these golden calves.