homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Kerygmania: Divine Purpose in the Old Testament (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Kerygmania: Divine Purpose in the Old Testament
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250

 - Posted      Profile for W Hyatt   Email W Hyatt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A couple of weeks ago, Nigel posted this in the "A Sovereign God" thread:

quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
...on a slightly more board-appropriate note: how much consistency are we right to demand from the bible? Is it a block given to us by God and effectively 'written' by him, or is it more like a library of different books recording man's encounter with the diving, in which the Spirit may be seen moving; like a family album rather than a constitution, complete with the occasional mad uncle?

Wow! What a massive topic!!!! I'll go for a good British compromise – it is in between the two options. God's Word in human words – which is more about the language capability of humans to describe God in the way God authorised them to do so – even if they were not completely aware of that authorisation.

I find helpful the linguistic approach that builds on speech act theory here: meaning lies in paying attention to the words used by the authors in the way they used them. That can apply to both the human writers and the divine.

Another way to look at it – from a theological base rather than a linguistic one – is incarnational. God 'births' the message through the lives of the theologians who studied him so well.

An yet another model: Scriptural angle this time. God has a purpose to his message which, to use the metaphor in Isaiah 55:10f - “...as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return there without watering the earth and making it bear and sprout, and furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater; so will my word be which goes forth from my mouth; it will not return to me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.”

It's possible to marry those three models together – all pay attention to purpose in communication. So – what was the purpose of 1 Samuel 15 from a divine as well as human authorial point of view?

Nigel

I like the last sentence as a way of framing the question, especially against the background theme of covenant. So my question to anyone who regards the Old Testament as being divine revelation (or divinely inspired to a degree that puts it in a special class) is: How do you see the relationship between the divine purpose or message in the OT and the apparent purpose or message of the human author, especially in the example of 1 Samuel 15 in particular?

[ 19. November 2013, 01:58: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.

Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've been grappling with this issue (more generally in respect of the whole bible) for some time, but have never really had the opportunity to pull together ideas and see where they go, so this is a good chance to pull in the fishing lines.

I suppose the first issue is knowing where to start. My starting point has been to ask the question, “Why is that there?” when faced with a text. This can be broken into two areas of study:
quote:
[1] The text (as we have it) authored by human beings; and
[2] The same text (as we have it) authored by God.

I'll bypass here the issues of the literary development and also of the textual transmission of the text if I may; mainly because from a practical point of view we have to use the text as we have it, or we would be here forever!

Number [1] above has been analysed from a host of standpoints, looking for example at the authors' particular historical, cultural, social, and psychological settings, using their personal idiolects (the speech patterns unique to each individual) within the wider language horizons of their settings, the reason and purpose for writing, the choice of genre, the presuppositions that affected their writing... and so on.

Number [2] above has a much more restricted orbit of study. Approaches have tended to be along one of the following lines:
quote:
[2a] Ignore the human element and start from the assumption that this is God's message carried directly to the hearer. The mechanism for understanding the message is usually associated with the work of the Holy Spirit;
[2b] Discuss the divine intention by way of inference. We infer what God wanted to say from second-hand sources, the human authors. As assumption can be made here that what God wanted to say the authors in fact did say, or that God carried the basics of a message through by working with the limitations of human speech. Further along the spectrum would be that the human authors did the best they could according to their lights, and it falls to the interpreter to distil out golden nuggets from the dross. It's possible here also to ascribe to the Holy Spirit the wisdom needed to take the necessary decisions.

Whatever approach is taken, there needs to be a justification for it – an ability to set out the grounds for the approach – so that it is available for public testing. Without that we run the risk of misunderstanding, a phenomenon that might lead to ways of living that do not accord with God's intention.

I've already started to use that word, 'intention.' For me, this is probably the most important element in interpretation. It has been the subject of much debate over the past 100 years, some cynicism, some rejection, and even battle cries. I've tossed the various critiques about, but have as yet not found a model to use that trumps 'Intention' as the key starting point to understanding a message. The premise is that there was always an intention in composing a work. The author always had a purpose, an aim, in mind. He or she may have been aiming at a specific audience, or might have had an implied audience in mind.

This intention, this purpose, this aim, drives the style of writing. In other words, genre is intention-dependent. I'm not convinced that a study of genre on its own will get to the nub of a piece. Having read the output of form critics from the middle of the last century, I have been left with the question, “OK, so the author wrote this Psalm as an individual lament. Yes, but Why??!!”

So, the “Why is that there?” question can help in drilling down beyond surface layers to the more in-depth issue of purpose in writing (or speaking - “Why did she say that” would then be the relevant question).

The intention that I have been referring to has been authorial intention. Not everyone is enamoured of that. Literary criticism (of texts generally, not just the bible) in the last century went through a series of analytical stages: searching for the author's meaning; searching for the meaning of the text; and later meaning as it lies with the reader. Each stage critiqued what went before and found it inadequate. In more recent decades the focus has been less on the individual components listed above and more on the interactions between them: author-text, reader-text. Does the fact that authorial meaning lies at the start of the list – critiqued by all that follows – 'mean' that it is outmoded? I think the answer is Yes – and No. The search for the meaning an author had did have its problems, but that had more to with issues over the definition of 'meaning' than anything else. My take is that the textual and reader-response options also fail at the point of 'meaning.' They have been barking up the wrong tree, because the real cat is not about 'meaning' as it stands on its own, but about 'intention.' This removes the focus of study from a static philosophical area (fascinating though that is!) to a more dynamic area.

Consequently I can break down further the study of “Why is that there?” as follows:-
[1] What the human author did by using the words he used in the way that he used them;
[2] What God did by using the human author in terms of [1].

There is a difference in scale here. Each individual human author can be analysed in terms of his or her own contribution. Each contribution stands on its own, with its own purpose. Something different happens, though, when we turn to God. Here we have a single author working in some way with (through?) a set of other authors. God's purpose would therefore best be seen at play across the entire range of books. Here we enter the world of the 'more than the sum of the parts.' The questions that lie here have to do with issues that affect many a thread on the Ship. Did God actually intend each and every word penned by the human, or did he decide to work with the text, warts and all? In what way did God interact with the human writers?

This bring us close the usual field of debate: inspiration, inerrancy and so on. To my mind this field is probably the wrong field to be jumping up and down on. My take – to return to the principle of intention – is to ask what the authors themselves did and how they viewed this activity that was coming together into what we now call the Bible. Secondly, how did they view God's role in this? The answer that I find best aligns with intention itself is summarised well in the Isaiah 55 quote (in the OP); God's message is infallible, i.e., it doesn't fail to achieve the purpose for which it was composed. If that's a good summary of how the biblical authors saw things, then I would say that it is good enough to answer the divine intention question.

With 1 Samuel 15, what is God's message that has been composed for a purpose here? Does it ride roughshod over the human intention or is it compatible? Can we, in fact, find a contribution to God's 'more than the sum of the parts' message contained in the human message?

I would argue that, yes, we can indeed find a component of the wider divine message in 1 Samuel 15. The basis for this argument (harking back to the importance of justifying one's approach) lies partly in the fact that this text was preserved down numerous generations alongside other texts that deal with other aspects of God's character. However, to back this up I would need to show how the 'more than the sum of the parts' fits here. I would need to show that the component fits, in terms of comprehensiveness, coherency, and consistency across the range of components. To those three criteria some may wish to add 'common sense.' I.e., does what we find there (comprehensively, coherently, and consistently) also fit with what we know about the community of human kind?

Monster post indeed. And really all just by way of background. I fear that without it, though, we would not be able to focus on the task at hand; we would constantly have to tackle presuppositions and misunderstandings along the path. Open for thoughts and challenges to all this, though. I'll come back to 1 Samuel 15 as the test case in more detail later.

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am intrigued by the distinction between authorial and Divine intent relating to any scripture.

I wonder just how much water it holds. Insofar as the text could then be interpreted, not only at two levels, but at contradictory levels.

When it comes to the Divine intent then I have got to say (for myself) that that intent, which was always present, was articulated in the Word made flesh. I understand this to be what God was intending to communicate all the way along the line. What got in the way were the ignorances, prejudices and sin of the humans who were the vehicles of communication.

So we are dealing with a progressive revelation. Progressive in the sense that comprehension of the Divine grew and developed through the OT years. Not that God was witholding or revealing piecemeal. Nor does this mean that the 'progression' was ever upward and onward. Far from it. There is eveidence of 'regression' even at a late stage.

But I would be interested in the point of view expressed by Nigel as expanded, particularly with ref to 1 Sam 15.

Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
...that intent, which was always present, was articulated in the Word made flesh. I understand this to be what God was intending to communicate all the way along the line. What got in the way were the ignorances, prejudices and sin of the humans who were the vehicles of communication.

I agree with the idea of Jesus being the primary communication of God, shamwari. The question that niggles at me when seeking to apply that, though, is, What do we do about the fact the communication of this divine intent comes to us via human authors? Can we be reasonably sure that “ignorances, prejudices and sin of the humans who were the vehicles of communication” do not also apply to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

We get, as it were, a second-hand account of Jesus (that's the 'image of the image' idea). Jesus is in the third person, in much the same way that God is in the third person in the OT. Right from the beginning, in fact: “In the beginning God...” rather than “In the beginning I...” Is perhaps the fact that we have this second-hand witness of Jesus deliberately consistent with the way we have witness to God in the OT?

Or is there a special process as work in the Gospel writings that is not to be found elsewhere?

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Shamwari, I must confess that I have a problem with the concept of 'progressive revelation', largely because of the caveats you, yourself, find necessary to make. Why can't we simply talk about developments in the Jewish understanding of the nature of God? We can then reserve 'revelation' for Jesus, whose appearance is the standard against which all previous imperfect understandings are judged, 1 Samuel 15 included.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Point taken Kwesi.

Agree.

Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nigel M, you ask the question is there a special process at work in the Gospel writings that is not to be found elsewhere? You, however, have already provided the answer when you agree with the idea of Jesus being the primary communication of God

What is special about the gospels is that they recount, however imperfectly, the life, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus, who, Christians believe, is God incarnate. Because of that we are inclined to think that the Gospel writers present a more accurate picture of the nature of God than the author of Samuel and the rest. It's not a question of special process or special inspiration. What makes the Gospels special is their subject matter.

Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
What is special about the gospels is that they recount, however imperfectly, the life, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus, who, Christians believe, is God incarnate. Because of that we are inclined to think that the Gospel writers present a more accurate picture of the nature of God than the author of Samuel and the rest. It's not a question of special process or special inspiration. What makes the Gospels special is their subject matter.

It's a bit of a logical jump, though, to go from the human rendering of Jesus, to the concept of that rendering being more accurate than another. It doesn't explain how this 'accuracy'
might be contrary to another (rather than just a bit better) - which is the point you want to make about 1 Samuel 15.

We are still stuck with the issue that the subject matter is presented by human authors. This is fine for my approach, which is that we need to treat the communication of Jesus in the same way we treat that of the OT when it comes to interpretation. The Old and New Testaments are on a level playing field when it comes to this. We need to get round the idiolects, if you like, so that the full nature of God is revealed over and beyond the limitations of individual expressions. If we find comprehensiveness, consistency, and coherence across the entire network of human communication in the biblical collection of books, then that would be the 'more than the sum of the parts' that go to make up God's purpose. We could limit this to the Gospels, but it would be my conclusion based on the material itself that even there we have a mediated view of Jesus (and hence of God) that is comprehensively, consistently, and coherently in line with that of the OT. That enquiry belongs on the other thread, though, I think.

What I am trying to point out is that we are dealing with human communication. This factor has to be taken seriously even when it comes to discerning Jesus as God's communication. Even if Jesus is 'The Word of God,' for whatever reason he is still communicated by 'the words of humans.'

My answer for dealing with this phenomenon is not to retreat into philosophical concepts of special communication (inerrancy, inspiration, and so on), which I think you suspect me of doing! Those concepts might have their place, but - as an example - inerrancy actually works against my approach because it assumes a way of communicating that is alien (on my reading) to the way the biblical authors saw divine communication themselves.

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I would simply dispute the suggestion that "the old and the new are on the same level".

The Gospel writers were writing in the light of that definitive revelation given in Jesus. The OT writers didnt have that bonus.

I am not claiming that the Gospel writers got it 100% since they were recording memories which had been transmitted through a community for 30 years and had been influenced accordingly. (Jeremias has shown how this applies to the parables).

But writings post-Jesus are, IMO, a whole lot nearer the truth of God's nature, than those written 1000 years pre-Jesus.,

Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I would simply dispute the suggestion that "the old and the new are on the same level".

The Gospel writers were writing in the light of that definitive revelation given in Jesus. The OT writers didnt have that bonus.

But the Gospel writers were not using any special communication to inform their readers of this Jesus; they used language in the same way their forebears did. That's what I mean by the same level. It would follow that an interpretive approach to one would be equally valid to the other. I just wanted to get out of the way first any thought that interpreters were being expected to apply different interpretive criteria to the Gospels than to Samuel. If that's OK....?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am not sure that I am understanding you Nigel so if I have got you wrong apologies.

But I am maintaining that all the writers "interpreted" in terms of their understanding of God.

AFAICS the Gospel writers, in the light of Jesus, had a different understanding of God's nature, will and purpose.

Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I was coming at it from the angle of the interpreter today - which is probably where the confusion lies. I would agree that the authors wrote what they wrote (which is what I think you mean by 'interpreted' in your post?) in light of what they understood about God.

From the angle of the reader today, if we want to identify the intention of those authors we have to interpret their writings according to some model or other; I just wanted to check there was no issue with the idea that whatever model is used, it could be used equally well with any of the writings.

The model I am suggesting offers the best approach to identifying the human intention in the writings is that which focuses on what the human author did by using the words he used in the way that he used them.

A bit of a tangent...

Someone once said (it might have been Umberto Eco - I'm not sure at the moment) that the author is betrayed by his words. I hesitate to use that as a blanket description of the approach I am stumbling towards, but I can see the force of it in one respect: each author (whether of 1 Samuel or Matthew) has a unique idiolect - a distinctive way of expressing things - but the choices he makes in his words can reveal his intent. I suspect Eco (if it was him) would also say that the intention of an author is also betrayed in that he cannot never communicate what he wants to communicate because the words 'fail' him; they are too imprecise. However, if we trundle down that route bar none then we could never trust what we read in the Gospels to be a decent enough 'image' of Jesus (and hence of God).

It might help if I offered a sample of what I am getting at with respect to the human communication side of things. I'll post on 1 Samuel 15 next taking into account the human author's purpose. At some point before the Rapture we might even get to the divine part!

[ 10. July 2010, 19:16: Message edited by: Nigel M ]

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599

 - Posted      Profile for footwasher   Email footwasher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
How about the fact that Paul felt no inhibition about allegorising the Isaac and Ishmael story, just to get the point across that having the important things in common are what legitimises a claim of heritage. Just because a food processor is assembled in a car factory doesn't make it a car. it has to share the same major components to qualify. Isaac has more in common with the promise than Ishmael, so he is the legitimate claimant. Paul believes the arrangement of the story was intentional on God's part, foreseeing just such a controversy between the Judaisers and the Church.

In 1 Samuel 15, God needs the judgment on the Amalekites to be seen as divine mission with a singular divine purpose, with no room for mistaking its origins.

This is a motif seen on the judgment on Babylon for attacking God's Chosen. A nation that is disinterested in spoils of war, the Medes, is raised to punish Babylon. This is God acting.

Saul's gathering of wealth and prisoners displaces the original intent of the mission. The lesson is lost, to Saul... and to posterity.

God asks us to rid ourselves of the things that hindered us in our journey to return to His side. Every trace needs to go. Instead, oftentimes, in carrying out the task, we turn it into a salvage operation. We syncretise the elements for service in our new lives. Without Samuel to finish the job for us, these neglected elements become stumbling blocks, turning us back to old ways, like the tribes that were neglected and allowed to exist in parts of the Promised Land and that turned the Israelites to idol worship, and punishment, and exile, and slavery.

God's intent as Master Author subsumes the human authorial intent.

Just hoping to start off the discussion. Feel free to critique but go easy. I deserve some slack for going out on a limb!

Bottomline, the OT is consistent with the NT: there is no taxonomy in clarity, the one is not superior to the other.

--------------------
Ship's crimp

Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Footwasher: Bottomline, the OT is consistent with the NT: there is no taxonomy in clarity, the one is not superior to the other.
It makes one wonder why one needed a New Testament at all!


.........you have heard it aforetime...but I say unto you........

Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599

 - Posted      Profile for footwasher   Email footwasher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
HaHa! To flesh out the framework?

--------------------
Ship's crimp

Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To focus on the human communication in 1 Sam 15 first...

Although the destruction of Amalek is a feature that acquires prominence these days, I would argue that the text itself indicates this feature is not the focus of the passage. The prominent textual features are: Samuel's status versus that of Saul; Saul's status as king over that of God; obedience and the results of disobedience. The destruction of Amalek is the test against which Saul is measured (echoes of Abraham and the sacrifice of his son?), but the test as a test is the prominent feature here.

Key features include:

Listen / Hear / Obey (shama = שָׁמַע). Saul stands or falls by this verb. The importance of obeying an instruction from God is laid down thickly in this passage. We have the interesting principle in vv 22-23 of obedience (loyalty) being more important than the sacrificial system because disobedience (disloyalty) is evidence of allegiance to other masters. Saul fell, according to this passage, because he was disloyal to the command of his master. The Amaleks were also judged and fell because they were disloyal to the master of creation.

Haram (= חָרַם the nominal form is herem). There isn't one English word or phrase that does justice in translation of this Hebrew word. The English versions go with something along the lines of “totally destroy,” “utterly destroy,” “devote,” “ban,” “exterminate,” “consecrated.” None of these are really adequate in imagining the context of the term. It is linked elsewhere in the bible and in related near eastern texts with a solemn judicial-religious process of setting something aside for the ownership of a particular person or deity. For example, a person who wished to become a priest could do just that, but if he wished to make this a life-long commitment he would go through the vows associated with herem so that everyone would know (including himself!) that he could no longer engage in any other activity. He could not take up another occupation. Similarly, a field donated to the temple under herem rules could never again be sold or bought. It belonged forever to the temple. This process was by no means limited to Israel; it was part and parcel of near eastern processes – albeit not a common occurrence. The Moabite Stone makes reference to an attack on Israel under these rules, 'devoting' Israel to Moab's deity. In medieval Judaism the term was applied to the process for putting someone out of the community and then shunning them (hence the translation sometimes used, “Ban”- although this is somewhat anachronistic). A forerunner to this 'Ban' process makes a biblical appearance (same verb used) after the Babylonian war (Ezra 10:8) and the concept may lie behind Paul's enigmatic “hand this man over to satan” statement (1 Corinthians 5:5), where Paul enacts a judicial process – announces judgement, convicts, and sentences a person who was disrupting the community by his lifestyle. Sentence was to be carried out in a formal setting; very heremish. Even in modern times we had the example of the Harem, the Turkish sacrosanct area for women who formally belonged to a ruler and who could not, therefore, be given to any other man. The use of the herem in war was a minority event, but was surrounded with formality, declarations, warnings, etc. It was not a surprise to the enemy; they were made very aware of the consequences of their rebellion and outcome if they did not cease. In 1 Samuel, Amalek is placed under this herem and is then heremed (for want of a better word) by the sword. 'Judicial execution' is the appropriate phrase here.

Compassion (hamal = חָםַל). The verb is used in verses 3, 15, and 19 and is linked in opposition to herem. Saul is ordered not to show compassion, but he and the army he is responsible for do indeed show compassion (on Agag and the best of the booty).

Hesed (= חֶסֶד). Another Hebrew word that has no immediate equivalent in English. The versions adopt the likes of “mercy,” “kindness,” “loving-kindness,” “steadfast-love,” “friendship.” The best phrase to use, I think, would be “covenant loyalty,” because it a term that is linked closely to that relationship. The mention of Saul's interaction with the Kenite people (v. 6) would seem out of place and unnecessary in this story (Why is that there?) were it not for mention of the fact that the Kenites showed this covenant loyalty to the Israelites when they were vulnerable in the Sinai wilderness. The implication is that the Amaleks did not show this, which was the evidence in support of God's judgement against them. Ironically (deliberately on the author's part?) the Hesed loyalty Saul shows to the Kenites is not shown by Saul to his master, God.

I think we can build a decent enough picture of the world within which the human author was writing. The archaeological record assists, as do insights from sociology, but even in the absence of those we don't have to go far to feel the world. Urban teenage gangs display the same characteristics of loyalty, rewards and punishment. Documentaries from the region in and around Afghanistan show a world similar to that of 1 Samuel. Even (heaven help us!) the way cliques behave in some churches give the feel of the thing! Humans are inherently tribal, it would seem. The concept of covenant holds the entire passage together. Without it, pieces (like the Kenite verse) fall apart.

This world of the author, however, is merely the backdrop to the message. It sets the scene and we need the scene to get a feel for the play, but the play is not the same thing as the scene. The plot in 1 Samuel, it seems to me, is revealed by the way the author uses the language. It could be presented hierarchically thus:-

* Obedience to God is paramount.
** It trumps even loyalty to the religious expression of obedience.
* Disobedience brings judgement.
** Saul was disobedient to God.
*** Either he could not control his people, or he was a liar. In any event, he was not fit for purpose.
**** Therefore Saul was judged and sentenced.

The supporting plot is performed by Amalek. The author uses Amalek as an echo to the main plot with the links in judgement, punishment, loyalty. I think it would be legitimate to wonder if the writer did not also believe that Amalek was in a state of rebellion against God and was under sentence, awaiting judicial execution. The language used, the link to the Keni people, and the association with the beginning of Saul's downward spiral all suggest this.

So that's my offering in part of an approach to the 1 Sam. 15 text, trying to see what the human author intended to communicate.

[Just noticed footwasher's post - will reply later... Cheers!]

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599

 - Posted      Profile for footwasher   Email footwasher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just a note about haram

While travelling in the Middle East during Ramzan (or Ramadaan) it is forbidden to drink even water in public. I once stopped at a stall that sold canned fruit juice behind a curtain (this was a very moderate Islamic country!). As my Arabic explorations had just begun, I did not understand the vendor's instructions too well. I snapped open the can and raised it to drink, and had it knocked out of my hand. "Haram!", the old codger roared!

Is its meaning "devoted" or "banned"? Devoted as you know has different connotations.

Is it "sin" or "exclusively meant for Mr X ".

In the passage, I think it means "set aside for God".

--------------------
Ship's crimp

Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250

 - Posted      Profile for W Hyatt   Email W Hyatt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
This bring us close the usual field of debate: inspiration, inerrancy and so on. To my mind this field is probably the wrong field to be jumping up and down on. My take – to return to the principle of intention – is to ask what the authors themselves did and how they viewed this activity that was coming together into what we now call the Bible. Secondly, how did they view God's role in this? The answer that I find best aligns with intention itself is summarised well in the Isaiah 55 quote (in the OP); God's message is infallible, i.e., it doesn't fail to achieve the purpose for which it was composed. If that's a good summary of how the biblical authors saw things, then I would say that it is good enough to answer the divine intention question.

Personally, I love the imagery in that quote from Isaiah 55. I think that in the same way that we are only superficially aware of the cycles of nature and of processes of our own physical nourishment and health, we are also only superficially aware of the spiritual cycles and processes through which God nourishes us and makes us spiritually healthy. As you suggest, Nigel, I take the quote to mean that God's message is infallible (which is not to say that the message of the literal text is infallible), and that the Bible does not fail to achieve God's purpose for which he had it composed. Not surprisingly, I think that that divine purpose is achieved just fine without us being able to see a clear, unambiguous message that we all can agree on.

So while I can agree with shamwari:

quote:
But writings post-Jesus are, IMO, a whole lot nearer the truth of God's nature, than those written 1000 years pre-Jesus.
I am not ready to replace the Old Testament with the New Testament because as Nigel alluded to in the other thread (IIRC), a) Christ claimed that he came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets and b) he seemed to take their authority as assumed. I think Christ reveals God perfectly, but I also think that he reveals the same God as is revealed in the Old Testament. As a result, I feel justified in looking for the New Testament God in the Old Testament texts, as difficult as that can be.

When 1 Samuel 15 presents a view of God that seems to be incompatible with the NT view, I still look for a view of the NT God that is derived from the text even if it's not directly in the text in a readily apparent way. The question comes down to the nature of that derivation and the relationship between the divine message and the literal message.

For me, it is enough to approach the text as though God in effect said to Samuel, "Fine, you want it to be about good people and evil people, with your people as the good people and with your enemies as the evil people - we'll go ahead and write it that way. However, in the end it will still portray the universal relationship between good and evil that I want it to portray. I will allow your message to be about people and individuals, but it will contain within it my message about principles regarding good and evil abstracted from individuals."

I want to understand all I can about the relationships that Samuel portrays among God, the Israelites, and the Amalekites, with all the nuances and depth that Nigel addresses because when I "subtract out" the people in the story, I think the resulting abstract relationship is an important, universal, and divine principle for all people and for all time.

However, I have appreciated reading the posts on this thread because I am very much interested in approaches that other people adopt regarding these issues. I believe that there are multiple, parallel approaches that can all yield valid results and that can be compatible with God's ineffable purposes.

--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.

Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
W Hyatt, I think you are trying to square the circle with your concept of "subtracting out" . You are clearly uneasy about the treatment of the Amalekites in 1Samuel 15, so you remove that bit i.e. the substance of the incident, in order to preserve an "abstract relationship". It would be instructive to know how often you would have to do this in relation to the OT as compared to the NT, and which books of the OT would require the greater or lesser parts of your editing.

What disturbs me is that the Amalekites are treated as unfortunate collateral damage to demonstrate a greater spiritual good. It is this kind of abstract reasoning that leads Christians to contemplate and/or accept the most appalling examples of man's inhumanity to man. The sort of reasoning that can theologically accuse the Jews of deicide, thereby regarding Hitler's extermination programme as an unfortunate consequence.

I suspect that in practical terms your position is much closer to Shamwari's and my own than you think, because you do recognise that there are parts of the OT which are difficult for Christians to accept. The danger of your formulation is that it prevents you facing up to that fairly and squarely, and leads you into the kind of dangers outlined in the paragraph above.

Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
From where I sit it seems that W. Hyatt and Nigel are making praiseworthy attempts to defend the indefensible.

In the sense that both want to preserve the revelation of God in Chrst and, at the same time, the revelation of God contained in passages like 1 Sam 15. as being consistent. So we have various processes to achieve this; subtracting out or distinguishing between authorial and Diivine intent.

I just happen to think that we ought to accept that Samuel really did believe that God required the extermination of Israel's enemies. Its a point of view that dominates the Book of Joshua too.

Which is not to blame Samuel from a Christian point of view in that he acted "according to his lights". He did not have "the light of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" ( 2 Cor ) available to him.

So God does not change. But man's understanding of God does change. And parts of the OT evidence a very 'low level' understanding if I may put it that way. (So do some parts of the NT!!)

As Kwesi pointed out we have a developing understanding and comprehension of God. To accept this is be freed from the pressure of having to assert that all parts of Scripture and equally inspired and thereby having to produce categories of interpretation which are both complicated and fairly ingenious.

Maybe I am a bit simplistic and naive. But it stems from the fact that I feel no pressure to claim the the OT is throughout "Christian", even at a kind of subterranian sense.

I think it was Luther who said that "the words of scripture are the cradle of the Word made Flesh". For me that Word, spoken in Jesus is climactic and definitive; the 'norm' by which all other words are to be evaluated and judged.

[ 11. July 2010, 13:23: Message edited by: shamwari ]

Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The next stage of this exploration is to remain with human authorial intention and explore the Gospels, given the focus this has on the character of Jesus. That's a vast amount of material, so I will go with Matthew's section known as the Sermon on the Mount, as that was dipped into in the other thread. We could always go from there to other places – like Luke's placing of Jesus firmly within the the whole OT tradition of universal justice and judgement on those who fail to return to God, which would make the case on its own for Jesus reflecting God's character of judge, sentencer and executioner of those who refuse to return from a state of rebellion.

Anyway – Matthew.

I made the point on the other thread that in Matthew presents Jesus as confronting illicit interpretations of the Jewish Scriptures. He does something similar in chapter 4 when Jesus opposes Satan's interpretation of some texts. In chapter 5, where Jesus takes on the question of interpretation, Matthew prefaces this with (5:17-20, NET version]:
quote:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfil them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place. So anyone who breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever obeys them and teaches others to do so will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness goes beyond that of the experts in the law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Only after this does Matthew engage in the “You have heard is said...but I say to you” sections. The implication is that Matthew wants his readers to reject any additions or qualifications to what was the original intention of the Law and not to take the Jewish Scriptural texts out of context. 'Fulfil' in this sense means to do correctly as had originally been intended. This is supported by Matthew's use of the 'righteousness' word (dikaiosune = δικαισυνη) in connection with God's Kingdom (5:20). Again, the worldview of covenant looms large here ('righteousness' as how to behave loyally as a citizen of a Kingdom) and a definition of who was really in and who was out. Continued presence in God's Kingdom was always conditional on this loyalty; Matthew's presentation of Jesus here is as one who was clarifying just who was going to be in – and importantly who was going to be out – and that the time for decision was now (“Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is near” - 4:17).

Given the importance of the Jewish Scriptures for Matthew (and the other NT writers), I would argue that the background to the technical (Greek) words used by Matthew in his work lie in the Greek renderings of Hebrew terms in the Septuagint (LXX) (see below for more detail *). The meaning of words in the Greek NT (their intention) should be sought there. This puts dikaiosune firmly within the orbit of the Hebrew Tsedakah (= צְדָקָה), with its focus on behaviour that is appropriate to being in a covenant relationship, whether by the human junior partner or the senior divine partner. An example comes from 1 Sam. 12:7, where Samuel starts to set out the evidence for God's 'righteous' acts – the way he protected and vindicated his people. I think, therefore, there is justification for reading Matthew's text as saying that Jesus' message was to define membership of God's Kingdom (as opposed to anyone else's) along the lines of obedience to the covenant expectations of that Kingdom.

Taking this a step further. The implication Matthew is drawing out is that there is a flip side to being in this Kingdom. The one who does not repent and return is not going to be in the Kingdom. They will be handed over to the Judge to be sentenced, and from there to the one carrying out the sentence (5:25-26). This is a strand of Matthew's message that pops up repeatedly in this book.

Another example of an important term and the way Matthew uses it: eleos (= ελεος) This is the one usually translated in the English versions, “mercy.” Again, I would argue that Matthew's intention in using this word is to be found in the LXX, not elsewhere in Greek literature.* There is does not have the meaning normally understood by the English word (drawing as it does on the Greek background) for 'mercy,' The Hebrew word rendered in the LXX by eleos is Hesed (see my last post on the use of this). So when Matthew records Jesus as saying “Go and learn what this saying means: ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (9:13) he is not merely quoting a gentle saying from Hosea 6:6, he is also reflecting what we found earlier in 1 Samuel 15:22-23. A better translation of Matthew's intention here would then be:
quote:
[Jesus speaking] “Learn what God really intended by: 'My desire is for you to obey my covenant conditions rather than trot out external practices.' This is my mission: to warn those who are not behaving loyally. Why would I come to warn those who already are?”
I think that will do for now on the human authorial intention side of things. Not everything has been said, I know, but I have tried to keep this within the orbit of focus on 1 Samuel. I will come back anon on the divine intention aspect. Thus far, though, I hope I have opened up the continuity and coherence aspect between the intentions of the author of 1 Samuel and the author(s) of the Gospels.


* A word on this LXX phenomenon. When the assorted translators put ink to parchment, there were a number of everyday words that could be used as individual equivalents for Hebrew terms. Some were easy – 'father,' 'mother,' 'name,' 'heavens' – and it is no surprise that there is a consistent use throughout the LXX by all the translators for terms like these. Of note, though, are other words that have a more theological bent and that are also used consistently. Examples include kurios for Yahweh, theos for elohim, nomos for law. These are words that would not normally be expected to appear uniformly in a heterogeneous collection of translation units unless they had already acquired an approved common vocabulary throughout the diaspora. In other words, they were of such importance that they required a rendering into Greek at an early stage, and stuck around in common usage so that the LXX translators did not have to think about which term to use. This is in contrast to the vast majority of terms that are not consistent in use. Among the list of consistent terms are dikaiosune for Tsedakah and eleos for
Hesed.

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250

 - Posted      Profile for W Hyatt   Email W Hyatt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
W Hyatt, I think you are trying to square the circle with your concept of "subtracting out" . You are clearly uneasy about the treatment of the Amalekites in 1Samuel 15, so you remove that bit i.e. the substance of the incident, in order to preserve an "abstract relationship". It would be instructive to know how often you would have to do this in relation to the OT as compared to the NT, and which books of the OT would require the greater or lesser parts of your editing.

What disturbs me is that the Amalekites are treated as unfortunate collateral damage to demonstrate a greater spiritual good. It is this kind of abstract reasoning that leads Christians to contemplate and/or accept the most appalling examples of man's inhumanity to man. The sort of reasoning that can theologically accuse the Jews of deicide, thereby regarding Hitler's extermination programme as an unfortunate consequence.

I suspect that in practical terms your position is much closer to Shamwari's and my own than you think, because you do recognise that there are parts of the OT which are difficult for Christians to accept. The danger of your formulation is that it prevents you facing up to that fairly and squarely, and leads you into the kind of dangers outlined in the paragraph above.

Aaah - that helps me understand how you are reading my posts. It is a humbling experience to realize that by omitting an important assumption that I am making, I have led you to take my words to mean something very different than what I had in mind. Humbling, but also entertaining as I consider how completely I have failed to express myself.

I can see why you would imagine me reading the Old Testament stories and encountering parts that conflict with my New Testament view of God, and then trying to stretch or abstract out those parts until I am comfortable with how I see them fitting in with the New Testament. But once again, I have failed to anticipate your very straight-forward reading of my post because what I write seems to me to say what I want to say so precisely that I don't even stop to think about it how it might be taken to mean something very different.

You see, I have a very different starting point in reading both the Old and New Testaments from what you might imagine. One can reasonably read both texts and respond to them on a case-by-case basis and draw conclusions from what one finds in the text. Clearly, a Christian will prefer the New Testament over the Old Testament where they seem to conflict with each other in such an approach.

One can also reasonably decide that given Christ's words about the Old Testament, there must be an inherent consistency and then set about trying to find and understand that consistency, as Nigel seems to me to be doing. (Please correct me if I'm wrong, Nigel.)

But neither of those approaches comes close to describing how I read the Old and New Testaments. Rather than starting with the text itself, I start with an idea of God as pure and infinite love, desiring to draw every person as close as possible, and giving us divine truth as way to communicate with us and lead us to him. I see that truth as taking the form of a many-layered parable, with the final, outermost layer being the literal text found in the Bible (both OT and NT). The actual words of the literal text are very much targeted to a particular audience at a particular time in a particular culture, but the layers of meaning held within are for all people and for all time.

So in answer to your question, I apply the approach to 1 Samuel 15 that I described earlier to every chapter, every verse, and every phrase, including the so-called "difficult" passages and "easy" ones alike. I do not attempt to reconcile different passages with each other because I do not see any conflicts that need to be reconciled. I do not treat the Amalekites as unfortunate collateral damage, just as I don't see the Israelites as being preferred by God, because I do not see any part of the Old Testament as being about any historical people.

Instead, I believe I see something of those internal messages of divine truth that are about God's love for every single one of us, about his desire for us to freely return that love, and about the importance of us cooperating with him to allow him to remove anything inside of us that interferes with our ability to fully receive his love and his blessings. I may be hallucinating, but I am consistent in seeing those messages in every passage.

I have no objection to the approach you or anyone else has chosen with regard to the Old Testament, but I do object to the idea that I should change my own approach, or that it is somehow dangerous. The dangers you allude to as resulting from what you think is my kind of abstract reasoning would only result from me not only retaining the idea of particular, historical people, but from also a) identifying with the "good" people in the stories, b) taking it upon myself to decide who is currently in the same category as the "evil" people, and c) making the further presumption to think it's up to me to treat those "evil" people the way I think God has told me to treat them in those stories. But since I am not doing any one of those, my approach cannot in any way lead to any of the dangers you identify.

To the contrary, I see every individual person I come across as a potential angel whom God wants to lead to heaven to eternal happiness, with the only thing that prevents him from actually doing so being that person's individual freedom of choice. And even then, I think God has all sorts of tricks he uses to get us into heaven even when we aren't really trying because it takes a lifetime of determined, unrelenting resistance and rebellion on our part to keep us from choosing heaven in the end. So I actually suspect that in practical terms my position is much closer to Shamwari's and your own than you think, or maybe even beyond it on the "liberal" side.

--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.

Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
W. Hyatt, thanks for your most interesting post. In trying to get to grips with your argument it would help me a great deal if you could indicate how you read 1 Samuel 15: 1-3.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
W. Hyatt posted (inter alia

"I do not see any part of the Old Testament as being about any historical people."


I find that incredible. Can you explain?

Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599

 - Posted      Profile for footwasher   Email footwasher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It seems the Jewish Sages were quite complacent about the "collateral damage"

Quote
We must understand the four basic modes of Scripture interpretation used by the rabbis. These are:

(1) p’shat (“simple”)—the plain, literal sense of the text, more or less what modern scholars mean by “grammatical-historical exegesis,” which looks to the grammar of the language and the historical setting as background for deciding what a passage means. Modern scholars often consider grammatical-historical exegesis the only valid way to deal with a text; pastors who use other approaches in their sermons usually feel defensive about it before academics. But the rabbis had three other modes of interpreting Scripture, and their validity should not be excluded in advance but related to the validity of their implied presuppositions.

(2) Remez (“hint”)—wherein a word, phrase or other element in the text hints at a truth not conveyed by the p’shat. The implied presupposition is that God can hint at things of which the Bible writers themselves were unaware.

(3) Drash or Midrash (“search”)—an allegorical or homiletical application of a text. This is a species of eisegesis—reading one’s own thoughts into the text—as opposed to exegesis, which is extracting from the text what it actually says. The implied presupposition is that the words of Scripture can legitimately become grist for the mill of human intellect, which God can guide to truths not directly related to the text at all.

(4) Sod (“secret”)—a mystical or hidden meaning arrived at by operating on the numerical values of the Hebrew letters, noting unusual spellings, transposing letters, and the like. For example, two words, the numerical equivalents of whose letters add up to the same amount, are good candidates for revealing a secret through what Arthur Koestler in his book on the inventive mind called “bisociation of ideas.” The implied presupposition is that God invests meaning in the minutest details of Scripture, even the individual letters.

The presuppositions underlying remez, drash and sod obviously express God’s omnipotence, but they also express his love for humanity, in the sense that he chooses out of love to use extraordinary means for reaching people’s hearts and minds. At the same time, it is easy to see how remez, drash and sod can be abused, since they all allow, indeed require, subjective interpretation; and this explains why scholars, who deal with the objective world, hesitate to use them. These four methods of working a text are remembered by the Hebrew word “PaRDeS,” an acronym formed from the initials; it means “orchard” or “garden.”6

Donald E. Curtis

We have to remember that the apparent use of people as "demo kit" wasn't restricted to OT :

3Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him. John 9

I wonder what the poor sods who were so used would say when they reached Abraham's bosom: "Hope you've got a good compensation plan or a good lawyer!"?

--------------------
Ship's crimp

Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I guess the Amalekites were "poor sods"!
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am a p'shat man myself
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
At the same time, it is easy to see how remez, drash and sod can be abused
.........but not half as much as Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednigo..
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250

 - Posted      Profile for W Hyatt   Email W Hyatt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
W. Hyatt posted (inter alia

"I do not see any part of the Old Testament as being about any historical people."

I find that incredible. Can you explain?

Since I view the Old Testament somewhat as one long parable, my saying that it's not about any historical people is pretty much equivalent to saying that the parable of the sower is not about seeds.

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
W. Hyatt, thanks for your most interesting post. In trying to get to grips with your argument it would help me a great deal if you could indicate how you read 1 Samuel 15: 1-3.

I will try, but the messages I look for within the text aren't the kind that would lead me to say "Aha - now I understand!" and that would enable me to explain them as theological points of doctrine. They are more like the possible meanings of a parable, where you can try to work out a way to describe one possible way of interpreting it, but the real power of the parable comes from being able to apply it to a real-life situation.

When I read 1 Samuel 15, I take Samuel to represent the part of each of us that wants to hear and obey what God is telling us (e.g. our conscience), Saul to represent our first efforts to rationally figure out what that means in our practical life, and the Amalekites to represent some tendency I might have to be downright cruel and hurtful.

For example, I might take the Amalekites to represent a tendency or habit I have to participate in and enjoy malicious gossip. In my better times, I can recognize that there is no room for such a habit in a Christian life, and that I should aspire to cooperating fully with God to eliminate my bad habit and my enjoyment of it completely from my life (the command to kill all the men, women, children, and livestock). But as I proceed working out just what that means in practical ways, I can easily convince myself that it really just means that I should avoid actively passing on the gossip I hear to people I'm not close to (Saul killing all the people). I might also decide that I can continue to enjoy hearing the gossip and sharing it with my spouse (Saul not being willing to exterminate the best of the livestock). I will also resist the idea that I should have nothing to do with negative gossip at all and that I should actually detest it (Saul having pity on the Amalek king).

Ideally, my conscience will eventually lead me to realize that I have to completely reject my habit and my enjoyment of it (Samuel cutting the Amalek king in pieces), but the kind of reasoning that I use to excuse holding onto the seemingly harmless bits cannot be allowed to continue to rule in my daily life (God repenting of making Saul king).

So this is the kind of thinking running through my head as I read the chapter, with the intention of looking for some area in my life where it might apply so that I can then use the story as an inspiration when I am actually in such situations. My only thought of the people in the story is as though they are characters in an allegorical play. To me it says nothing about what other people should or shouldn't be doing, only what I should be doing to obey God in looking for and resisting evil tendencies in myself.

I hope this helps you see that my approach to reading the Old Testament is not a matter of trying reconcile the "difficult" parts with the New Testament, and that it is a completely innocuous approach with regard to the implications for my interactions with other people. As I said, I may be hallucinating, but I apply this approach consistently to all the Old Testament texts.

[ETA: closest to the "Drash or Midrash" approach]

[ 13. July 2010, 03:10: Message edited by: W Hyatt ]

--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.

Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I understand your approach H Wyatt (I was brought up in the New Church [Big Grin] )

I see it as a way of applying Bible reading to our own spiritual lives - without taking the stories literally. And I also think that, done prayerfully/expectantly, God illuminates it for us.

What doesn't emerge is a 'definitive' answer - as the reading is more personal than that.

I have always found the New Church tradition a gentle and inclusive one. I think many of my perspectives remain from having a Dad who was a New Church minister - even though I have been a Methodist for 30 years.

So, in my view, there is no way God ordered the genocide - but we can gain personally from reading the passage now. Just as we might from any parable.

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
W Hyatt, Footwasher, and Boogie, thanks for your recent contributions. In my ignorance I looked up the New Church home page on the internet, and found the account of its approach to scripture illuminating. Clearly, the seemingly blanket allegorical approach does not fit in with conventional biblical scholarship, though it is more convincing than fundamentalism in dealing with OT myths such as the creation stories and the flood. Its highly subjective approach, of course, might fit in with post-Modernism.

The problem lies in deciding what the allegorical meanings are, and who has control over the exposition, or whether it's a matter for the subjective understanding of each individual. In the case of 1 Samuel 15, for example, while I would not particularly wish to challenge W Hyatt's understanding, which seems more like the application part of a sermon than biblical exegesis, I do have a problem with those who have taken the allegorical approach to that historical period to justify the construction of racially-based societies in the European colonial period, or to argue that the Palestinians should be progressively dispossessed.

Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am glad for W. Hyatt's explanation. And there is certainly nothing wrong in reading the Bible devotionally in the way he outlined.

But I think Kwesi put his finger on the 'danger' inherent in it. When we read devotionally we do so in the light of our Christian Faith which informs and controls the meaning we get out of any passage. Our Faith, based on Jesus, would not allow us to interpret a passage like 1 Sam to mean that we should go out and exterminate those whom we think are wrong or evil.

But those with a different set of "Faith-based" principles might take such a passage as legitimising actions which Christians would regard as abhorrent. The point which Kwesi made.

So I think that, in additional to a devotional reading of scripture (which is necessarily subjective) we need to read and understand scripture from other angles. And the p'shat angle which D. Curtis outlined is therefore important to me.

I see now that when I said earlier that W. Hyatt was trying to defend the indefensible I was doing him an injustice. He is in no way trying to defend a concept of God which a literal and straightforward reading of the Sam passage implies.

All this could easily transfer to another extant thread about how we should read the Bible. There is an overlap here.

Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
p'shat ?

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As posted by D Curtis

(1) p’shat (“simple”)—the plain, literal sense of the text, more or less what modern scholars mean by “grammatical-historical exegesis,” which looks to the grammar of the language and the historical setting as background for deciding what a passage means. Modern scholars often consider grammatical-historical exegesis the only valid way to deal with a text; pastors who use other approaches in their sermons usually feel defensive about it before academics. But the rabbis had three other modes of interpreting Scripture, and their validity should not be excluded in advance but related to the validity of their implied presuppositions.

Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250

 - Posted      Profile for W Hyatt   Email W Hyatt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I do have a problem with those who have taken the allegorical approach to that historical period to justify the construction of racially-based societies in the European colonial period, or to argue that the Palestinians should be progressively dispossessed.

So do I, but do you think that problem arises from the allegorical approach itself?

--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.

Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
W Hyatt: "...so do I, but do you think that problem arises from the allegorical approach itself?"

Since you ask, W Hyatt, I guess the answer is 'Yes', because there is the problem of deciding what each of the elements in the story stand for. That depends to a large extent on the theological disposition of the reader, as we have seen re 1 Samuel 15.

It is also necessary to distinguish between a parable and an allegory, though the two cannot always be easily separated. A classic parable is the book of Jonah, which is designed to pose the question found in the last verse. Most of the details in the story are not suited to an allegorical interpretation, though Jonah stands for a certain theological disposition the author wishes to challenge. (In fact, the one presented in 1 Samuel 15 and found in Ezra etc. etc.). On the other hand, there is an important allegorical component in the Parable of the Father and the Two Sons with respect to the main characters.

A classic example of what might be considered over-allegorisation is Augustine's version of the Good Samaritan, in which the question asked by Jesus (the parable's purpose) gets rather obscured:

quote:
A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho: Adam himself is meant; Jerusalem is the heavenly city of peace, from whose blessedness Adam fell; Jericho means "the moon," and signifies our mortality, because it is born, waxes, wanes, and dies. Thieves are the devil and his angels. Who stripped him, namely, of his immortality; and beat him, by persuading him to sin; and left him half dead, because in so far as man can understand and know God, he lives, but in so far as he is wasted and oppressed by sin, he is dead-he is therefore called half dead. The Priest and Levite who saw him and passed by signify the priesthood and ministry of the Old Testament, which could profit nothing for salvation, Samaritan means "guardian," and therefore the Lord Himself is signified by this name. The binding of the wounds is the restraint of sin. Oil is the comfort of good hope; wine the exhortation to work with fervent spirit. The beast is the flesh in which he deigned to come to us. The being set upon the beast is belief in the incarnation of Christ. The inn is the Church, where travellers are refreshed on their return from pilgrimage to their heavenly country. The morrow is after the resurrection of the Lord. The two pence are either the two precepts of love, or the promise of this life and of that which is to come. The innkeeper is the Apostle. The supererogatory payment is either his counsel of celibacy, or the fact that he worked with his own hands lest he should be a burden to any of the weaker brethren when the Gospel was new, though it was lawful for him "to live by the Gospel."
While Augustine's approach might have a particular appeal to those approaching scripture like yourself, and have lots of interesting ideas for others like myself, it is a highly subjective interpretation and cannot be asserted with any authority. It is not obvious, for example, that the Samaritan stands for Jesus- Indeed, I would argue that he was, as Jesus said, a Samaritan!

I think the general point I would make to you is that scripture, especially the OT, contains many different sorts of documents, whose truth's require different methods of understanding depending on their genre. They cannot all be treated the same. They are certainly not, as we have been discussing, equally profound!

Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
.......last para: truths not truth's, sorry!
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250

 - Posted      Profile for W Hyatt   Email W Hyatt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
While Augustine's approach might have a particular appeal to those approaching scripture like yourself, and have lots of interesting ideas for others like myself, it is a highly subjective interpretation and cannot be asserted with any authority.

I think I see and understand the point you are making, and except for your last paragraph about the OT, I agree with you. I particularly agree that Augustine's version of the Good Samaritan is an example of over-allegorisation. However, this leaves me with something of a dilemma.

Augustine's interpretation is an excellent example that illustrates how highly subjective and arbitrary such an approach can be. I can see that if I were to set out to justify some particular idea I have, I can twist the symbolism around enough like a Rubric's cube to make the symbolism seem to fit and at the same time seem to justify the idea I had from the beginning. If that idea is misdirected or self-serving to begin with, the result will be even more objectionable for my having twisted Scripture to suit my purposes - something I would think of as profanation.

Yet however much Augustine's interpretation may look like it's similar to Swedenborg's approach, it does not have much more than a superficial similarity. My dilemma is that it is way beyond this thread (and my time) to adequately explain or demonstrate how, yet I also feel compelled to offer at least something to counter the reasonable conclusion you have drawn as to the similarity of the two.

I think most of us Swedenborgians are quick to accept the terms "allegory," "metaphor," and "symbolism" as describing our approach and we often use them ourselves because everyone already understands them. However, by doing so we can give a somewhat misleading impression because our approach is actually not really like any of these (we refer to it ourselves as correspondence). We have some general principles we apply and limitations we accept up front. We apply a concept that is based on consistent use of imagery and do not claim our results to be authoritative or exclusive.

Swedenborg published a book about the approach and about the theology and philosophy behind it, in which he states up front that the internal sense (as he refers to it) cannot be understood except from doctrine, and that one can derive heresies by applying false doctrine. He also states:

quote:
Doctrine must be taken from the sense of the letter of the Word, and be confirmed [by it].... Enlightenment comes from the Lord alone and is granted to those who love truths because they are truths, and who apply them to the uses of life ... because they are in the Lord, and the Lord in them.
(Doctrine of the Sacred Scripture, number 53 and number 57)

In practice, all of his exegesis/eisegesis is based on and annotated with lots of references to passages taken from many parts of the Old and New Testaments to demonstrate a consistent use of various terms and imagery and the textual association of those terms with the abstract concepts he says they correspond to.

I say this not to convince you how wonderful the approach is or persuade you to adopt it, but merely to argue that it is not arbitrary and that it is not suitable for applying to political situations.

But most of all, I want to point out that where an interpretation such as the example you provide from Augustine seems to me to be designed to produce a specific interpretation, Swedenborg's idea about the purpose of the internal sense is very different. He presents it not so much as something that's important for us to discover and elucidate, but as something mostly for us simply to be aware of so that we can know how and why the Word is holy in every detail. The primary purpose of the internal sense is not to educate us about points of doctrine, but to inspire us and to connect us to God and to heaven in a way that we are not consciously aware of.

We Swedenborgians love to study and speculate on what things in the Bible mean, but we don't consider the results to be definitive, binding, or even persuasive. And as one of our ministers once said, Swedenborg wrote thousands of pages of doctrinal exposition, most of which emphasises that doctrine is not what's important, charity is.

(Once again, I lack the time and energy to produce a short post. [Hot and Hormonal] )

--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.

Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thank you W Hyatt - I was trying to explain the New Church approach yesterday and said very similar things, but not nearly so well.

[Smile]

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks, W Hyatt, I found your post most instructive and illuminating. [Angel]
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nice work W! This is a great topic.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Divine intention – an outline.

I have to make some assumptions here for this part:
[1] There is a God; and
[2] That God communicates.

Or, if some prefer:
[1] If there is a God; and
[2] If that God communicates,
then...

If we leave aside the direct communication route (God speaking directly to humans), we have to hand this phenomenon called the Bible, which records God communicating, but in the third person (i.e., He said...did...). It's this phenomenon that is so intriguing.

I've been thinking on and off for quite a few years over how God communicates with his creation and how – given the mediated version of the communication in the bible – it is possible to know we have not completely misunderstood the message. That, of course, raises the question of why God would opt to communicate with us through mediators, rather than always directly. After all, if I were a god and I wanted something to happen, wouldn't it make sense for me just to speak directly? Why risk Chinese whispers?

A route to understanding this could lie along the 'purpose' factor in communication. I've tried drawing on a range of findings in linguistics and the philosophy of communication to answer the question, What was God's purpose in mediating a purposeful communication via a human author, who himself purposed a communication by using the words he used in the way that he used them?.

There must be a better way of phrasing that.

Still, there is a route backwards in that question. From the human author and his/her purpose in communicating we have words that can be analysed (public domain methodology). As the different purposes of each author are identified in their word choices, we start to build up a framework of assorted communications that have a main focus: God. Therefore, the words of the human leads to the word of God – in that the purpose of the human leads to the purpose of God. This makes sense if one thinks of the authors as theologians, not secretaries who had a rather unexpected voice from heaven land on their lap, but people who had spent years considering God and his ways, so much so that they had a God-ethos ready to hand when they wrote.

What about the worldview framework of covenant? It could be argued that while the 'covenant' concept as worldview might be pretty good at defining the scope of intention among the human authors, nevertheless at the end of the day it is a human concept. It might at best be described as a metaphor for understanding God's relationship with his creation, but not as firm as a model, or even as accurate as truth. Still, applying the backward route in communication, perhaps the covenant metaphor also directs the focus on God, and therefore is a good model to use for defining God's purpose in establishing relationships with his creation.

If this is the case, then actions under the covenant model actually do reflect God's purpose in communication. And one of those actions – operating under covenant expectations – is herem.

I appreciate this outline leaves so many hostages to fortune, but I would be happy to try and flesh aspects of it out.

Essentially I have tried to take seriously the fact that we have mediated communication. We have communication through the words used by many varied authors. These words – and not potentially countless other words written from the same times – have survived the test of time and scrutiny of many generations of people who recognised something of worth in them.

As to why God would take such a risk with mediated communication, that may in fact be the purpose of the communication. God opted to communicate directly to a small number of people, but then expected the message to be communicated onwards. Humans have a responsibility to communicate that message – they have that resource. To communicate outwards is one of the responsibilities of being the junior partner in the covenant; it is part of being the image of God, the representative of the Emperor in our own smaller kingdom of responsibility. By communicating God's purpose we are therefore fulfilling both a creation role (Gen 1-2) and an incarnational role.

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Posted by Nigel

What was God's purpose in mediating a purposeful communication via a human author, who himself purposed a communication by using the words he used in the way that he used them?.

There must be a better way of phrasing that.


My comment.

You bet there must be.

For the rest I am befuddled.

But then I am a bear with a very small brain

[ 14. July 2010, 21:04: Message edited by: shamwari ]

Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
God's intent as Master Author subsumes the human authorial intent. ...

Bottomline, the OT is consistent with the NT: there is no taxonomy in clarity, the one is not superior to the other.

I promised to respond a few days ago - sorry for delay.

I'm not sure if what I posted in my last post on divine authorship matches what you think about 'subsuming.' Some would say that God's intention makes its way through the words, despite the human author's communication technique (or even theology). Others that God's intention rides over the human words, perhaps as a spiritual application. I think my take on it is that the human words are consistent with God's words, even given that fact that they are only human. Even better than that, though, I would say that the human purpose in communication is consistent with God's purpose - which is more dynamic than simply focusing on words.

Certainly I agree that the OT and the NT both represent God's purpose; there is no need to see any prominence in purpose.

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425

 - Posted      Profile for Pooks     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I guess the Amalekites were "poor sods"!

What disturbs me is that you seem repeatedly to imply on this thread and elsewhere that the Amalekites were innocents even when you have acknowledged that they were not. It was almost done in a breezy way. According to the texts, they were raiders and murderers. They waylaid a group of already oppressed and exhausted runaway slaves and killed those who couldn’t run fast enough. Later, they and the Midianites repeatedly raided Israelites and operated a scorched earth policy so the Israelites had neither crop nor livestock left to eat. They also helped others to oppress the Israelites for tens of years (see texts below). I may be wrong, but I also got the impression that when the Amalekites moved, the whole tribe moved. Young or old, they were all part of the raiding party. It was the Amalekites who brought their women and children into the context of battle and thereby involved them in the first place. Whether you think they were innocent or not, they all benefited from the ill gotten spoils when the Amalekites were the victors.

The point of 1 Sam 15 though, is that God judged the Amalekites for the evil they had done as well as judged Saul for his disobedience -which was also an evil in God‘s eye. You have consistently down played the evil that the Amalekites had done to others as if it’s nothing worth mentioning. It seems to me that the real issue is whether you are prepared to accept that God has the right to judge evil or not. You have used the word ‘genocide’ earlier, the word is emotive, but hardly fitting in this case. The reason God wanted to destroy the Amalekites was because of their evil deeds, not because of their race. So please, let’s get a little perspective here. If your argument is that the God of the New Testament will not judge the world, then I think the onus is on you to show how you would do away with the many teachings that Jesus was recorded saying that clearly implied that God will judge evil and disobedience, and also give us the reason why you think that the Amalekites’ evil deeds shouldn’t be punished by God.

quote:
Judges 3:12-14 Once again the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the LORD, and because they did this evil the LORD gave Eglon king of Moab power over Israel. Getting the Ammonites and Amalekites to join him, Eglon came and attacked Israel, and they took possession of the City of Palms. The Israelites were subject to Eglon king of Moab for eighteen years.

Judges 6: 2-6 Because the power of Midian was so oppressive, the Israelites prepared shelters for themselves in mountain clefts, caves and strongholds. Whenever the Israelites planted their crops, the Midianites, Amalekites and other eastern peoples invaded the country. They camped on the land and ruined the crops all the way to Gaza and did not spare a living thing for Israel, neither sheep nor cattle nor donkeys. They came up with their livestock and their tents like swarms of locusts. It was impossible to count the men and their camels; they invaded the land to ravage it.

Numbers 14:45 Then the Amalekites and Canaanites who lived in that hill country came down and attacked them and beat them down all the way to Hormah.

Deut 25:17, 18 Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut off all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God.


Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Pooks: What disturbs me is that you seem repeatedly to imply on this thread and elsewhere that the Amalekites were innocents even when you have acknowledged that they were not.

You have used the word ‘genocide’ earlier, the word is emotive, but hardly fitting in this case. The reason God wanted to destroy the Amalekites was because of their evil deeds, not because of their race. So please, let’s get a little perspective here

The reason God wanted to destroy the Amalekites was because of their evil deeds, not because of their race. So please, let’s get a little perspective here. If your argument is that the God of the New Testament will not judge the world, then I think the onus is on you to show how you would do away with the many teachings that Jesus was recorded saying that clearly implied that God will judge evil and disobedience, and also give us the reason why you think that the Amalekites’ evil deeds shouldn’t be punished by God.


Pooks, "Listen to what the Lord Almighty says. He is going to attack the people of Amalek because their ancestors opposed the Israelites when they were coming out of Egypt....kill all the men, women, children, and babies...' (1 Samuel 15 2-3).

1. We note that the Amalekites are not being punished for any trouble they were causing at the time. They were being punished for the sins of their ancestors: crimes of which they were innocent. They are not to be destroyed for their own evil deeds- of which I'm sure there were many, as with the Israelites and the rest of us.

2. The specific inclusion of babies, whose innocence is surely undisputed, underscores the point.

3. Most people would understand the elimination of an entire ethnic group from the face of the earth as genocide.

4. I do not seek to deny that Jesus is our judge; but even if one accepts at face value the more apocalyptic words of Jesus in the Gospels and Revelations, the objects of his anathemas are punished for their individual/personal sins/crimes, and not for those of their ancestors.

5. At the end of the day, the behaviour of the Amalekites was no different from that of the Israelites and other tribes. Their sin was that their interests clashed with those of the Israelites, so they had to be got rid of as a matter of political policy. Had the shoe been on the other foot the Amalekites would have sorted out the Israelites, ordered, no doubt, by their God(s).

The question, Pooks, is whether this ethno-centric God is the one revealed in Jesus Christ. Most of us don't think so, but clearly there are others, like you, who do.

Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599

 - Posted      Profile for footwasher   Email footwasher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Wow, Hyatt, that was one humdinger of a post! It's the first time I'm hearing the methodolgy of New Church described in a lucid and cogent post, and although I share the initial premises, my conclusions diverge a bit. Maybe if I read some more about New Church, I may find its views better formed than my own!

Nigel M wrote:
quote:
I'm not sure if what I posted in my last post on divine authorship matches what you think about 'subsuming.'
I was trying for "co-opt", or "commandeer", I guess! For example:

21Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, John 11

Here God has His official mouthpiece doing his job properly and telling the truth (maybe for the first time!), voicing his relief at being saved, ironically, without knowing that he no longer is included in the nation, because of his disbelief in Jesus! Here the information the human speaker intends to convey is different from that conveyed after God takes it over and gives it its final meaning.

See also:

Quote
(Isaiah 7:14-18)

Isaiah’s prophecy really outlines a timetable for the destruction of two troublesome foreign kings named Rezin and Pekah. Isaiah says to Judah’s king Ahaz, in effect, that by the time a particular maiden1 marries, has a son, and sees him through his “Bar Mitzvah”, these two kings will be gone. Some commentators try to say that Isaiah is not speaking to Ahaz, but to the whole “House of David.” They take this mental handle and try to stretch the meaning to make it fit the true virgin birth to come. But verse 16 ties the prophecy to the two kings and verse 18 calls upon Egypt and Assyria to be the instruments of their destruction. What have Egypt and Assyria to do with the conception and birth of Jesus?


Donald E. Curtis

Note the original sense and the final sense.
quote:
Certainly I agree that the OT and the NT both represent God's purpose; there is no need to see any prominence in purpose.
Sure, Jesus describes both as "treasure":

52 And Jesus said to them, "Therefore every scribe who has become a disciple of the kingdom of heaven is like a head of a household, who brings out of his treasure things new and old."Matthew 13

--------------------
Ship's crimp

Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
The question, Pooks, is whether this ethno-centric God is the one revealed in Jesus Christ. Most of us don't think so, but clearly there are others, like you, who do.

Yet the record shows that God has a universal and "ethno-centric" focus in his workings in both Old and New Testaments, Kwesi. He is presented as being considerate of all creation and yet also of his people. How do you respond to that consistency across the Testaments?

Nigel

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Yet the record shows that God has a universal and "ethno-centric" focus in his workings in both Old and New Testaments, Kwesi. He is presented as being considerate of all creation and yet also of his people. How do you respond to that consistency across the Testaments?

Nigel M, you make the point for me when you distinguish between 'considerate of all creation and yet also his own people'. Who are 'his own people'? The answer is different in different parts of scripture. In Judges and Samuel it is clearly the children of Israel, in Jonah they would seem to include the people of Nineveh, at Pentecost and in Paul's letters they include both Jews and Gentiles, and in Revelation they are an 'enormous crowd....from every race, tribe, nation, and language'.

As I've tried to point out in other posts there are important paradigm shifts in the Jewish understanding of God and his relationship to themselves and other ethnic groups. In the time of Judges and Samuel 'his people' were the tribes of Israel, and others were treated as subordinate to their tribal interests. If their land had been promised to the Israelites they were expected to give up without a fight or suffer extreme consequences. God did not deal evenly with the various ethnic groups of his creation. Anyway, they had their own Gods to defend them.

The writer of Jonah, however, clearly understood the radical implications of Israel's increasing understanding that there was only one God, and his book is a polemic against those holding the traditional view of Jewish exceptionalism. God's concern cannot distinguish between different ethnic groups because he is their God as well as Israel's. Jewish exceptionalism ceases to be a blanket phenomenon, and their 'chosen' status is restricted to their mission to carry the knowledge of God to the nations. That would have included the Amalekites had they still been around.

In the New Testament God transcends ethnicity entirely. The mission of Israel is taken over by a multi-ethnic church, and its commission from the resurrected Christ is to 'go to all people everywhere and make them my disciples'. This is an imagination light years away from that of Samuel.

In order to reconcile universalism and ethno-centrism you have to pose a dominant and favoured ethnic group on the one hand and subordinate ethnic groups on the other. That how the Southern United States were organised until at least the 1960s, and South Africa under apartheid. White Christians in these societies unsurprisingly found great support for their social theories in the Old Testament.

Once we agree that God treats all men (and women) equally, as the NT insists, then ethno-centrism and universalism become incompatible. To believe in ethno-centrism is to believe in discrimination which is not compatible with the equality inherent in universalist concepts.

Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Who are 'his own people'? The answer is different in different parts of scripture.

Not really, Kwesi. God's People can be universal in the sense that all creation belongs to the Lord (an OT and NT theme), but also in a more limited fashion only those who are loyal to God, who accept him. This is what is meant more commonly in the Bible by the phrase 'God's People' ('His People', 'My People').

As I pointed out on the other thread, the offer of salvation is universal, but salvation is dependent on acceptance and return. It is not universally imposed.

The OT presents the character of God as one who is willing to take anyone under his wing; Israel is only a model. God is represented as the El of all in addition to being the YHWH who works with Israel. This theme carries over into the NT, where the Greek terms theos and kurios represent that same balance. There is no paradigm shift in respect of way God's character is viewed.

There is still a need to deal with the texts in the NT that focus on the conditional offer of salvation. I think a problem may be that you are interpreting the likes of "In Christ there is no male and female" to mean that God no longer distinguishes between human groupings when it comes to acceptance. This is different, though, to the context where the principle is applied; there acceptance is offered universally to those who believe and return to loyalty via Jesus. This accords with the OT view of creation and covenantal relationships. There has always been that distinction. The question is how we respond to it.

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools