Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Biblical Blueprints exists to fight the bad presuppositions that "set themselves up against the knowledge of God" (2 Cor. 10:5), the glasses that keep ordinary Christians and theologians alike from seeing how "the key of knowledge," the whole Bible — and every word of it — applies to the whole person and all of life. Biblical Blueprints wants to equip ordinary men and women to use the key of knowledge themselves — to equip a generation of radical Reformers who don't just consume theology-already-done-for-you, but rather continue to mine and apply Scripture's axioms for all of life.
This is Phil Kayser. Welcome. We are going to do something a bit different today and answer some great questions that have been raised on the topic of hermeneutics. As we have previously seen, hermeneutics is a word that refers to the rules and methods for properly interpreting the Scripture. And people have rightly noticed that I do use narrative to teach us how to live. I believe that is in obedience to Christ's command in Matthew 4:4 to live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God - every word, including narrative words. But narrative is not law, so how can this be? So here is the very observant question. This writer asks,
> If a verse or passage is simply describing something, with nothing said in the positive or negative about that something, then it is descriptive and should not be considered something we are commanded to do. It is only when Scripture specifically instructs (prescribes) that New Testament believers do something that we are to take it as a command to obey.
While I agree with the first sentence - that you can't get ought from is, or imperative from narrative, or law from a mere description, I disagree that narrative should not be consulted for ethics. Here's the thing. Ethics is far more than simply rules. It's true that the rules of Scripture only come from God's imperative commands. But there is a lot more to ethics than rules. As Greg Bahnsen and many other ethicisists have pointed out, rules pulled out of the context of their defining narrative often become meaningless. For example, Paul said to the Thessalonians, "If anyone will not work, neither let him eat" (2 Thes. 3:10). If we let this command stand without the defining narrative, we would have to starve infants and invalid adults becasue they can't work. After all, it clearly says, "If *anyone* will not work, neither let him eat." But the narrative context shows who the "anyone" is referring to - he was talking about any one of those able-bodied adults who were being lazy and sponging off of others in the context. And hundreds of similar examples could be given.
The sixth commandment says, "You shall not murder." Sounds clear enough - until you try debating with people - and suddenly you realize that without narrative you can't even define murder. Is all war murder? What about self-defense? What about capital punishment? What about abortion? One Hare Krishna that was debating with me finally angrily retorted that we Christians violate the commandment not to murder when we eat animals. I pointed out that there is plenty of narrative where God Himself says it is OK to eat meat, and since God doesn't contradict Himself, it is obvious that He does not define killing animals as murder. Some people say that abortion is not murder, but other passages in the Pentateuch say otherwise. Granted, those are laws and not narrative. But what about self-defense? I've had a person tell me that killing another person in self defense *is* murder. When I have pushed him if he would kill an attacker if he was an axe-wielding murderer ready to ax his wife to death, he consistently replied that he would not kill him since all killing is murder. But there are plenty of narrative passages where God has no problem with self-defense. They aren't commands, but since God was OK with it, we would assume that it isn't sin, and therefore isn't a violation of the sixth commandment. Others claim that all wars are murder. While some wars *are* murder and *are* condemned by God, there are other wars that God said were not. The Larger Catechism of the Westminster Assembly documents from the Bible that there are many other issues that are classified by the Bible under the topic of murder - such as abuse of our bodies through poor eating habits, poor sleeping habits, etc Was Jesus using a bad hermeneutic when he applied hateful words and lack of forgiveness to the sixth commandment? We would say, No. He was looking at all four dimensions of Biblical ethics that were outlined in the Old Testament. Let me list those four dimensions of ethics for you. If we are to avoid Pharisaic legalism, it is absolutely essential that we understand all four dimensions.
The first dimension is what Bahnsen calls Deontology. That's just a ten dollar word for rules or principles. I would go further than the person who gave the earlier question and I would say that if you can't find the rule in the Pentateuch, it likely is not a rule given by God. Every commanded rule given in the New Testament can be found in the Pentateuch - every single one. How do I know that? Because the New Testament says so. Romans 3:20 says, “*By the law* is the knowledge of sin.” Only God's law can give that knowledge. James 2:9 says that we are “convicted *by the law* as transgressors,” and 1 John 2:4 defines sin this way: “sin is lawlessness.” If you can't find it in the law, it is not sin. Thus, Romans 4:15 gives the Biblical maxim that “where there is no law there is no transgression.” It's pretty clear that only the law can define sin, and the first five books of the Bible constitute that law. Narrative passages may *illustrate* the law and help to define the law, but there must be some law in the Pentateuch for us to say that any given thought, goal, motive, or action is sinful. You may be thinking that I am painting myself in a box even tighter than what the questioner intended, but this is actually a liberating principle.
But the second dimension of ethics is what Bahnsen calls Teleology. Teleology is another ten-dollar word that simply asks the question - what is the future of an action? In other words, what are the goals, trajectory, or results of an action. That is all involved in Teleology. Thus Paul says, "All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful. All things are lawful, but not all things build up." (1 Corinthians 10:23). He is saying that you may have Deontology on your side (because it is lawful), but you are still in sin because you don't have Teleology on your side. The action isn't helpful and doesn't build up. In chapter 6 of the same book he said, "All things are lawful for me, but I will not be dominated by anything." (6:12). For example, drinking may be lawful, but drunkeness is not because the teleology is wrong. Having a birthday cigar may be lawful, but if you are addicted, you are still in sin. Paul's point is that you could technically be keeping the letter of the law, but still be in sin because you have violated the *purpose* of that law or the *desired outcome *of the law - in other words, Teleology. The purpose of the law is defined by the context - often a narrative context. Thus, though the law commands us to bless one another, one narrative passage helps to define that blessing. It says, "Whoever blesses his neighbor with a loud voice, rising early in the morning, will be counted as cursing" (Proverbs 27:14). A righteous deed (blessing) is turned into a sin because of a bad intended result.
Of course, that verse defines not just the results of the blessing but also the motives, which is part of the third part of ethics: the individual person. Even the verse on not eating if you don't work deals with what *kind* of person. The law applies differently to you if you are under authority as opposed to being in authority. The law applies differently to infants than to adults. The law intends for our inward motives to be pure. And Christ highlights this side of ethics a lot in the Sermon on the Mount. You might technically have not violated the command against adultery, but Christ points out that you could still have violated it in your heart.
The last dimension of ethics is the situation. In the Proverb I quoted about rising early in the morning to bless the neighbor with a loud voice it is highlighting the fact that the context is wrong. A person could say, "Where in the law does it say I can't rise early in the morning and bless my neighbor with a loud voice at 2am?" The narrative sections illustrate how that law is lived out. So even narrative sections have ethical calls upon our lives. One illustration is 1 Corinthians 10 where Paul gives example after example of God judging Old Testament saints (in other words he is appealing to history) and says,
> 1Cor. 10:6 Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted. [So there is an ethical imperative that he derives from that history - and it was because the history illustrated God's judgments on Israelites who broke the law. So the law was prior to the narrative, but the narrative helps to illustrate it. He continues in the same vein:] 7 And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.” 8 Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell; 9 nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents; 10 nor complain, as some of them also complained, and were destroyed by the destroyer. 11 Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.
Obvioiusly all of the sins illustrated in the history could be found in the law, but the point is that Paul derived several ethical imperatives from the histories themselves. He continues with some major doctrinal conclusions from those historical examples:
> 1Cor. 10:12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. 13 No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.
So how do we properly use narrative without getting ourselves into trouble? Most people would recognize that just because Judas hung himself does not justify us hanging ourselves. It's obvious, right? But people make the same mistake when they say that because Pharaoh took the people's land in Genesis, it's OK for the government to own all property today. No. That narrative passage cannot overturn the law. Or they say that because church people freely shared their property with each other in Acts 4 that it is OK to advocate for socialism, where the state confiscates and redistributes property without consent. That's a misuse of narrative because even the narrative is teaching the opposite. Here's the way we should use narrative to fill out the four sides of ethics.
The rule itself must be laid down in the law of God. If it isn't commanded, it isn't a rule. But then the full dimensions of that rule can be illustrated by narrative passages. How do we know? Here are some rules that will help.
First, did God Himself speak favorably or unfavorably of an action in the narrative passage? If He spoke favorably, then it is OK. So when God told Joshua to use a deceptive ruse against Ai in their battle with Ai (that's Joshua chapter 7), we can deduce that certain forms of deception in battle are OK and do not violate the law not to bear false witness against our neighbor. But it is because God Himself authorized it.
Second, did Jesus engage in an action? Since He was sinless, He could never engage in an action that involved sin. Of course, He was a unique human leader and He was God too, so it doesn't automatically mean that you can do what Jesus did. I might actually devote a whole podcast to this question because it has been another question that has come up. But I think everyone could at least agree that if Jesus did it, it can't automatically be ruled out as sin since God cannot sin and Jesus could not sin.
Third, did Jesus approve of an action that the disciples engaged in? Then we can assume that He is helping to define the boundaries of that law. For example, when Jesus told His disciples to flee from their persecutors rather than willingly getting captured, we can assume that this is one lawful exception to the command to submit to civil governments. If they are persecuting you for the Gospel and they want you to quit preaching and to turn yourself in, you don't have to.
Fourth, does the structure of the passage help to define an ethical passage. In Proverbs there is a lot of parallelism that does this. On one side of the parallel an ethical principle is laid out and then the parallel or the contrasting parallel side will help to define it. Likewise the second side of a chiasm will help to define the first part and many times clear up ambiguities in an ethical question. A chiasm is an ABCDCBA structure where the two As fill out and complement each other, and likewise the two Bs, two Cs, and with the center of the chiasm being the main theme.
Fifth, the prophets show us the consequences of obeying or disobeying God's laws. This is the Teleological side of ethics that looks to the goals, consequences, and trajectory. If God is angry with a given action, we can assume that it was sinful.
So let me go back to the question to see if I have answered it adequately. The question said,
> If a verse or passage is simply describing something, with nothing said in the positive or negative about that something, then it is descriptive and should not be considered something we are commanded to do. It is only when Scripture specifically instructs (prescribes) that New Testament believers do something that we are to take it as a command to obey.
I'm not sure if this writer intended his question to imply a New Testament only ethic. Probably not, but I think I answered that at the beginning by showing that the New Testament constantly appeals to the Old Testament for their ethical behavior. For example, Romans 7 inidicates that Paul expected his readers to know and follow the Old Testament on the issues of marriage and divorce. He said this:
> Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. (Rom. 7:1-2)
He expected them to know the law. Likewise, Paul praised the Bereans in Acts 17 for checking out everything he taught with the Old Testament Scriptures to see if what he said was true. He praised them. In fact, Acts says that Paul never taught anything without using the Old Testament. OK, enough on that.
I'll end with one more question that was tagged onto the end of the one I dealt with. It said,
> Hence “it’s descriptive, not prescriptive” and its cousin “you can’t get doctrine from narrative.”
Well, the first part is OK in a sense, but the second part is not. Christ and Paul got doctrine from narrative all the time. For example, Jesus derived the doctrine of the resurrection from the logical implications of the narrative statement that God was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. How did He derive that doctrine? He says, "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living" therefore they must still be alive - something the Sadducees denied. In 2 Corinthians 3 Paul derives a great deal of doctrine from the narrative scene of Moses meeting with God and having his face shining. Really, if you look at the back index in Carson and Beale's Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament, you will see page after page of quotes and allusions to the narrative passages in Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. There are literally hundreds of examples of doctrines and even ethical commands based on narrative passages. Like 2 Corinthians 8:15, which quotes the narrative passage on the collecting of manna, "So when they measured it by omers, he who gathered much had nothing left over, and he who gathered little had no lack. Every man had gathered according to each one’s need." And Paul uses that to encourage faith in generosity. It's a logical deduction. In Galatians Paul buillt a doctrine on the narrative passage describing Ishmael's persecution of Isaac and eventually his being cast out.
Anyway, if we keep the Scriptural rule in mind that all deontology is in the law and that the rest of the Bible fills out the ethical definition of that law through examples of teleology, situation, and the specific persons and how they are responsible, I think it will keep your exegesis on the straight and narrow. It's a great question, and I hope that my answer helped. Thanks for listening. God bless.