Right and wrong within the Bible

[Hans Deventer]

I'm of the opinion that Scriptures condemn homosexual relations everywhere that it addresses the issue explicitly and that these condemnations would have extended even to what we know today as monogamous, loving, homosexual relationships. I, however, think the Bible is wrong. Pretty simple. I'm comfortable with Christians holding either view.

Knowing you, you didn't come up with this idea out of the blue. So what do you use to determine what is right and what is wrong within the Scriptures themselves?

[Dan Henderson]

Here is the root cause of any issue you would like to adress in the Nazarene or any other conversation among Christians: "I, however, think the Bible is wrong." This is the sum of 6 years of theological training? Thank you for summarizing our problems so succinctly. I personally would rather be an uneducated fool, accept any topic covered by the Bible at face value, and consider the question settled than to be educated enough to make such a staement, in any context or proof text. For me it doesn't matter how Benjamin decides to determine the difference between right and wrong. His arguments no longer have any merit.

[Hans Deventer]

Here is the root cause of any issue you would like to adress in the Nazarene or any other conversation among Christians: "I, however, think the Bible is wrong." This is the sum of 6 years of theological training? Thank you for summarizing our problems so succinctly. I personally would rather be an uneducated fool, accept any topic covered by the Bible at face value, and consider the question settled than to be educated enough to make such a staement, in any context or proof text. For me it doesn't matter how Benjamin decides to determine the difference between right and wrong. His arguments no longer have any merit.

This, Dan, is the post traditional theology forum. The question, therefore, is on topic here. Your dismissal, however, is not.
This forum has been created by me with the specific goal to allow for discussions that go beyond the regular borders. In a forum like this, folks who dismiss that very concept, have no business for they have made their ideas irrelevant on this specific forum.

But you can attack Ben's view to your heart's desire at the regular theology forum.

[Benjamin Burch]

Here is the root cause of any issue you would like to adress in the Nazarene or any other conversation among Christians: "I, however, think the Bible is wrong." This is the sum of 6 years of theological training? Thank you for summarizing our problems so succinctly. I personally would rather be an uneducated fool, accept any topic covered by the Bible at face value, and consider the question settled than to be educated enough to make such a staement, in any context or proof text. For me it doesn't matter how Benjamin decides to determine the difference between right and wrong. His arguments no longer have any merit.

Dan, the Bible also requires men who've raped a woman to marry her, and condones spousal abuse by portraying YHWH as a spouse abuser. To treat the Bible as a transcendent text which is correct at all times, in all ways, on everything it says, is the scariest thing I can possibly imagine.

[Dan Henderson]

Apparently Ben you have a right to your opinion in this forum but I don't. Hans and Steve have made that abundantly clear. So I guess you get to state whatever you wish unchallenged.

[Benjamin Burch]

Apparently Ben you have a right to your opinion in this forum but I don't. Hans and Steve have made that abundantly clear. So I guess you get to state whatever you wish unchallenged.

Nope. However, it can be challenged from different perspectives/angles. If you'd like to critique and challenge it from your angle, you are more than welcome to start a new thread on the General Theology Forum. It really is not censorship, it is organization.

Some people don't want to have certain conversations. They want to have different conversations without getting continually bogged down in the same conversations they find undesirable. If you wish to have those conversations, there is a forum for that. You are more than welcome to quote my post and drag it into the other forum, starting a thread, just as Hans did. It's a free forum that way. Feel free to do so.

[Heidi Anderson]

I love this thread and forum! Thanks for starting it!! I agree with Ben (big surprise).

[Benjamin Burch]

Hans, I will answer your question sometime tonight or tomorrow. I want to give it the time and attention it deserves.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Ben,
What has led you to see some of these things as "wrong"? Have you come to that conclusion completely on your own, or have you picked up other values in scripture that have led you to conclude that some parts of the scripture are inconsistent with those parts that have contributed to your values? For instance, where'd you come up with a position against spousal abuse? Some of us tend to be against it because of higher values the scripture promotes.

And . . . why have you stooped to do what a lot of hair brained posters do herein: call something pretty simple that just isn't? (I readily admit, that though I enjoy your posts most the time, I can't always follow your sarcasm.)

[Benjamin Burch]

Ben,
What has led you to see some of these things as "wrong"? Have you come to that conclusion completely on your own, or have you picked up other values in scripture that have led you to conclude that some parts of the scripture are inconsistent with those parts that have contributed to your values? For instance, where'd you come up with a position against spousal abuse? Some of us tend to be against it because of higher values the scripture promotes.

And . . . why have you stooped to do what a lot of hair brained posters do herein: call something pretty simple that just isn't? (I readily admit, that though I enjoy your posts most the time, I can't always follow your sarcasm.)

While I promise to answer these questions fully after I am finished with my final paper, allow me to address your final question here.

I will admit that I sometimes do stoop to this, and for that I need to improve, but this is not one of those cases. :) I apologize for it not being clear. What I meant by "pretty simple" was that I am not going to try and create some twisted, convoluted thing. My position is simple - I think the Bible is wrong.

Does that make sense? Not that my position is "pretty simple" to see that it is correct, just that it is a simple position! I'm sorry for the confusion.

[Dennis M. Scott]

I'm thinking we might do well to elaborate a little more on what we believe about the bible. It seems like the scripture's primary purpose is first to reveal to us the nature and character of God, and that in conjunction with such revelation as accomplished by Christ - both in scriptural and personal relationship. That revelation can also incorporate Wesley's quadrilateral. As we discover the nature and character of God, our interpretation of scripture must be validated by who He is. Admittedly, my argument is rather circular: let scripture reveal to us what God is like, and then validate scripture in light of that revelation.

I think I'd like to continue this after you finish your paper, and I finish grading a stack.

[Benjamin Burch]

Thank you, Dennis, for your thoughtful questioning. Thank you Hans, for the question itself. Thank you, to any who are willing, for allowing me to talk through/about this.

Dan... start that thread in the General Theology Forum. It might be a good conversation. The avenue is available to you. I invite you to take it.

[Kyle Borger]

Is it possible that the Bible does not speak to every situation we will encounter and that at times God places difficult circumstances in our path so that we will rely on Jesus for the answer? Certainly the Bible is valid for helping us determine if the message we are receiving from Jesus is consistent with what Jesus taught in the Bible. But what is of greater importance? Jesus or the Bible? If the Bible contradicts what Jesus is telling us today and that same message is consistent with who Jesus was in the Bible, do we follow Jesus or the Bible? What if there are others with the same message from Jesus so that the community of believers can confirm the message?

Not suggesting anything on my end just proposing questions that might reflect where Benjamin is coming from. (Of course it will be clearer when he responds.But his statement did cause me to pause and consider.)

[Paul DeBaufer]

Thank you, Dennis, for your thoughtful questioning. Thank you Hans, for the question itself. Thank you, to any who are willing, for allowing me to talk through/about this.

Dan... start that thread in the General Theology Forum. It might be a good conversation. The avenue is available to you. I invite you to take it.

I agree with the statement you made that led to the creation of this thread. I too would like to hear your rationale. I don't quite have one formulated well enough to express.

[Dale Cozby]

Knowing you, you didn't come up with this idea out of the blue. So what do you use to determine what is right and what is wrong within the Scriptures themselves?I would surmise his educated opinion is the ultimate guide to right and wrong within and without scriptures. Like every post in any forum it is all a matter of opinion.

Person A says, the Bible is authoritative in all matters concerning XYZ, but in error on ABC.
Person B says the Bible is wrong on many points and cannot be trusted in all matters of faith in God.
Person C says, the Bible is divinely inspired and is inerrant, infallible, and contains absolute truth.
Person D says the Bible was written by men. It is not the written Word, Jesus is the Word so lets just follow Jesus.

See, it is all opinions. No Proofs are needed. Besides, they are untrusted by the other post-modern opinions anyway.

Eventually, it will come down to Jesus coming back seperating the sheep from the goats, the pure from the impure, the holy from the corrupted, the deceived from the discerning and prudent, the faithful from the unfaithful, the overcomers from those that shrink back. Until then it is all just opinion and every one is entitled to thier own. We all choose to believe what fills our hearts desire most adequately. But, this is of course just another opinion.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I would surmise his educated opinion is the ultimate guide to right and wrong within and without scriptures. Like every post in any forum it is all a matter of opinion.

Person A says, the Bible is authoritative in all matters concerning XYZ, but in error on ABC.
Person B says the Bible is wrong on many points and cannot be trusted in all matters of faith in God.
Person C says, the Bible is divinely inspired and is inerrant, infallible, and contains absolute truth.
Person D says the Bible was written by men. It is not the written Word, Jesus is the Word so lets just follow Jesus.

See, it is all opinions. No Proofs are needed. Besides, they are untrusted by the other post-modern opinions anyway.

Eventually, it will come down to Jesus coming back seperating the sheep from the goats, the pure from the impure, the holy from the corrupted, the deceived from the discerning and prudent, the faithful from the unfaithful, the overcomers from those that shrink back. Until then it is all just opinion and every one is entitled to thier own. We all choose to believe what fills our hearts desire most adequately. But, this is of course just another opinion.

That we do, you , me, them, all of us whether we want to admit it or not.

[Hans Deventer]

Apparently Ben you have a right to your opinion in this forum but I don't. Hans and Steve have made that abundantly clear. So I guess you get to state whatever you wish unchallenged.

Ditto to what Ben replied. You are smart enough, Dan. You can do a lot better than write what you did here.

[Dan Henderson]

Ditto to what Ben replied. You are smart enough, Dan. You can do a lot better than write what you did here.

You you are correct, Hans, I am smart enough. I am smart enough to know when discussion is no longer an option. Even in an open "anything goes" discussion one can cross the line and Ben has done so. It one thing to ask "Is the Bible true, given ...?" and quite another to state, "I believe the Bible is wrong?" The latter leaves no room for discussion. There is a phrase in the medical profession that if I hear it uttered, that person will go no where near my patients, any of them, for any reason. The phrase, is "that patient is better off dead" I hear that, you are fired (de-credentialed if I can do it), period, no discussion, no trial. That is a line that will not be crossed in my area of influence. I don't even care if it was a joke. I will not take that risk. Ben has crossed such a line. I will not risk the care and teaching of those I love to him, even if he was joking.

This discussion might be about religion, but it can in no way be construed as a discusion about a Christian religion, or regarding the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. And for that reason; I'm out.

[Ryan Pugh]

This discussion might be about religion, but it can in no way be construed as a discusion about a Christian religion, or regarding the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. And for that reason; I'm out.

It's actually not even a discussion because you aren't willing to listen. Ben hasn't even had a chance to explain what he means and what led him to say what he said and you're just dismissing him altogether.

[Hans Deventer]

It's actually not even a discussion because you aren't willing to listen. Ben hasn't even had a chance to explain what he means and what led him to say what he said and you're just dismissing him altogether.

Well, you have to grant it to Dan, he gives a perfect illustration as to why he should not post on this forum. And I understand, he reached that conclusion for himself as well. That is gain and works much better than having to convince people who don't see it. Dan does, for which I am grateful.

[Dale Cozby]

That we do, you , me, them, all of us whether we want to admit it or not.We are all post-modern and post-tradition. It comes with living in the 21st century. Some just go kicking and screaming being reactive to the changes and dealing with the fallout while others light the bombs.

Glad you agree with me. But, I am wondering why Hans and Todd thanked you for agreeing with me....but not me for pointing out....what you agreed with me on.;)

[Todd Erickson]

We are all post-modern and post-tradition. It comes with living in the 21st century. Some just go kicking and screaming being reactive to the changes and dealing with the fallout while others light the bombs.

Glad you agree with me. But, I am wondering why Hans and Todd thanked you for agreeing with me....but not me for pointing out....what you agreed with me on.;)

Because Paul agreed with a portion of your post, not the whole post. I agreed with Paul's statement about your post, but not your post itself. I would think that this would be self evident.

[Hans Deventer]

We are all post-modern and post-tradition.

If that were true, this forum could be closed.

But there are still many who, with a very modern mindset, try to place everything in systems. Who keep pushing statements to logical absurdities, because they cannot deal with paradoxes. Thereby showing they still think very modern indeed.

Till they have become post modern, there is still a need for this forum.

[Ryan Scott]

You you are correct, Hans, I am smart enough. I am smart enough to know when discussion is no longer an option. Even in an open "anything goes" discussion one can cross the line and Ben has done so.

That's sort of the point, Dan. This forum was created for people to explain and explore various trains of thought and make their own determinations of agreement or disagreement.

I'm interested in hearing Ben's explanation as he has time to give it, interacting with it critically, and delving deeper into the thought process.

Speaking pastorally, the phrase, "the bible is wrong," is problematic for a lot of reasons - the major one deftly illustrated by your reaction here. As with any simple phrase, there is likely a lot behind it. I want to hear and learn what that is before I judge the content of the argument.

This forum exists mainly so those people who will say, "that's wrong, it just is, and I don't see any point in discussing it," don't have to.

Just from the brief comments Ben made, I don't think I could be persuaded to agree with him - but I'm willing to have the conversation and explore why he's said what he said. This is the dedicated space for such a discussion.

[Billy Cox]

Speaking pastorally, the phrase, "the bible is wrong," is problematic for a lot of reasons - the major one deftly illustrated by your reaction here. As with any simple phrase, there is likely a lot behind it. I want to hear and learn what that is before I judge the content of the argument.

Yes, the phrase "the bible is wrong" leads far too many people to shut off their ears/brains and start reaching for weapons.

Where the Bible gets something 'wrong', our interpretation has to be nimble enough to focus on the truth of the message and not stumble over the secondary details. Such is the nature of ancient texts. Some things are lost in translation (both language and culture), while other things are just plain lost.

[Dale Cozby]

wrong
   [rawng, rong] Show IPA

adjective
1. not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed.

2. deviating from truth or fact; erroneous: a wrong answer.

3. not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc., as a person; in error: You are wrong to blame him.

4. not proper or usual; not in accordance with requirements or recommended practice: the wrong way to hold a golf club.

5. out of order; awry; amiss: Something is wrong with the machine.


I would say that Ben does believe the Bible is wrong based on the above definitions of wrong.
He may even have some more definitions of the word wrong to add to the above.

It seems to boil down to the idea that if we take the book in total and if that is the case then Ben sayng it is wrong would be a true statement. If the opposite is the Bible is without error, does not deviate from the truth or is not wrong in facts, is always correct in opinion, action, method, and judgment, is always proper and in accordance with recommended practices, is never out of order, awry or amiss. If we are left with a perfect Bible, flawless in word and translation, or saying it is wrong.....then Ben chooses wrong over perfect.

Perhaps I am wrong but if that is the case then many would actually agree with Ben....more or less.

Flawed or perfect......in all ways? or...
Flawed or perfect in all things necessary to salvation?

Am I on the right track here or the wrong track?

[Benjamin Burch]

Drumroll please............................................ .................................................. ...................... :smilies1722:


Speaking pastorally, the phrase, "the bible is wrong," is problematic for a lot of reasons - the major one deftly illustrated by your reaction here. As with any simple phrase, there is likely a lot behind it. I want to hear and learn what that is before I judge the content of the argument.

I probably could have stated this differently/better. I do believe that the Bible errs and that those specific voices which explicitly condemn homosexual behavior and would extend this condemnation to cover even monogamous homosexual relationships are wrong in their condemnation.

That is a better, clearer articulation of my position.

As such, Dennis did a nice job of hearing what I was attempting to say, and translating for me:


What has led you to see some of these things as "wrong"?

Dennis has also started by setting a primer for what I would say, as he asks this question:


have you picked up other values in scripture that have led you to conclude that some parts of the scripture are inconsistent with those parts that have contributed to your values?

To which I would want to clearly answer, "Yes, that is what I have done/attempted to do."

There are plenty of things in the Bible - usually in the Old Testament, though sometimes in the New - that we simply don't follow, and we have understood them to be products of culture from which we can move.

The sexual and marital ethic of the Bible as a whole simply is not a healthy one.

There is always this image (http://hamiltonmj1983.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/biblical-marriage.jpg) to illustrate this point. It's a little over the top, sure, but it illustrates the point well. The Bible is a culturally conditioned document in which marriage is understood in an acutely cultural way.

Another problem is the way that the marriage image is used outside of such explicit discussions on marriage, where the metaphor is used by the prophets. These specific texts (Hosea 2, Jeremiah 13, Ezekiel 16, Ezekiel 23) are extremely hurtful and harmful in their portrayal of marriage. The husband is justified in using violence, rape, and even murder as means for punishing the wife for her infidelity.

We would - and should - have no problem condemning this picture of marriage today. And while we might want to say that the prophets were using real goings on (the awful realities of the Babylonian siege) and speaking accurately about YHWH bringing judgment on Israel for sin. That is fair. However, a metaphor works because there is fertile ground in which for it to make sense, and this image of marriage is endorsed by the use of the metaphor, as well as the portrayal of the righteous YHWH as the violent husband who uses these means as punishment for the unfaithful wife.

If one needs grounds on which to say this is bad, I'd simply point to the revelation of Christ as a whole, as well as John 8 and the woman caught in adultery. I realize that this is a contested passage which some conservative-minded people who don't like the implication would like to remove, but that is now what the Scriptures.

"Scripture" is not a term which refers to some pristine, original texts written by some authors, but instead to the final, accepted, canonical shape in which the Church has declared them to be Scripture. Thus, I accept John 8 as Scripture and see it as standing in direct contradiction to images placed before.

.................................................. .................................................. ........................

**contextual side-note**
(What I say here will help you understand everything else that gets said)

In every Christian Liturgy that I know of, the Gospel reading is set at the climax of the Liturgy of the Word and it is accompanied by words, actions, and symbols which all proclaim an exalted status for the Gospels. These are the texts which reveal Christ to us most directly, and Christ is the one who reveals the father (John 14:9), and it is these words which are the "words of life" (John 6:68).

It is only in light of this that the other texts of Scripture - most notably the OT - can be understood as also revealing Christ. I take this seriously, and the Gospels take priority in my Scriptural hermeneutic.

.................................................. .................................................. ..........................

I also believe that the Bible provides us with a hermeneutic which challenges previous things and reinterprets itself in new places, new times, new contexts.

Now, I warn you in advance, you're getting a very quick run-by of work/thoughts that have been a year in the making, and will be over a year in writing eventually to articulate fully (and probably over 50 pages).

I accept Walter Brueggemann's portrayal of Deuteronomy as not simply a retelling of the Law, but as a reinterpretation of the Law. Instead of the law coming from Sinai, it is given from the edge of the land. A different time. A different place.

It is positioned at the end of the Torah, suggesting that the re-interpretive task taken on by Moses in the "Second Law" is an open-ended task which the people of God must take up and continue.

From here, I would suggest that Matthew attempts to portray Jesus as the fulfillment and continuation of this exact task. Jesus reinterprets the Law for the people from atop the mountain, in a new place, in a new context. Not only does Jesus do this, but OT concepts of marriage are among the items which Jesus challenges and reinterprets and they are also the only topic which was important enough that Jesus in Matthew revisits this reninterpretation later (Matthew 19).

That should be a good start for now. Another post coming, but I want to break it up for people and organize it a little bit.

[Benjamin Burch]

To summarize and organize a bit from my previous post, I offer the following points before I move on.

(1) We already freely reject certain concepts of the Biblical sexual and marital ethic before this conversation starts
(2) The Bible offers a hermeneutic of continual re-interpretation in contexts - new times and new places - and calls the people of God into that re-interpretive task
(3) The Biblical marital and sexual ethic is a topic which is open to reinterpretation and which the Bible re-interprets, re-thinks, and even rejects in part as a part of its reinterpretation.
(4) The revelation of Jesus Christ in the Gospels should stand at the center of our re-interpretive hermeneutics, as the lens through which we view all other Scripture

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the New Testament's re-interpretive practice, the ethical codes of the Old Testament are reinterpreted by both Jesus and Paul, and a summary of their reinterpretation is offered as such:


“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.’


Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet”; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.

For both Paul and Jesus, to love one's neighbor is to fulfill the entire law. The specifics of the law seem to disappear, and Paul's entire ministry as well as letters seem to suggest exactly this. While those who are transformed and righteous fulfill the law, they do so by truly loving one another - not by following specifics.

In case there was actually any doubt about the fact that this statement by Jesus was meant to challenge and reinterpret the Law in a new time, new place, new context, Luke dispels that doubt immediately with the following:


But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbour?’ Jesus replied, ‘A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan while travelling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, “Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.” Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?’ He said, ‘The one who showed him mercy.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Go and do likewise.’

This is the basis of all discussion of sin, and therefore the question must be asked - and the ground to ask this question has been opened by by considerations 1-4.

(a)Does homosexual marriage, in a monogamous relationship analogous to heterosexual marriage, break the law of loving one's neighbor as one's self? No.
(b) Does it break the law of loving God? Only if we say they are disobeying God.

However, I do not believe you can say they are disobeying God because all of God's ethical commands regulating relationships between people exist to ensure [a]. Also, the grounds for questioning whether this is really against God's commands has already been laid by 1-4.

From here, one more point needs to be considered: Natural design.

The Church often resorts to this as its go-to reasoning for why homosexuality is sinful. It violates the "natural order" which God intended. However, this fails on 2 different points.

(1) We do not use this reasoning for any other sin. Homosexuality is the only sin for which we use this reasoning. Therefore, this is suspect at best.
(2) God did not, in fact, design heterosexuality into the way the world was created.

- God did not create a primeval pair "Adam and Eve."
- God utilized evolution as a means of creation, which has produced natural homosexual behavior in some 2,000 different species, including every great ape, of which humans are included.
- It seems that there are those for whom, in fact, homosexuality is their natural design.

Therefore, monogamous homosexual marriage does not appear to violate the great command by which Christians determine sinful and righteous behavior and "natural design" as a fall-back reasoning is faulty, ultimately failing on both of its central claims.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The later epistles continue this re-interpretive task specifically in regards to the marital and sexual ethic.

Both 1 Timothy 3 and Ephesians 5 present a different model of marriage, whereby polygamy which was once considered acceptable by all of the Bible's religious patriarchs (Abraham, Jacob, David), is now rejected and considered unacceptable for every class of religious patriarch in the Church, Bishops and Deacons.

I will let you all catch up, and start another post where I do a little more organizing and summarizing before continuing. I'm not confident in how clear and coherent I have been to this point.

[Steven Martinez]

Wow Ben!

This is very interesting and thought provoking. I was a bit taken back by the original wording and this post is helping see your point. It is always interesting how we pick and chose which laws are cultural and which are universal. It is especial harsh to look at the Law and see how a young woman who is raped is stoned for not crying out for someone to hear. Where do we draw the line?

[Craig Laughlin]

Good post Ben. At the end of the day it does not persuade me but you put forward a strong arguement and demonstrate the value of this forum. Listening.

Thank you

[Benjamin Burch]

Again, some summary of where we've been so far:

(1) We already freely reject certain concepts of the Biblical sexual and marital ethic before this conversation starts

(2) The Bible offers a hermeneutic of continual re-interpretation in contexts - new times and new places - and calls the people of God into that re-interpretive task
(3) The Biblical marital and sexual ethic is a topic which is open to reinterpretation and which the Bible re-interprets, re-thinks, and even rejects in part as a part of its reinterpretation.
(4) This re-interpretation, re-thinking, and rejection extends throughout the whole of the New Testament, Gospels, Pauline Epistles, and Pastoral Epistles

(4) The revelation of Jesus Christ in the Gospels should stand at the center of our re-interpretive hermeneutics, as the lens through which we view all other Scripture
(5) Within this revelation of Jesus Christ, the specifics of the Law are replaced with a summary of them, the Great Commandment, whereby Christians are told following is righteous and not following is sinful. --- This move is seconded by Paul.
(6) This re-interpretation is explicitly portrayed as such a re-interpretation.

(7) Within the light of our task, and the basis for this task, it appears that homosexuality does not violate the Great Commandment, and the "Natural Design" rational fails on both of its central claims.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would not like to pick back up on this re-interpretive task and offer a hermeneutic for going about it. I would suggest that the Bible has already, based upon the above re-interpretive realities within the text, presented us with multiple voices on the topic and has suggested to us that there is more to be said than what has simply been said explicitly. There is a conversation to be had.

Thus, I would suggest the technique of Mikhail Bakhtin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakhtin) as a proper hermeneutic whereby we honor these dialectic voices and place them in dialogue with one another.

Therefore, I have already set up and suggested that Jesus' words in the Gospels are a direct conversation partner with the OT regulations considering marriage, fidelity, and punishment, and that the Pastoral Epistle's regulations for monogamy are a direct conversation partner with OT voices which propagate polygamy.

Both of these new, re-interpretive voices function fundamentally as rejections of prior Scriptural modes of understanding, offered by Scripture itself, as the voices of the People of God found themselves in new times, new places, new contexts and with new knowledge within which to (re)understand marriage.

The last conversation partners are the marriage metaphor utilized by the prophets in Hosea 2, Ezekiel 16, Ezekiel 23, and Jeremiah 13, which are engaged in conversation by the marriage metaphor utilized by Ephesians 5, which, again, functions fundamentally as a rejection of the prior metaphor and mode of understanding which produced it.

In Hosea 2, the husband is permitted to shame the wife, taking her before the authorities and stripping her bare, in a display that would have involved violence. The woman does not have a voice, only the man, and the woman is at the mercy of the man. From here, after this abuse, the husband "speaks tenderly" to the wife so as to bring her back as his wife, in an image which can be described as nothing other than emotional abuse.

In Ezekiel 16 and 23 a husband (of a minor, who raises that minor and thus assumes power over her) is justified in bringing violence, destruction, and even death upon his unfaithful wife in language which conveys an image of gang-rape by her enemies.

In Jeremiah 13, the husband of the unfaithful wife is again justified in bringing violence and destruction upon his unfaithful wife, directly allowing her enemies acces to anally rape her.

In each of these, the stark contrast between male and female is maintained, the strict "other-ness" is central to the metaphor, while utilizing and endorsing an understanding of the female of the one who is always unfaithful, and is illustrated as so specifically through her sexuality and her parts by which she practices and displays this sexuality... and the husband who is always righteous, even in his violence.

In conversation with these, Ephesians 5 offers a different version of marriage, a different metaphor:


Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Saviour. Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, so as to present the church to himself in splendour, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind—yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish. In the same way, husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, because we are members of his body. ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the church. Each of you, however, should love his wife as himself, and a wife should respect her husband.

A new vision of the husband has been cast, as one who cares for his wife, one who loves her, and even serves her. This husband, instead of lashing out violently at his wife's unfaithfulness, is a husband worthy of her faithfulness, who works to help her stay holy.

This husband even gives his life up for his wife, in a radical reversal of the previous image offered by the prophets.

What is most important here is that a new image of "husband and wife" emerges. Instead of "male and female" where the sexual parts of the woman are magnified and explicitly noted so as to create her otherness, we are given a new image, one of "Christ and Church." While the author speaks in terms of "her" and "his", the actual sexuality of the two parties which is so clear in the prophetic metaphor has been removed, and replaced with modal representations, without consideration of sex.

Instead, a monogamous relationship is offered which is to mirror the relationship of Christ to the Church. The vocabulary of "him" and "her" has been subverted by the author's own image/metaphor, and this metaphor continues to subvert this sexual construal by assigning the designation "her" to that which is clearly represented as a unit which comprises both male and female (Church). Thus, the gender of the wife is not sexual, based on sexual organs like in the prophets, and what she does with those, but instead it is ambiguous, based on relationship to the husband.

Lastly, the drastic "other-ness" of the prophetic metaphor is also subverted by the author of Ephesians' mixed metaphor. That is, while the wife in the prophetic metaphor is completely other from the husband, unholy, unfaithful, and evil, in need of a husband to raise her up the right way, Ephesians' metaphor refuses to allow us to stay here. The author once again attempts to use such language, but is subverted by the fact that the husband's body is the wife herself, The Church is both wife as well as Body of the husband. The otherness is removed, and once more replaced with ambiguity, as the husband and wife move in and out, past and through each other, as one in the same, with one being members of the other.

Thus, Ephesians 5, I believe, is not only fundamentally a rejection of prior modes of marital understanding, but also subverts its own vocabulary with its dominant metaphor, leaving the parties ambiguous, and inviting the Church once more into the task of re-interpreting and re-thinking marriage in a new time, new place, and new context in which we now find ourselves today.

Thus, I would say again....

I think that where the Bible explicitly addresses homosexuality, it condemns it. Not only does it condemn it, but I believe that these condemnations extend to cover even that which we would understand today as monogamous, homosexual marriages. However, I believe that these explicit voices are wrong. I believe this because I believe that we have been given not only explicit voices, but also implicit voices if we listen hard enough to hear them. I believe the Bible has consistently carried on the task of re-thinking and re-interpreting marriage, re-imagining it in new contexts and I believe in its doing so it has already asked us to reject other voices in the text of Scripture, even explicit voices.

I believe this to be a position that is both faithful to Scripture while at the same time stating unequivocally that some of the voices contained therein are - and can be - wrong.

[Benjamin Burch]

Good post Ben. At the end of the day it does not persuade me but you put forward a strong arguement and demonstrate the value of this forum. Listening.

Thank you

You'll have to read the 3rd post to get the full thing! :)

[Benjamin Burch]

If nothing else... I hope this displays that I have been thoroughly and sufficiently thoughtful, careful, and honest in my interaction with the Biblical text.

[Bob Hunter]

From here, one more point needs to be considered: Natural design.

The Church often resorts to this as its go-to reasoning for why homosexuality is sinful. It violates the "natural order" which God intended. However, this fails on 2 different points.

(1) We do not use this reasoning for any other sin. Homosexuality is the only sin for which we use this reasoning. Therefore, this is suspect at best.
(2) God did not, in fact, design heterosexuality into the way the world was created.

- God did not create a primeval pair "Adam and Eve."
- God utilized evolution as a means of creation, which has produced natural homosexual behavior in some 2,000 different species, including every great ape, of which humans are included.
- It seems that there are those for whom, in fact, homosexuality is their natural design.

Therefore, monogamous homosexual marriage does not appear to violate the great command by which Christians determine sinful and righteous behavior and "natural design" as a fall-back reasoning is faulty, ultimately failing on both of its central claims.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The later epistles continue this re-interpretive task specifically in regards to the marital and sexual ethic.

Both 1 Timothy 3 and Ephesians 5 present a different model of marriage, whereby polygamy which was once considered acceptable by all of the Bible's religious patriarchs (Abraham, Jacob, David), is now rejected and considered unacceptable for every class of religious patriarch in the Church, Bishops and Deacons.

I will let you all catch up, and start another post where I do a little more organizing and summarizing before continuing. I'm not confident in how clear and coherent I have been to this point.

The natural design argument is one that I find particularly compelling. If a certain lifestyle or behavior results in the destruction and shorten lifespan of another, then I have to consider whether or not the actions and behavior that brought that reality about are loving. I think there is enough medical opinion to make this a valid concern. I will say it again, men engaging in sexual acts with other men are simply abusing their bodies. The body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Yes, heterosexual acts of physical intimacy can be unhealthy too. Not making excuses. But men and women are designed for each other. More later.

[Heidi Anderson]

Bob, I wonder where you get your information? Is there a particular study you can refer to? I just don't agree that your statement regarding sex acts (not your argument because it fits with obesity, smoking, drinking etc - all of which are not mentioned). Sex acts can be many different things with men/men just as they are with men/women. For pro-creation purposes, yes, men and women do "fit" together however, that's not truly the crux of what is being discussed here.

Thanks for pointing me to your source(s).
Heidi

[Benjamin Burch]

The natural design argument is one that I find particularly compelling. If a certain lifestyle of behavior results in the destruction and shorten lifespan of another, then I have to consider whether or not the actions and behavior that brought that about are loving. I think there is enough medical opinion to make this a valid concern. I will say it again, men engaging in sexual acts with other men are simply abusing their bodies. The body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Yes, heterosexual acts of physical intimacy can be unhealthy too. Not making excuses. But men and women are designed for each other. More later.

I would point you to my critique of this idea here. (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php/8168-What-the-Bible-says-about-Homosexuality...?p=137047&viewfull=1#post137047)

[Bob Hunter]

Bob, I wonder where you get your information? Is there a particular study you can refer to? I just don't agree that your statement regarding sex acts (not your argument because it fits with obesity, smoking, drinking etc - all of which are not mentioned). Sex acts can be many different things with men/men just as they are with men/women. For pro-creation purposes, yes, men and women do "fit" together however, that's not truly the crux of what is being discussed here.

Thanks for pointing me to your source(s).
Heidi

Heidi,

There is no hiding it. Gay men are at higher risk. I can't dig too deep, because my time is limited, but here is something made available by the department of Health in New York state:

http://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/aids/facts/helpful_resources/lgbt/gay_men_health_concerns.htm

Notice the terminology; higher rate, higher risk, increased risk, etc. I could give you more, thanks for asking. Not a hard task.

I reject the argument that animals are homosexual therefore, we can be. Animals are not humans! I lived on a farm, and I can tell you that while a female heffer may get humped by another female, at the end of the day when the Bull shows up, lo and behold the real thing happens whether it produces a calf or not! When heffer's hump, it is shortlived and usually not welcomed by the heffer on the receiving end. I learned a lot on a farm, I will not buy that argument!

[Benjamin Burch]

I reject the argument that animals are homosexual therefore, we can be. Animals are not humans!

To be clear, that is not the argument. Of course they are not. The question is, what is the natural design? The answer to that question does not appear to be, by any credible means, "exclusively heterosexual."

[Steven Martinez]

Notice the terminology; higher rate, higher risk, increased risk, etc. I could give you more, thanks for asking. Not a hard task.

I hope you noticed the terminology of "may" before most of the terms you quoted. Also the key terminology seems to be "unprotected." Therefore you could conclude with the logic you are proposing that it is unnatural to be African American or Hispanic since African Americans have a higher risk of high blood pressure and Hispanics have a higher risk of diabetes. The site you gave did not in anyway offer and conclusive evidence that shows that homosexuals have a higher risk than heterosexuals who engage in unprotected sexual activity with multiple partners just check with the CDC. The only issue with any merit is the issue of depression and higher suicide rates which has nothing to do with the lifestyle as much as the way people are treated in society. People who are bullied have higher rates of such issues as well.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Ben, I thank you for your research and conclusions reached. It really does keep coming back to interpreting through Jesus and His great commandments: Love. Thank you. I will have to print your 3 posts out for friends, if that is alright with you.

[Bob Hunter]

I hope you noticed the terminology of "may" before most of the terms you quoted. Also the key terminology seems to be "unprotected." Therefore you could conclude with the logic you are proposing that it is unnatural to be African American or Hispanic since African Americans have a higher risk of high blood pressure and Hispanics have a higher risk of diabetes. The site you gave did not in anyway offer and conclusive evidence that shows that homosexuals have a higher risk than heterosexuals who engage in unprotected sexual activity with multiple partners just check with the CDC. The only issue with any merit is the issue of depression and higher suicide rates which has nothing to do with the lifestyle as much as the way people are treated in society. People who are bullied have higher rates of such issues as well.

Steve,

I think you are parsing verbs to the nth degree and missing the overall point. I would suggest taking time to find out why anal sex among men produces higher cases of hepatitis. Find out why these men are at a higher risk for prostate issues, rectal fissures, etc. They suffer greatly from chronic pelvic pain, impotence, and testicular pain. I may have mentioned that I run a closed FB group for men suffering from chronic pelvic pain. I have gay men in the group, they suffer in spades. Even so called "safe sex" is not very safe when body parts are being penetrated that were not designed for such activity. In fact, some gay males use nitrates or 'poppers' to relax the anal sphincter to make penetration easier. My wife worked at a major hospital and remembers the 'poppers' controversy a few years ago. It was a gay guy who published the study (she can't locate it at the moment) and he got ripped by the gay community for revealing the cold hard facts. Here is a study put out by the San Francisco City Clinic. http://www.sfcityclinic.org/moreresources/POPPERSANDIMMUNOSUPPRESSION.pdf

It's an ugly picture of what goes on with gay men. I won't get many "likes" because it is not what folks want to hear. Especially, in this forum where it seems folks are intent on undoing the position of the Church of the Nazarene. That's fine, If we are going to have this discussion then we have to go into it with our "eyes wide open." So at least acknowledge the good, bad and ugly.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Ben,
Thanks for your thoughtful and relatively clear journey. There will be many of us for whom some of your examples are not how we have viewed, understood, or used scripture. Others of us will just not be able to accept change. Some will say this kind of thinking will allow us to "explain away" any part of scripture we want. These are the kinds of things we say when we haven't studied as much as someone else. We also tend to place our faith in scripture instead of the One about Whom scripture tells us.
Acknowledging that you have admitted you could have said differently the part about "wrong", it also seems that saying that every passage regarding homosexuality portrays it negatively only undermines your suggestion that scripture encourages continuing modification of positions on sexual relationships, i.e., marriage. If scripture encourages such continuation, it seems like those passages wouldn't be as "wrong" as helpful in establishing a pattern of "review with the intent of adjusting", thereby part of the process, and "right".

Sorry for being not clear. I've just gotten home from teaching Intro to Philosophy, and some of my students have confused me.

[Ryan Scott]

- God did not create a primeval pair "Adam and Eve."
- God utilized evolution as a means of creation, which has produced natural homosexual behavior in some 2,000 different species, including every great ape, of which humans are included.
- It seems that there are those for whom, in fact, homosexuality is their natural design.

This is where we'd find some disagreement. I don't disagree with these statements, necessarily, but I do think you're making a logical leap here that may be unwarranted. I'm not sure we can say that natural design and God's intention is the same thing. Sin does have an effect on creation (the more I study evolutionary theory the more I'm wondering if a natural bent towards selfishness wasn't around long before human beings) and God allows those effects and works with/through/around them.

I read Genesis as saying God's intentions for humanity was to be paired as male and female - there is an intentional splitting of humanity into two distinct groups. Try as I might to see how those could be arbitrary, I just don't see the biblical evidence.

At the same time, there is a lot in our world that doesn't come out as God intended. Genetic mutations and failures of all kinds permeate creation - many in ways that are obviously outside the kind of world God makes (at least in our historical and biblical understanding of God).

For me (and I don't have the time or desire to go through all the steps to get here, but I imagine you can follow well enough) the question of homosexual marriage comes down to whether or not a loving, monogamous, committed relationship between people of the same gender can represent the relationships between God and God's people in the same way a heterosexual marriage can.

There's plenty of good rationale to answer yes and no; I can respect those communities who truly wrestle with the issue and come down on either side. I don't think either is wrong - at least from an interpretive standpoint.

That being said, it's a tough call. I am happy to be part of a denomination, a faith community that makes this decision for me. I am happy to put myself under that authority and to abide by that decision.

Personally, and I'm not sure how this would work out in a denominational setting (there would be some terrible awkward logistics), but it seems like every potential marriage should be examined, tested, and either approved or disapproved by the local congregation based on their best and most faithful understanding of scripture - no matter which two people come to seek such approval (heterosexual or otherwise). Likewise a couple should be respectful of the loving and caring decisions of the faith community to which they belong.

[Steven Martinez]

Steve,

I think you are parsing verbs to the nth degree and missing the overall point. I would suggest taking time to find out why anal sex among men produces higher cases of hepatitis. Find out why these men are at a higher risk for prostate issues, rectal fissures, etc. They suffer greatly from chronic pelvic pain, impotence, and testicular pain. I may have mentioned that I run a closed FB group for men suffering from chronic pelvic pain. I have gay men in the group, they suffer in spades. Even so called "safe sex" is not very safe when body parts are being penetrated that were not designed for such activity. In fact, some gay males use nitrates or 'poppers' to relax the anal sphincter to make penetration easier. My wife worked at a major hospital and remembers the 'poppers' controversy a few years ago. It was a gay guy who published the study (she can't locate it at the moment) and he got ripped by the gay community for revealing the cold hard facts. Here is a study put out by the San Francisco City Clinic. http://www.sfcityclinic.org/moreresources/POPPERSANDIMMUNOSUPPRESSION.pdf

It's an ugly picture of what goes on with gay men. I won't get many "likes" because it is not what folks want to hear. Especially, in this forum where it seems folks are intent on undoing the position of the Church of the Nazarene. That's fine, If we are going to have this discussion then we have to go into it with our "eyes wide open." So at least acknowledge the good, bad and ugly.

First, I ran my thoughts through my wife who is a doctor who has medical experience in the area herself. Her research in the area has not found conclusive evidence that suggests that homosexual behavior has an increase in risk over heterosexuals. In fact the evidence provided has actually come to the conclusion that heterosexuals are contacting hepatitis and HIV/AIDS at much faster rates. My wife has shared various accounts with me about similar issues with chronic pain in females due to "normal" sexual intercourse. In other words, the issue at hand is that "may" and "can" does not imply "always." I think we can all agree that there is not much data out there that shows what the long term effects of anal sex (lets just call it what it is) amongst homosexual males who are in monogamous relationships. Which is at the core of Ben's argument. Ben has been quite consistent in this and other threads about his opinion that the Bible is more condemning of promiscuous sexual behavior rather than monogamous homosexual relationships. Biblically it is interesting to me that as specific as Scripture is about sexual acts, there is no condemnation of anal sex which would seem to make the whole issue very clear. I agree with your basic premise that a Christian should in no way engage in sexual behavior with the intention of harming or degrading his or her spouse but the question then becomes who defines that? Is it something that the couple decides or do we create a committee for such things? Do you get to set the standard for me? Do I get to set the standard for you?

Second, I am not debating the stance that the Church of the Nazarene holds. I hold the same stance. I am on record on NazNet that I am in full agreement with the Pastoral Perspective sent out by the BGS. As an elder I will not marry a homosexual couple and I would instruct a policy of abstinence for all who are not married in the eyes of God. However, this is a theology forum and Ben has produced a thoughtful argument on the theological issue. I am not saying that I agree with his position but I will listen to it because it goes well beyond homosexuality in scope. To be honest I am not interested in homosexuality as a topic which is why I have not participated in the other forum. I realize that homosexuality is the example being used so it is valid to discuss it here but I desire a true discussion that is based on as much data and facts as possible and not personal agendas or feelings that may be based on fear, hate, or prejudice.

[Benjamin Burch]

Ben, I thank you for your research and conclusions reached. It really does keep coming back to interpreting through Jesus and His great commandments: Love. Thank you. I will have to print your 3 posts out for friends, if that is alright with you.

Of course it is. My task for myself between degrees is to produce this in paper form.

[Hans Deventer]

Of course it is. My task for myself between degrees is to produce this in paper form.

The subject would warrant a book rather than a paper, I would say.

[Benjamin Burch]

The subject would warrant a book rather than a paper, I would say.

50-100 page paper. :)

[Bob Hunter]

First, I ran my thoughts through my wife who is a doctor who has medical experience in the area herself. Her research in the area has not found conclusive evidence that suggests that homosexual behavior has an increase in risk over heterosexuals. In fact the evidence provided has actually come to the conclusion that heterosexuals are contacting hepatitis and HIV/AIDS at much faster rates. My wife has shared various accounts with me about similar issues with chronic pain in females due to "normal" sexual intercourse. In other words, the issue at hand is that "may" and "can" does not imply "always." I think we can all agree that there is not much data out there that shows what the long term effects of anal sex (lets just call it what it is) amongst homosexual males who are in monogamous relationships. Which is at the core of Ben's argument. Ben has been quite consistent in this and other threads about his opinion that the Bible is more condemning of promiscuous sexual behavior rather than monogamous homosexual relationships. Biblically it is interesting to me that as specific as Scripture is about sexual acts, there is no condemnation of anal sex which would seem to make the whole issue very clear. I agree with your basic premise that a Christian should in no way engage in sexual behavior with the intention of harming or degrading his or her spouse but the question then becomes who defines that? Is it something that the couple decides or do we create a committee for such things? Do you get to set the standard for me? Do I get to set the standard for you?

Second, I am not debating the stance that the Church of the Nazarene holds. I hold the same stance. I am on record on NazNet that I am in full agreement with the Pastoral Perspective sent out by the BGS. As an elder I will not marry a homosexual couple and I would instruct a policy of abstinence for all who are not married in the eyes of God. However, this is a theology forum and Ben has produced a thoughtful argument on the theological issue. I am not saying that I agree with his position but I will listen to it because it goes well beyond homosexuality in scope. To be honest I am not interested in homosexuality as a topic which is why I have not participated in the other forum. I realize that homosexuality is the example being used so it is valid to discuss it here but I desire a true discussion that is based on as much data and facts as possible and not personal agendas or feelings that may be based on fear, hate, or prejudice.

Steve,

I respect Ben, I have personally spent time with Ben, I like him a whole lot and that won't change. He makes some legit claims (our method on interpretation is biased and flawed at points). But the flawed nature of it does not change our conclusion about the sinful nature of homosexual behavior. As you know, Ben espouses a hermeneutic that is pro-gay and will not be accepted in the CotN. It is fine for us to discuss it and disagree. I accept that, it's fair game. But this is the same logic used by Todd Clayton and the young man in the video posted by Dana Grant.

The Natural design argument has been used by Christians for....well....a long time (Catholics use it constantly). It is simple in nature, general in its scope and it seems to rely on what Christians have believed about the Bible for centuries. More importantly, it coincides with a collective social conscience that Christians have. Additionally, Christians continue to exercise corporate spiritual discernment on the matter and come to a conclusion that leads away from embracing same sex relations.

So on that basis, I think there is a place for it. Granted I am not arguing it very eloquently. And perhaps I come off as generalizing (which I admitted earlier). I wish I had the time Ben did, I could devote more to this discussion, I simply do not.

As to your point on heterosexual and the health risks they face. Of course they have health risks! That's life. But homosexual men have it in spades, the issues they face as a result of their sexual behavior shorten their life span and reduce their mental health. Heterosexual couples live longer and healthier lives, they just do. There are so many studies, discussions and debates on this, I think there is a place for it in a theological discussion.

[Hans Deventer]

Thus, I would say again....

I think that where the Bible explicitly addresses homosexuality, it condemns it. Not only does it condemn it, but I believe that these condemnations extend to cover even that which we would understand today as monogamous, homosexual marriages. However, I believe that these explicit voices are wrong. I believe this because I believe that we have been given not only explicit voices, but also implicit voices if we listen hard enough to hear them. I believe the Bible has consistently carried on the task of re-thinking and re-interpreting marriage, re-imagining it in new contexts and I believe in its doing so it has already asked us to reject other voices in the text of Scripture, even explicit voices.

I believe this to be a position that is both faithful to Scripture while at the same time stating unequivocally that some of the voices contained therein are - and can be - wrong.

It seems to me this approach leads to a larger role for the Church to define truth (read: interpret the Scriptures) than we are generally used to. In the Quadrilateral, we usually put Scripture first. Your hermeneutic seems to create more of a balance between the various elements, where Scripture both influences the others, especially tradition, but its also influenced by the Church. Influenced in the sense of being the lens through which the Scriptures are read. As you called it, "re-imagining it in new contexts".

Now that this process is already at work in the Scriptures themselves, seems obvious. The question then becomes, to what extent can we carry it on?

It's almost as if we, like Job or Moses, are pleading with God against God. I agree even this has Biblical precedent. Perhaps, sticking too woodenly to the text is being unfaithful to it.

[Paul DeBaufer]

50-100 page paper. :)

Let me know when it's complete, I really want to read it.

[Kyle Borger]

Ben.
Thank you for explaining in depth how you reached your conclusion.

What has Jesus been revealing to you regarding this subject? I know you are laying out the argument and some elements impact me more than others. Perhaps you have said all there is to say, but if Jesus is the final authority what is he telling you?

I hear you saying that we must move beyond loving gay people and accepting them into our churches while working to point them towards Jesus. I hear you saying that the behavior which has been considered sinful in our culture and in our churches for thousands of years should no longer be considered sinful if the act is performed within a marriage.

What do you think Jesus would have us do? How do you think the church should proceed? Keep in mind that cultures do not change overnight.

[Jon Bemis]

That being said, it's a tough call. I am happy to be part of a denomination, a faith community that makes this decision for me. I am happy to put myself under that authority and to abide by that decision.

I too am happy to be part of a denomination that has taken the stand it has taken. That is one of many reasons I am part of the COTN and in the case of homosexuality I think they are more right than those who have determined it either isn't scripturally forbidden or that scripture got it wrong.

[Benjamin Burch]

Ben.
Thank you for explaining in depth how you reached your conclusion.



What has Jesus been revealing to you regarding this subject? I know you are laying out the argument and some elements impact me more than others. Perhaps you have said all there is to say, but if Jesus is the final authority what is he telling you?


Jesus has told me to be faithful to His Church. :) Currently, my branch of His Church is affirming of homosexual marriage. For those who know me, this is a subject which:

(1) I disagree with most of my church's exegesis/argument for it, illustrated by Matthew in the other thread
(2) I came to my opinion on my own, apart from the church I attend, and attending/joining that church had nothing to do with this topic

Therefore, my job is to be faithful to the branch of His Body which I am currently a part of. In my personal context, that is easy with my opinion, luckily, and hopefully I can help steer them towards a better hermeneutic, which I believe I have demonstrated here.


I hear you saying that we must move beyond loving gay people and accepting them into our churches while working to point them towards Jesus. I hear you saying that the behavior which has been considered sinful in our culture and in our churches for thousands of years should no longer be considered sinful if the act is performed within a marriage.

I am saying that I believe the Scriptures provide for us a hermeneutic whereby they call us into faithful re-interpretation as we continue the journey of faithfulness to Christ. I am saying that the marital and sexual ethic is already a primary topic on which this reinterpretation has taken place in Scripture itself. I am saying that the Scripture's own re-interpretation does two things:

(1) Challenges the ground on which we had once claimed homosexuality was sinful
(2) Opens up space to have the discussion of affirmation

Therefore, as I have said before on NazNet, I think that one can read the Scriptures and come away with either opinion on the issue - sinful or not sinful - and both be correct.



What do you think Jesus would have us do? How do you think the church should proceed? Keep in mind that cultures do not change overnight.

I think Jesus would have us be faithful in our own churches. That is, for Nazarenes:


Second, I am not debating the stance that the Church of the Nazarene holds. I hold the same stance. I am on record on NazNet that I am in full agreement with the Pastoral Perspective sent out by the BGS. As an elder I will not marry a homosexual couple and I would instruct a policy of abstinence for all who are not married in the eyes of God.


I too am happy to be part of a denomination that has taken the stand it has taken. That is one of many reasons I am part of the COTN and in the case of homosexuality I think they are more right than those who have determined it either isn't scripturally forbidden or that scripture got it wrong.


That being said, it's a tough call. I am happy to be part of a denomination, a faith community that makes this decision for me. I am happy to put myself under that authority and to abide by that decision.

I think these are wonderful examples of what faithfulness to the Body means for those who find themselves in the Church of the Nazarene.

I also believe there is always room for dissent within the Church. The question is, how do we dissent respectfully and submissively in view of the authority of the Church? How do we dissent without undermining that authority?

That's a difficult question to which I do not know the answer. There are those who are doing it in the RCC. You might be able to find someone in the RCC who can give you a very good answer.

I hope I've answered you in a way that actually answers your questions and is helpful, Kyle.

[Doug Ward]

Ben, as Craig stated, you have been thorough, thoughtful and expansive in your posts. It is what this forum is all about. I also find you unpersuasive, but not haphazard or sloppy.

My main objection is to somehow suggest that when Ephesians talks about husband and wife, it does not really mean husband and wife, but subverts it to create a new ethic that embraces homosexual union. My simple stand is that the original author in no way meant this, and would be shocked at this read. Therefore, while novel, it is not normative for the text.

I also think we are ignoring the text at a completely different level as well. I do not read the Genesis account literally at all. I do think it is a theological reflection that is meant to tell us quite a bit about who we are, and how we are to relate. To speak of evolution or other species homosexuality, to me, completely misses the point. It seems the text is telling us what is holy and right, and the union between man and woman seems foundational for the author, and was foundational for Judaism. Both jesus and Paul had ample time to speak against this and did not. In fact, they seem to affirm this basic understanding at many points.

Now 2,000 years after Christ, we have found a new reading, which not only turns 2,000 years of history, doctrine and theology on its head, but seems more than a little arrogant to me. We are so smart in the last 10 years - we know far more than those silly first century rubes. When my new reading is an explicit ignoring of the words of the text, and turns it on its head, perhaps more than a little caution is in order.

[Kyle Borger]

I appreciate the answer. It helps me know where your heart is and where you are coming from.

[Ben Young]

Therefore, while novel, it is not normative for the text.

Trajectory Hermeneutics is not a novel (original) concept.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Ben, as Craig stated, you have been thorough, thoughtful and expansive in your posts. It is what this forum is all about. I also find you unpersuasive, but not haphazard or sloppy.

My main objection is to somehow suggest that when Ephesians talks about husband and wife, it does not really mean husband and wife, but subverts it to create a new ethic that embraces homosexual union. My simple stand is that the original author in no way meant this, and would be shocked at this read. Therefore, while novel, it is not normative for the text.

I also think we are ignoring the text at a completely different level as well. I do not read the Genesis account literally at all. I do think it is a theological reflection that is meant to tell us quite a bit about who we are, and how we are to relate. To speak of evolution or other species homosexuality, to me, completely misses the point. It seems the text is telling us what is holy and right, and the union between man and woman seems foundational for the author, and was foundational for Judaism. Both jesus and Paul had ample time to speak against this and did not. In fact, they seem to affirm this basic understanding at many points.

Now 2,000 years after Christ, we have found a new reading, which not only turns 2,000 years of history, doctrine and theology on its head, but seems more than a little arrogant to me. We are so smart in the last 10 years - we know far more than those silly first century rubes. When my new reading is an explicit ignoring of the words of the text, and turns it on its head, perhaps more than a little caution is in order.

I'm not sure I can really disagree with you here. I'm not sure the original audiences would've heard what Ben is putting forth. But if we couple it with the subversive text in Galatians 3:28, and I know it is a stretch, then maybe we can reinterpret like Ben is doing. IF there is no longer male and female then husband and wife are free to take on different genders. I do agree with Ben that the Ephesians passage redefines marriage and marital, and by extension sex, roles within from understandings prior to Paul's (pseudo or post or authentic) interpretation through the lens of Christ.

[Doug Ward]

But if we couple it with the subversive text in Galatians 3:28, and I know it is a stretch, then maybe we can reinterpret like Ben is doing. IF there is no longer male and female then husband and wife are free to take on different genders.

It seems the Corinthians may have heard the Galatians 3 formula in this manner. Which gave rise to Paul's response, which we all know so well. It seems there is nothing new under the sun.

[Paul DeBaufer]

It seems the Corinthians may have heard the Galatians 3 formula in this manner. Which gave rise to Paul's response, which we all know so well. It seems there is nothing new under the sun.

I just don't see how they could get from Galatians that incest is okay. Or that licentiousness has been Ok'd. That's a stretch that even I can't make.

[Bob Hunter]

Ben,

You said, "Therefore, as I have said before on NazNet, I think that one can read the Scriptures and come away with either opinion on the issue - sinful or not sinful - and both be correct."

I am not getting that from your posts, I am getting a very strong argument FOR and a very clear message of repudiation for those who espouse a more traditional hermeneutic on this subject. Nonetheless, I am glad to hear you say it and I appreciate your thoughtfulness.

Your friend,

Bob

[Doug Ward]

Paul, there seems to be a gender identity issue behind at least part of 1 Corinthians. I would point out chapter 11, and perhaps chapters 6 and 7 - at least in part. If the traditional roles are no longer valid, then the laws around those roles are gone as well, including the ones governing sexual morality.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Paul, there seems to be a gender identity issue behind at least part of 1 Corinthians. I would point out chapter 11, and perhaps chapters 6 and 7 - at least in part. If the traditional roles are no longer valid, then the laws around those roles are gone as well, including the ones governing sexual morality.

I just don't see how we can go from redefining roles to licentiousness, think that is a slippery slope argument. It just reminds me of the old argument, If any thing in the bible is wrong then it's all wrong. An argument I cannot buy or even really understand (not insinuating that you would make such an argument.)

I personally think that Paul is addressing the Delphic and Dionysian influences that seem to have entered the church at Corinth. Many of the practices, with the incest exception, were practices of these two cults. It's like the congregation, instead of leaving behind pagan practices they brought them with them into the church. However, I am no expert on the church at Corinth. I have has classes in Classics which dealt with the pagan practices and I am kind of fusing what I read, and have heard, with what I learned in those classes so long ago.

[Doug Ward]

Tangent Alert!! Paul, there are more issues in Corinth than mere licentiousness. Many have noticed that there is a blurring of gender roles at play, especially in chapter 11, perhaps imported from the Temple of Demeter. With the blurring of distinctions can come a host of problems. While I do not want to discount the possibility of immorality being one of them, we have community issues, worship issues, and how a culture perhaps looks at marriage. This seems all over 1 Corinthians.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Tangent Alert!! Paul, there are more issues in Corinth than mere licentiousness. Many have noticed that there is a blurring of gender roles at play, especially in chapter 11, perhaps imported from the Temple of Demeter. With the blurring of distinctions can come a host of problems. While I do not want to discount the possibility of immorality being one of them, we have community issues, worship issues, and how a culture perhaps looks at marriage. This seems all over 1 Corinthians.

I almost see how that could be seen in the text. It still falls within the idea that Dionysian cultic practices are what are being addressed. As a female cult men (the seer Tieresias became a woman for 7 years to be involved) may have pretended to be women. So, even is gender sliding was there we cannot separate it from pagan ritual.

[Benjamin Burch]

Ben, as Craig stated, you have been thorough, thoughtful and expansive in your posts. It is what this forum is all about. I also find you unpersuasive, but not haphazard or sloppy.

Thank you.


My main objection is to somehow suggest that when Ephesians talks about husband and wife, it does not really mean husband and wife, but subverts it to create a new ethic that embraces homosexual union. My simple stand is that the original author in no way meant this, and would be shocked at this read. Therefore, while novel, it is not normative for the text.


Thank you for offering me the possibility to explain what I mean. I, too, agree, that the author of Ephesians might be a little shocked at this read. :) I certainly agree he wouldn't intend this. However, if you've followed me enough at this point, and throughout my time on NazNet, you'd know by now that the intent of the author, while meaning much to me, is not in any way necessarily authoritative. Instead, the authority of the text is derived from the canonization of that text and the reception of that text as Scripture by the Church, and the subsequent interpretation of that text by the Church.

Paul, on his own right, has zero authority. His letters are invested with authority by the Church canonizing and receiving his letters as Scripture.

Thus, again, I agree. The author of Ephesians - whoever that is - would be a little surprised at my reading. HOwever, I think the author's own choice of imagery and metaphor subvert his own intention. This is a thoroughly postmodern hermeneutic. I am reading his text for what the words actually say, not for what he meant to say. After all, it is the words, as they are, that are Scripture, not the words as the author intended them.


I also think we are ignoring the text at a completely different level as well. I do not read the Genesis account literally at all. I do think it is a theological reflection that is meant to tell us quite a bit about who we are, and how we are to relate. To speak of evolution or other species homosexuality, to me, completely misses the point.

While I appreciate your input, I thoroughly disagree.


It seems the text is telling us what is holy and right, and the union between man and woman seems foundational for the author, and was foundational for Judaism.

We are neither the author, nor Jewish.


Both jesus and Paul had ample time to speak against this and did not. In fact, they seem to affirm this basic understanding at many points.

Jesus and Paul both were humans, thoroughly imbeded in culture. I would not expect them to disagree, nor should we. They were people of their time. We should expect as much. For Paul and Jesus to radically disagree with the contemporary culture would raise red flags for me, and I would consider it immediately suspect.

As I've said before, the Bible does not transcend time and culture. If it were to appear to do so, I would be immensely concerned.



Now 2,000 years after Christ, we have found a new reading, which not only turns 2,000 years of history, doctrine and theology on its head, but seems more than a little arrogant to me. We are so smart in the last 10 years - we know far more than those silly first century rubes. When my new reading is an explicit ignoring of the words of the text, and turns it on its head, perhaps more than a little caution is in order.

I have attempted to use this caution by acknowledging that the decision is only possible because the text opens up the ground for us to make that move. Without which, we could not do so.

From there, 2,000 years is an infinity in scientific understanding. If it seems arrogant, so be it. I don't see it as such, I see it as natural. We know things they couldn't have known in their wildest dreams. Some day, 10,000 years from now, when jesus has still not returned, someone wil once again carry on the tradition of re-interpreting the law like Moses, in a new time, new place, new context, and what we knew today will look outmoded. This is the nature of knowledge. 2,000 years of learning is a looooooooong time. I expect 10,000 years to be even longer. I should expect we will ahve been wrong, and that those who come after us will know a little better.....

And so on, and so on, and so on.

[Benjamin Burch]

Ben, as Craig stated, you have been thorough, thoughtful and expansive in your posts. It is what this forum is all about. I also find you unpersuasive, but not haphazard or sloppy.

In the end, my hope is that the sloppy hermeneutics and interpretation utilized by my Church, the ECUSA, will be done away with, and a better, more thorough, honest, thoughtful, and contemporary hermeneutic can be used to discuss this issue seriously, which also is able to say what I've said here. (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php/8202-Right-and-wrong-within-the-Bible?p=137863&viewfull=1#post137863)

Those of us who affirm monogamous, homosexual marriage should be supportive of those Christians who see submission the Church's interperpretation as the right interpretation. We should be supportive of them, not dismissive. We should also ahve a serious hermeneutical alternaive, not the nonsense we've offered so far.

[Benjamin Burch]

Thank you.




Thank you for offering me the possibility to explain what I mean. I, too, agree, that the author of Ephesians might be a little shocked at this read. :) I certainly agree he wouldn't intend this. However, if you've followed me enough at this point, and throughout my time on NazNet, you'd know by now that the intent of the author, while meaning much to me, is not in any way necessarily authoritative. Instead, the authority of the text is derived from the canonization of that text and the reception of that text as Scripture by the Church, and the subsequent interpretation of that text by the Church.

Paul, on his own right, has zero authority. His letters are invested with authority by the Church canonizing and receiving his letters as Scripture.

Thus, again, I agree. The author of Ephesians - whoever that is - would be a little surprised at my reading. HOwever, I think the author's own choice of imagery and metaphor subvert his own intention. This is a thoroughly postmodern hermeneutic. I am reading his text for what the words actually say, not for what he meant to say. After all, it is the words, as they are, that are Scripture, not the words as the author intended them.



While I appreciate your input, I thoroughly disagree.



We are neither the author, nor Jewish.



Jesus and Paul both were humans, thoroughly imbeded in culture. I would not expect them to disagree, nor should we. They were people of their time. We should expect as much. For Paul and Jesus to radically disagree with the contemporary culture would raise red flags for me, and I would consider it immediately suspect.

As I've said before, the Bible does not transcend time and culture. If it were to appear to do so, I would be immensely concerned.



I have attempted to use this caution by acknowledging that the decision is only possible because the text opens up the ground for us to make that move. Without which, we could not do so.

From there, 2,000 years is an infinity in scientific understanding. If it seems arrogant, so be it. I don't see it as such, I see it as natural. We know things they couldn't have known in their wildest dreams. Some day, 10,000 years from now, when jesus has still not returned, someone wil once again carry on the tradition of re-interpreting the law like Moses, in a new time, new place, new context, and what we knew today will look outmoded. This is the nature of knowledge. 2,000 years of learning is a looooooooong time. I expect 10,000 years to be even longer. I should expect we will ahve been wrong, and that those who come after us will know a little better.....

And so on, and so on, and so on.

I should elaborate:

The idea that the "authorial intent" is what we need to "get back to" and is that which is "authoritative" is a complete fabrication by modernity which does not have a comfortable home in Christian theology. Michael C. Legaspi's doctoral disseration has been very important to me in this realization. The modern mindset held that the "original" was the best, the "pure", and "unadulterated", and this was what was "authoritative." The beginning of this task lies in Erasmus' translation of the New Testament, whereby he used the Greek, instead of the Vulgate, rejecting the vulgate's place as Scripture, in exchange for a "textual" concept of the New Testament and, thus, its authority.

I thoroughly disagree.

[Benjamin Burch]

I am not getting that from your posts, I am getting a very strong argument FOR and a very clear message of repudiation for those who espouse a more traditional hermeneutic on this subject.

I am attempting to say that the bible invites us to, and opens up the grounds for us to reject previous modes of understanding. I have not said anywhere that the Bible requires us to do so.

[Bob Hunter]

I am attempting to say that the bible invites us to, and opens up the grounds for us to reject previous modes of understanding. I have not said anywhere that the Bible requires us to do so.

Now I think you have done a bit more than you care to admit. You have articulated 3 very thorough responses to our current mode of understanding. Your argument is well written, well organized and very much outside of what Nazarenes believe. You have basically articulated a pro-gay hermeneutic and done it very well. Your position is that of an open an affirming Church which we are not. Just as I have confessed my particular biases, so must you. I would just encourage you to be totally forthcoming to NN readers.

I freely confess that I am not pro-gay LGBT! I embrace the historical Nazarene position. But I love gay people. Remember, my step-sister is gay, been loving her in spite of it for decades. I'm still not convinced it is God's best for us. Just don't see it.

[Doug Ward]

The idea that the "authorial intent" is what we need to "get back to" and is that which is "authoritative" is a complete fabrication by modernity which does not have a comfortable home in Christian theology. Michael C. Legaspi's doctoral disseration has been very important to me in this realization. The modern mindset held that the "original" was the best, the "pure", and "unadulterated", and this was what was "authoritative." The beginning of this task lies in Erasmus' translation of the New Testament, whereby he used the Greek, instead of the Vulgate, rejecting the vulgate's place as Scripture, in exchange for a "textual" concept of the New Testament and, thus, its authority.

I thoroughly disagree.

Ben, I know you will understand my response, and know that it is not offered as a means to argue with you. Rather, it is offered for those following the conversation. You have identified the main point of contention between you and I. I understand what you are doing with the text - it is thoughtful. I also think it is an unpaved road that leads to nowhere. You think there is rich veins of meaning completely disconnected from authorial intent, I think that approach is folly. While I do not believe that we must remain in the first century, I do believe quite strongly that we must go back and spend considerable time there. The message we take to our world today must not run counter to the original message. The original intent must act as an anchor.

Without that anchor that keeps us rooted in the historical world of the text, Scripture becomes little more than whatever the majority world of a current time and place makes it out to be. The text is adrift on the sea of this, or any culture. So even while every child sings "Zaccheus was a wee, little man, and a wee little man was he," that text is NOT about Jesus ministry to all short people. The first readers would not have fixated on height, but on the role of a chief tax collector in a town where Herod Antipas was residing in his huge palace. The first readers would have understood the anger and the deprivation of the people at the hands of Herod. They would have understood his outsider status, and the radical nature of a Jesus who invited this collector. Instead, we have a song about short people.

I know this is a silly example, but what keeps us from contorting Scripture into whatever message we would like it to proclaim? Without anchoring the text to history, absolutely nothing. That does not bother some people, it does me. This does not make me right, or Ben wrong, but it does highlight the difference in how we approach the text. The text may mean many things, but it cannot mean the opposite of what the original intent desired.

[Benjamin Burch]

Now I think you have done a bit more than you care to admit. You have articulated 3 very thorough responses to our current mode of understanding. Your argument is well written, well organized and very much outside of what Nazarenes believe. You have basically articulated a pro-gay hermeneutic and done it very well. Your position is that of an open an affirming Church which we are not. Just as I have confessed my particular biases, so must you. I would just encourage you to be totally forthcoming to NN readers.


I will say again.... :)


I am attempting to say that the bible invites us to, and opens up the grounds for us to reject previous modes of understanding. I have not said anywhere that the Bible requires us to do so.


Your argument is well written, well organized and very much outside of what Nazarenes believe.

Thank you, and yes, I agree.


You have basically articulated a pro-gay hermeneutic and done it very well.

I would want to say that this is not a pro-gay hermeneutic in the sense that I arrived at this hermeneutic from an attempt at a pro-gay hermeneutic. Instead, I want to say that this is something the text does for us, and that this does open up the space to propose a pro-LGT theology.

[Benjamin Burch]

First of all, thank you, Doug, for your response. I think we can do well in articulating what we think and where we disagree without arguing, and I hope you'll read my next response as an attempt to follow your lead here.


Ben, I know you will understand my response, and know that it is not offered as a means to argue with you. Rather, it is offered for those following the conversation. You have identified the main point of contention between you and I. I understand what you are doing with the text - it is thoughtful. I also think it is an unpaved road that leads to nowhere. You think there is rich veins of meaning completely disconnected from authorial intent, I think that approach is folly. While I do not believe that we must remain in the first century, I do believe quite strongly that we must go back and spend considerable time there. The message we take to our world today must not run counter to the original message. The original intent must act as an anchor.

I agree to a degree, as I tend to want to get towards Paul's "authorial intent."

However, most of our theology is based upon Scriptural interpretation which is disconnected from the authors' original intent.

Isaiah never intended to speak of the virgin birth of the incarnate Son of God. But we proclaim that Isaiah tells us exactly this. Hosea did not have any intention of telling us that Gentiles would one day be included in God's covenant people through Jesus Christ, yet we proclaim that Hosea tells us exactly that.

(By the way, check out this article (http://www.jasonstaples.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Staples-All-Israel-JBL.pdf) sometime. I don't know if you've seen it, and if you haven't I think you'd find it interesting. If you have, ignore me! :))

I would contend that the very nature of the idea of Scripture is that the reception of the text as Scripture by the community which receives it as such is the means by which that text receives meaning and authority which the text does not have in its own right. We believe that it is not the author behind the text, nor that author's intent which makes the text Scripture, but the divine agent who lives and speaks within and through those texts, giving them meaning.

The Church of the Nazarene even moved towards recognizing this in 1928 when it stopped suggesting that Scripture "contained" the will of God, but that it, instead, reveals the will of God. This is the fundamental difference between a "text" and "Scripture." When we make the claim that our Bibles are "Scripture", we make a theological claim about them which goes beyond textuality.



I know this is a silly example, but what keeps us from contorting Scripture into whatever message we would like it to proclaim?

Well, hopefully my approach has shown that the text itself would keep us from this. After all, I'm trying to work with what the text actually says, the words it actually uses, and the images it actually uses. Thus, I would like to say the actual text itself keeps us from doing this.


Without anchoring the text to history, absolutely nothing. That does not bother some people, it does me. This does not make me right, or Ben wrong, but it does highlight the difference in how we approach the text. The text may mean many things, but it cannot mean the opposite of what the original intent desired.

I'd agree. I don't think that I've suggested it means "the opposite of what the original intent desired", but that it includes more beyond just what the author desired.

[Hans Deventer]

I know this is a silly example, but what keeps us from contorting Scripture into whatever message we would like it to proclaim? Without anchoring the text to history, absolutely nothing. That does not bother some people, it does me. This does not make me right, or Ben wrong, but it does highlight the difference in how we approach the text. The text may mean many things, but it cannot mean the opposite of what the original intent desired.

Now I am pushing this a little, but it would lead me to the following:

Isaiah 7:14 says "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman* is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel." and original intent was to speak about a young women who would give birth to a son, and the promise that the countries feared at that moment, will be empty by the time the boy reached his teens. Has nothing to do with a Messiah, a virgin birth, whatever. That's nowhere in the text. And Matthew, being part of the Church, was dead wrong reading anything else in it. The Church has no right to interpret this text significantly different from how it was intended.

Could of course also have chosed "Out of Egypt I called my son".

I will have to disagree here. I very much believe in seeking the original intent of a verse of Scripture. But even the Bible itself doesn't leave it there. And the Church has sanctioned these different readings and has considered them Scripture.

[Benjamin Burch]

I would like to thank everyone, again, for being gracious listeners and dialogue partners, and for offering me the opportunity to articulate and explain myself without having to be defensive. It has been very helpful for me to communicate these things in this forum (literally and figuratively - the dialogue "forum" as well as the PT Forum).

[Benjamin Burch]

Now I am pushing this a little, but it would lead me to the following:

Isaiah 7:14 says "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman* is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel." and original intent was to speak about a young women who would give birth to a son, and the promise that the countries feared at that moment, will be empty by the time the boy reached his teens. Has nothing to do with a Messiah, a virgin birth, whatever. That's nowhere in the text. And Matthew, being part of the Church, was dead wrong reading anything else in it. The Church has no right to interpret this text significantly different from how it was intended.

Could of course also have chosed "Out of Egypt I called my son".

I will have to disagree here. I very much believe in seeking the original intent of a verse of Scripture. But even the Bible itself doesn't leave it there. And the Church has sanctioned these different readings and has considered them Scripture.

I beat you to it. :p

[Hans Deventer]

I beat you to it. :p

Oh dear, did I overlook something?

[Benjamin Burch]

Oh dear, did I overlook something?

??? I didn't suggest you did, did I?

[Hans Deventer]

??? I didn't suggest you did, did I?

I thought you meant to say you already covered my example in a post. But I can't find it.

[Benjamin Burch]

I thought you meant to say you already covered my example in a post. But I can't find it.

Ah, then yes, maybe you did overlook something. :)

This post. (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php/8202-Right-and-wrong-within-the-Bible?p=137975&viewfull=1#post137975)


However, most of our theology is based upon Scriptural interpretation which is disconnected from the authors' original intent.

Isaiah never intended to speak of the virgin birth of the incarnate Son of God. But we proclaim that Isaiah tells us exactly this. Hosea did not have any intention of telling us that Gentiles would one day be included in God's covenant people through Jesus Christ, yet we proclaim that Hosea tells us exactly that.

You were, of course, a little more thorough!

[Bob Hunter]

I would want to say that this is not a pro-gay hermeneutic in the sense that I arrived at this hermeneutic from an attempt at a pro-gay hermeneutic. Instead, I want to say that this is something the text does for us, and that this does open up the space to propose a pro-LGT theology.

No, my friend. What you have articulated could have come right from the mouth of someone who advocates a pro-LGT hermeneutic. You are parroting many of things, using the same logic, pressing the same contextual issues, etc.. Your approach to scripture is strangely similar. Let's just call it what it is. I'll be glad to admit that my position is more in line with the natural order/design (God created male and female one for another). Heck, let's just be honest. "Something the text does for us?" Now, that is a matter of opinion and hermeneutics. What the text allows and doesn't allow is based on our heremeneutic and how far we let it take us. It also depends upon our social and cultural values, the assumptions we bring to the text, etc. There is a lot that goes into that statement. If anyone should be pro-gay, it's me. But I'm not.

I do appreciate the discussion though. It's a tough one.

[Doug Ward]

Isaiah never intended to speak of the virgin birth of the incarnate Son of God. But we proclaim that Isaiah tells us exactly this. Hosea did not have any intention of telling us that Gentiles would one day be included in God's covenant people through Jesus Christ, yet we proclaim that Hosea tells us exactly that.


Ben, this is a good example, and let me speak to it. First of all, I agree with you that Isaiah did not mean "virgin" in 7:14, although it is not as cut and dried as you make it out to be. So let me go with the reading, "young woman of marrying age." It seems that Isaiah was saying that God was ready to do some great work among His people. This great work would not happen in a palace but could happen anywhere, at anytime, after all, the sign will be a young woman would be with a child, and that child will be God with us.

Jesus is still that child. There He is, that is the One Isaiah pointed towards. It still rings true. The fact that Matthew used "virgin" here demonstrates the lack of clarity and certainty about this word, but even if Matthew led us down an incorrect road, the meaning still rings true. It does not run counter to the original message of Isaiah. To be honest, there are other NT passages where Paul uses the OT in a manner that does run counter to the original intent, but this Matthew passage is not an example.

Yet if we argue that the Haustafel in Ephesians actually leads to a gender blurring, homosexual affirming reading, then we are, on its face, running counter not only to the text, but the historical role and position of the Haustafel itself.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Ben, this is a good example, and let me speak to it. First of all, I agree with you that Isaiah did not mean "virgin" in 7:14, although it is not as cut and dried as you make it out to be. So let me go with the reading, "young woman of marrying age." It seems that Isaiah was saying that God was ready to do some great work among His people. This great work would not happen in a palace but could happen anywhere, at anytime, after all, the sign will be a young woman would be with a child, and that child will be God with us.

Jesus is still that child. There He is, that is the One Isaiah pointed towards. It still rings true. The fact that Matthew used "virgin" here demonstrates the lack of clarity and certainty about this word, but even if Matthew led us down an incorrect road, the meaning still rings true. It does not run counter to the original message of Isaiah. To be honest, there are other NT passages where Paul uses the OT in a manner that does run counter to the original intent, but this Matthew passage is not an example.

Yet if we argue that the Haustafel in Ephesians actually leads to a gender blurring, homosexual affirming reading, then we are, on its face, running counter not only to the text, but the historical role and position of the Haustafel itself.

I'm going to push just a little here. IF Christ was Isaiah's intention and that intention is clear, how then did so many Scriptural authority not understand and miss Jesus as the Messiah, for nearly 2000 years now? The only way to actually see it is through a Christian hermeneutic which Matthew employed. I would suggest that Matthew was re-interpreting the Scripture in light of Christ and going beyond the intention of the author and beyond the understanding of the original audience.

[Benjamin Burch]

Ben, this is a good example, and let me speak to it. First of all, I agree with you that Isaiah did not mean "virgin" in 7:14, although it is not as cut and dried as you make it out to be. So let me go with the reading, "young woman of marrying age." It seems that Isaiah was saying that God was ready to do some great work among His people. This great work would not happen in a palace but could happen anywhere, at anytime, after all, the sign will be a young woman would be with a child, and that child will be God with us.

Jesus is still that child. There He is, that is the One Isaiah pointed towards. It still rings true. The fact that Matthew used "virgin" here demonstrates the lack of clarity and certainty about this word, but even if Matthew led us down an incorrect road, the meaning still rings true. It does not run counter to the original message of Isaiah. To be honest, there are other NT passages where Paul uses the OT in a manner that does run counter to the original intent, but this Matthew passage is not an example.

Well, I specifically used the entire phrase "virgin birth of the incarnate Son of God" for a reason. I wasn't focusing on the "alma/parthenos" discussion at all. I wanted to focus on that entire statement. What was Isaiah talking about? He was talking about something in his time, that did not extend further into the future to include someone else. However, Matthew tells us that what Isaiah meant to say is really of very little consequence, because it is what God says through the text that is important, because this is how the Bible communicates.

We cannot say "Jesus is still that child. There He is, that is the One Isaiah pointed towards. It still rings true", without getting there on our own, without Isaiah, and by using the actual words which Isaiah's text offers us, particularly Isaiah's words as Matthew found them. In fact, this underscores my greater point even further:


I would contend that the very nature of the idea of Scripture is that the reception of the text as Scripture by the community which receives it as such is the means by which that text receives meaning and authority which the text does not have in its own right. We believe that it is not the author behind the text, nor that author's intent which makes the text Scripture, but the divine agent who lives and speaks within and through those texts, giving them meaning.


The idea that the "authorial intent" is what we need to "get back to" and is that which is "authoritative" is a complete fabrication by modernity which does not have a comfortable home in Christian theology. Michael C. Legaspi's doctoral disseration has been very important to me in this realization. The modern mindset held that the "original" was the best, the "pure", and "unadulterated", and this was what was "authoritative." The beginning of this task lies in Erasmus' translation of the New Testament, whereby he used the Greek, instead of the Vulgate, rejecting the vulgate's place as Scripture, in exchange for a "textual" concept of the New Testament and, thus, its authority.

You see, Matthew wasn't using Isaiah's text as Scripture at all. Not according to modern hermeneutics. Matthew was using the LXX, and was using it as Scripture, even though it was not the original text. Then we get to Jerome and the issue of which texts constitute "Scripture". For the East, the LXX itself is Scripture, and the need to get back to the Hebrew - what they really said - doesn't seem to exist.

In short, I want to say that if we take the idea of Scripture seriously, then we cannot be too anchored by what the original author intended. If we do, we lose the Old Testament as a proclamation of


Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;

Because it is no longer "in accordance with the Scriptures", because the Old Testament authors intended to tell us no such thing. However, we proclaim that the Old Testament tells us exactly this, in spite of what the authors intended. This is God's book, not their book. That is what Scripture fundamentally means.



Yet if we argue that the Haustafel in Ephesians actually leads to a gender blurring, homosexual affirming reading, then we are, on its face, running counter not only to the text, but the historical role and position of the Haustafel itself.

I'd, again, say that I disagree. We are affirming what the text says while opening it and expanding its application. This is the same thing I believe is done by Matthew.

[Hans Deventer]

No, my friend. What you have articulated could have come right from the mouth of someone who advocates a pro-LGT hermeneutic. You are parroting many of things, using the same logic, pressing the same contextual issues, etc..

I have a problem with this approach, because it basically assigns dishonesty and hypocrisy to Ben. If we do that to one another, we simply break down communication.
And it isn't true. If you read Ben's other stuff, he simply follows a pretty consistent hermeneutic on any subject. You want me to believe his entire theology is based on a certain hermeneutic for the sole purpose of justifying gay sex?

No, my friend. You are going way too far.

[Kevin Rector]

I also believe that the Bible provides us with a hermeneutic which challenges previous things and reinterprets itself in new places, new times, new contexts.

Thanks for the interesting and thought provoking posts. I agree with your assertion that scripture (or maybe more correctly scriptural writers) often reinterprets, or just plain does away with other scripture. Specifically the NT certain reinterprets the OT. "You have heard it said, but I say..."

However, that actually raises a number of questions that I have not seen you addressing that are absolutely crucial to you argument. Questions like, "why does the NT reinterpret the OT." Was it simply that the cultures became more "sophisticated" or "enlightened" or had the paradigm fundamentally changed in light of the incarnation of Messiah? If the former then your argument might have some weight to sustain it, but if the latter then there is little reason to suppose that re-interpretive work continues past the writing of the text. Interpretive work yes, re-interpretive work, not so much. There's a lot more percolating in my brain but I need to sleep now, and maybe the thoughts will solidify.

[Hans Deventer]

However, that actually raises a number of questions that I have not seen you addressing that are absolutely crucial to you argument. Questions like, "why does the NT reinterpret the OT." Was it simply that the cultures became more "sophisticated" or "enlightened" or had the paradigm fundamentally changed in light of the incarnation of Messiah? If the former then your argument might have some weight to sustain it, but if the latter then there is little reason to suppose that re-interpretive work continues past the writing of the text. Interpretive work yes, re-interpretive work, not so much. There's a lot more percolating in my brain but I need to sleep now, and maybe the thoughts will solidify.

Good question and not so easy to answer on solid facts. I don't think culture becomes more sophisticated or enlightened. I'm frankly not that much of an optimist. It does change, however, and sins once considered "mortal", no longer are and vice versa. Even current cultures are different. Whereas Europeans are generally more critical of movies showing violence, Americans are more critical of movies showing nudity, for instance. The other day I even got a "You Europeans........" :) And I didn't think I had done anything wrong.
To presume that cultural influences are irrelevant to our interpretation of the Scriptures is a rather unlikely idea to me.

That something fundamentally changed in the light of the incarnation of the Messiah is most certainly true.

So my initial reply would be: both.

[Michael Flowers]

I agree to a degree, as I tend to want to get towards Paul's "authorial intent."

However, most of our theology is based upon Scriptural interpretation which is disconnected from the authors' original intent.

Isaiah never intended to speak of the virgin birth of the incarnate Son of God. But we proclaim that Isaiah tells us exactly this. Hosea did not have any intention of telling us that Gentiles would one day be included in God's covenant people through Jesus Christ, yet we proclaim that Hosea tells us exactly that.

(By the way, check out this article (http://www.jasonstaples.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Staples-All-Israel-JBL.pdf) sometime. I don't know if you've seen it, and if you haven't I think you'd find it interesting. If you have, ignore me! :))

I would contend that the very nature of the idea of Scripture is that the reception of the text as Scripture by the community which receives it as such is the means by which that text receives meaning and authority which the text does not have in its own right. We believe that it is not the author behind the text, nor that author's intent which makes the text Scripture, but the divine agent who lives and speaks within and through those texts, giving them meaning.

The Church of the Nazarene even moved towards recognizing this in 1928 when it stopped suggesting that Scripture "contained" the will of God, but that it, instead, reveals the will of God. This is the fundamental difference between a "text" and "Scripture." When we make the claim that our Bibles are "Scripture", we make a theological claim about them which goes beyond textuality.


I'd agree. I don't think that I've suggested it means "the opposite of what the original intent desired", but that it includes more beyond just what the author desired.

Perhaps the question that needs to be considered is: who is the author of Scripture? If we truly believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God then we could easily assess authorship to God, rather than to the humans who penned the words. In the case of the prophets I am far more willing to this, than in the case of other writings, because they fore tell the work of God that is to come, something a man simply cannot know on his own (the fact that there appears to be at least three different writers at work in Isaiah also makes me more willing to do so). It seems to me that if we are going to agree with the statement that "the New is in the Old concealed, the Old is in the New revealed" then we must be willing to accept God as the author, because it is God's master plan that is contained and revealed throughout, not that of some individual writer.

[Todd Erickson]

There's also a line of thought that God works with us where we are, in the place that we are, rather than expecting us to immediately live up to what he would like us to be. This may be a sort of evolutionary theory deal, but...

So God dealt with the Israelites in their time and their place, with methods that made sense there, even though it wasn't what God would prefer for the world as a whole, because Love demands freedom. And he could deal differently with the folks in the NT, and with us, because we have a different understanding and circumstance.

God is generally, one suspects, far more flexible than we are.

[Benjamin Burch]

Thanks for the interesting and thought provoking posts. I agree with your assertion that scripture (or maybe more correctly scriptural writers) often reinterprets, or just plain does away with other scripture. Specifically the NT certain reinterprets the OT. "You have heard it said, but I say..."

However, that actually raises a number of questions that I have not seen you addressing that are absolutely crucial to you argument. Questions like, "why does the NT reinterpret the OT." Was it simply that the cultures became more "sophisticated" or "enlightened" or had the paradigm fundamentally changed in light of the incarnation of Messiah? If the former then your argument might have some weight to sustain it, but if the latter then there is little reason to suppose that re-interpretive work continues past the writing of the text. Interpretive work yes, re-interpretive work, not so much. There's a lot more percolating in my brain but I need to sleep now, and maybe the thoughts will solidify.

Foundational to my argument is that Deuteronomy, within the Torah itself, is already reinterpreting. Therefore, it is not simply an OT/NT thing, instead, the NT continues an already begun re-interpretive task. Secondly, the nature of Deuteronomy's re-interpretive task is that it takes place on a new mountain, at a new place, in a new time. Thus, it is context which necessitates it.

FWIW, I hate the term "enlightened." Folks 2,000 years ago were not idiots, and we suddenly didn't become smarter. The same humanity, with the same brains, has used those brains to learn and acquire knowledge for 2,000 years, changing the paradigms of thought based through what we know that we didn't, and couldn't have known before.

Sometimes those changes are good, sometimes they're bad. We're still as idiotic as we ever were, we just know a few more things because of time. Thus, now we use new knowledge to be idiotic with. :) We're certainly not more "enlightened."

[Kevin Rector]

Foundational to my argument is that Deuteronomy, within the Torah itself, is already reinterpreting. Therefore, it is not simply an OT/NT thing, instead, the NT continues an already begun re-interpretive task. Secondly, the nature of Deuteronomy's re-interpretive task is that it takes place on a new mountain, at a new place, in a new time. Thus, it is context which necessitates it.

Ok, so where in that concept is the mandate (or perhaps the word is permission) for the continuation of that re-interpretation after the establishment of the canon?


We're certainly not more "enlightened."

Agreed!

[Bob Hunter]

I have a problem with this approach, because it basically assigns dishonesty and hypocrisy to Ben. If we do that to one another, we simply break down communication.
And it isn't true. If you read Ben's other stuff, he simply follows a pretty consistent hermeneutic on any subject. You want me to believe his entire theology is based on a certain hermeneutic for the sole purpose of justifying gay sex?

No, my friend. You are going way too far.

I didn't say his hermeneutic is inconsistent. I just said I disagreed with its conclusions as do many others. Never did I use the words hypocrisy or dishonesty. Perhaps Ben does not realize (or maybe he does) that he has put forth the same hermeneutic represented by Todd Clayton and many others who espouse a pro-gay interpretation of scripture. I think he has put more into this than we know. You don't write a scholarly three-part series on the fly. It was well planned and prepared (and there is nothing wrong with that as long as you state your intentions).

These things have surfaced on NN before, but what has happened here this week is different (at least I think so). For the first time I can remember, a Naznetter has boldly articulated a hermeneutic that would open the door to same sex relations and normalize their activities. Let's keep in mind that our denomination does not embrace this position and may never. I believe we should handle this issue as we have many other controversial social issues; our opposition should be, non-reactive, responsible in nature and redemptive in its scope. So in that respect I am glad for the discussion. I'm hopeful we can progress toward some degree of understanding and show more of Jesus' love to those in our midst with same sex struggles. But we do NOT have to embrace the pro-gay hermeneutic as put forth by Ben and others. I appreciate Ben's concession that some may embrace his hermeneutic and be right and others may reject it and still be right. I was glad for that admission, even though it was a bit late in coming.

I do not believe Ben's entire theology exist for the sole purpose of justify gay sex, that's just wrong Hans. I agree with Ben's postings about 90% of the time as I do yours. I would never suggest anything of the sort. In fact, I have messaged Ben several times asking for his opinion on matters that I have shared with my N.T. class. His exegetical prowess exceeds mine on any given day. He makes some very sound scriptural observations and I appreciate that. But let me just say once again, there is much more at stake in this discussion than competing hermeneutical constructs. We have to consider Christian tradition, corporate discernment and the collective conscience of the denomination. And at this point, I think the collective conscience of our denomination is that same sex relations are clearly not God's best plan for our lives.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I didn't say his hermeneutic is inconsistent. I just said I disagreed with its conclusions as do many others. Never did I use the words hypocrisy or dishonesty. Perhaps Ben does not realize (or maybe he does) that he has put forth the same hermeneutic represented by Todd Clayton and many others who espouse a pro-gay interpretation of scripture. I think he has put more into this than we know. You don't write a scholarly three-part series on the fly. It was well planned and prepared (and there is nothing wrong with that as long as you state your intentions).

These things have surfaced on NN before, but what has happened here this week is different (at least I think so). For the first time I can remember, a Naznetter has boldly articulated a hermeneutic that would open the door to same sex relations and normalize their activities. Let's keep in mind that our denomination does not embrace this position and may never. I believe we should handle this issue as we have many other controversial social issues; our opposition should be, non-reactive, responsible in nature and redemptive in its scope. So in that respect I am glad for the discussion. I'm hopeful we can progress toward some degree of understanding and show more of Jesus' love to those in our midst with same sex struggles. But we do NOT have to embrace the pro-gay hermeneutic as put forth by Ben and others. I appreciate Ben's concession that some may embrace his hermeneutic and be right and others may reject it and still be right. I was glad for that admission, even though it was a bit late in coming.

I do not believe Ben's entire theology exist for the sole purpose of justify gay sex, that's just wrong Hans. I agree with Ben's postings about 90% of the time as I do yours. I would never suggest anything of the sort. In fact, I have messaged Ben several times asking for his opinion on matters that I have shared with my N.T. class. His exegetical prowess exceeds mine on any given day. He makes some very sound scriptural observations and I appreciate that. But let me just say once again, there is much more at stake in this discussion than competing hermeneutical constructs. We have to consider Christian tradition, corporate discernment and the collective conscience of the denomination. And at this point, I think the collective conscience of our denomination is that same sex relations are clearly not God's best plan for our lives.

Ben's hermeneutic was in response/defense of a statement he made that the Bible is wrong when it condemns committed, monogamous, same-sex marriage and sex. He is consistently reminding us that he is no longer a member of the CotN, but a member of the ECUSA, a body which is affirming. I do not sense that he is trying to change the beliefs and doctrines of the CotN, unlike so many that come here. Ben did state that his hope is that the ECUSA would adopt this hermeneutic rather than the more traditional one that affirms homosexuality.

I find his arguments compelling, but with me he is preaching to the choir.

[Benjamin Burch]

I didn't say his hermeneutic is inconsistent. I just said I disagreed with its conclusions as do many others. Never did I use the words hypocrisy or dishonesty. Perhaps Ben does not realize (or maybe he does) that he has put forth the same hermeneutic represented by Todd Clayton and many others who espouse a pro-gay interpretation of scripture. I think he has put more into this than we know. You don't write a scholarly three-part series on the fly. It was well planned and prepared (and there is nothing wrong with that as long as you state your intentions).

I'm not upset Bob, so don't read this as though I am. However, you keep saying this, and it isn't true. Todd Clayton has offered no such hermeneutic, nor has anyone I have seen in academic theology from a mainline denomination. This particular argument, constructed around this reading, and this hermeneutic, is original to me and, I believe, offers a far superior hermeneutic to the standard fare pro-gay fluff.

Also, you're right. This wasn't on the fly. I admitted that at the start. I said that this was a quick relaying of work that has taken me over almost two years of research, study, and formulating.


These things have surfaced on NN before, but what has happened here this week is different (at least I think so). For the first time I can remember, a Naznetter has boldly articulated a hermeneutic that would open the door to same sex relations and normalize their activities. Let's keep in mind that our denomination does not embrace this position and may never. I believe we should handle this issue as we have many other controversial social issues; our opposition should be, non-reactive, responsible in nature and redemptive in its scope. So in that respect I am glad for the discussion. I'm hopeful we can progress toward some degree of understanding and show more of Jesus' love to those in our midst with same sex struggles. But we do NOT have to embrace the pro-gay hermeneutic as put forth by Ben and others. I appreciate Ben's concession that some may embrace his hermeneutic and be right and others may reject it and still be right. I was glad for that admission, even though it was a bit late in coming.

I stated that prior to ever posting the 3-posts, in the other thread. I've also said it 3 other times on NazNet, before I ever came out with this hermeneutic. I'd said 3 other times that I think those who oppose and those who affirm homosexuality both have scriptural grounds on which to do so, and are both right in the eyes of Scripture. I don't see how it was "a bit late coming."

I also posted this not to change the CotN stance. In all honesty, I don't care what the CotN chooses. I did so to articulate my own position when I was asked a question directly. My direct response to those who asked what I would suggest was that people should be faithful to their churches, and that would mean affirming the CotN's position on the matter if they are Nazarene.

[Benjamin Burch]

Ok, so where in that concept is the mandate (or perhaps the word is permission) for the continuation of that re-interpretation after the establishment of the canon?



Agreed!

You'll have to give me time if I am to answer this well. I'll get back to it. This is, of course, why I need to write a monograph on it, due to the fact that in three posts I could never have handled all of the necessary points.

[Doug Ward]

I'm going to push just a little here. IF Christ was Isaiah's intention and that intention is clear, how then did so many Scriptural authority not understand and miss Jesus as the Messiah, for nearly 2000 years now? The only way to actually see it is through a Christian hermeneutic which Matthew employed. I would suggest that Matthew was re-interpreting the Scripture in light of Christ and going beyond the intention of the author and beyond the understanding of the original audience.

No, you have taken my argument too far. It is entirely plausible that the failure is in my attempt to articulate my position, so let me try again.

Isaiah was not looking ahead through time and referencing Christ. Isaiah, along with many other prophets, was looking at his situation and looking to one who would redeem Israel, vindicate the righteous, and set things right. Like the other writers, he used the language that he had at his disposal, and used images and concepts that would have been familiar to the original audience. So when isaiah uses this language in 7:14, he is not, IMO, referencing Jesus, but talking about one who serve as the Lord's representative, and bring healing to God's people. BTW, this same argument I would make about the servant songs.

This is seem perhaps even more plainly in Zechariah 9, where just a few verses apart, the prophet speaks about a man of peace, gentle, riding on a donkey; and conversely a mighty commander sweeping in with the armies from the south. It is a jarring juxtaposition. Yet if we place ourselves in that time - how can one conceive of a deliverance from Babylon or Persia without envisioning a great commander. Yet how can Israel's redeemer be better than the rulers of Babylon without setting up a kingdom of peace. Both images speak to this idea.

To answer your query, the reason the people missed Jesus when He came the first time is precisely because they knew what the prophets had said. They just wanted the guy with the army, not the man of peace riding on a donkey. So when Matthew takes the Isaiah passage - yes he is re-interpreting it, but he is not really doing anything unforseen. This Jesus is Israel's representative. This is the one in who the prophets spoke.

The inclusion of "virgin" is problematic for a variety of reasons, but does not really turn Isaiah on its head at all. Aside from the virgin/alma/parthenos debate Matthew merely brings Isaiah into sharper focus. The original intent of Isaiah, was not a specific forecast, but did talk of Israel's representative. Matthew does the same thing. The original intent of Isaiah is in no way undermined or overturned by the words of Matthew. I am afraid Ben's hermeneutic does overturn the intended meaning of Scripture.

[Hans Deventer]

Bob, I was the one who took this question out of the homosexuality thread and brought it here for two reasons:

1. This was about way more than that single issue
2. The PPT forum is the specific place on NazNet where stuff like this can be discussed.

I am aware of the sensitivity. It hurts to see how many pastors feel the need to immediately state that they folllow the guidelines of our Church. I fear they have good reason to do so.
And it is pretty much in line with the speed at which the BoGS issued a statement after president Obama announced his view on the issue.

Myself, I see a lot of unhealthy behaviour around this topic, and not just by gays.

[Bob Hunter]

I'm not upset Bob, so don't read this as though I am.

Neither am I. Just making an observation. I'm content to respectfully disagree. That's all.



This particular argument, constructed around this reading, and this hermeneutic, is original to me and, I believe, offers a far superior hermeneutic to the standard fare pro-gay fluff.

Well......not sure about that. We are soooooo influenced. Our thinking always reflects deeply held beliefs, ideas and thoughts from the environment we find ourselves in. When I was in doctoral studies at Fox, we had students that were developing a very similar approach to scripture in hopes that same sex relationships would be normalized and these individuals could hold positions of leadership. I recognize some of the rhetoric and theologically some of the arguments are similar (I didn't say identical). A lot of reinterpretation and re-imagination is spoken of (not all of which is bad). I see a lot of similarity in what you are saying and what Matthew Vines presents in his video (I did watch it). And that is fine, I would be careful to claim your position is thoroughly original. You're good, and you have a lot of original elements, but I don't think you can go that far.


I stated that prior to ever posting the 3-posts, in the other thread. I've also said it 3 other times on NazNet, before I ever came out with this hermeneutic. I'd said 3 other times that I think those who oppose and those who affirm homosexuality both have scriptural grounds on which to do so, and are both right in the eyes of Scripture. I don't see how it was "a bit late coming."

I may have missed that. But I appreciate it nonetheless. The statement I referenced was just more clear to the reader.


I don't care what the CotN chooses.

I do. And so do a lot of us. Which is why I am at least in the conversation. It seems many others leave out of frustration or refuse to engage at all.

I'm not here to discredit or discount your work. I wish I had time to draft a more thoughtful response to some of what you wrote. I'm struggling to keep up, doing the best I can with limited time. It's all good.

[Benjamin Burch]

I am afraid Ben's hermeneutic does overturn the intended meaning of Scripture.

I'd be interested if you could flesh this out for me more, Doug.

Allow me to say how I see it. I don't personally see any exclusivity in the statement towards heterosexuality. We might infer that the author would have thought this was assumed. We may in fact be correct in this inference. I do not, however, think that there is an exclusivity intended by the author, as the passage doesn't seem to address the issue as such. That is, in my mind, the author is working from an assumed understanding of family and then setting out an ethic for that family. The author does not anywhere say that this family should or even must be "male and female." He simply assumes that they are so.

I hope I'm making sense. Anyways, I'd love to hear you expand on your statement. I think this has been a very helpful conversation, Doug. Thank you.

ETA: To summarize, I do not see an assumption of reality to be the same as an intent to communicate.

[Hans Deventer]

Anyways, I'd love to hear you expand on your statement. I think this has been a very helpful conversation, Doug. Thank you.

In fact, these are the kind of conversations this forum was made for. Very glad to see it happen!!!

[Benjamin Burch]

I do. And so do a lot of us. Which is why I am at least in the conversation. It seems many others leave out of frustration or refuse to engage at all.


I know you do. And I know a lot of folks do. And they should, they're Nazarenes. My statement was meant only to communicate the fact that I am in no way trying to change the CotN's opinion because I have no vested interest in what the CotN decides on the issue, because I am not Nazarene. I also think that among those who are not Nazarene and who post here, I do a pretty good job of communicating my theological and ecclesial ties, communicating what the CotN believes, communicating where I think those two converge and diverge, and don't advocate for positions in direct opposition to what the CotN believes.

[Bob Hunter]

Myself, I see a lot of unhealthy behaviour around this topic, and not just by gays.

You make a good point here. Hopefully, we can do a better job. I can only speak for myself on this. I've had 30 years of firsthand family experience with this issue. My position has not changed. I've heard a lot of arguments from both sides. At some point, we have to just love each other in spite of it.

[Doug Ward]

Ben, thanks for the question. Let me start off by saying this is intended as dialogue. With a sensitive topic like this, I want to be sure that you do not feel that I am adding heat to this fire. In no way have I perceived you adding heat - I just want to be sure we can dialogue constructively. Thanks.

I just do not see the importance of the distinction you are making. If the author is working with an assumption that family, or sexual relationships are a certain way, is there not reason there for this assumption? In the creation account, the foundational story for Judaism in many ways, we have the distinction between male and female, Creator/creation, and common/holy. This male/female foundational relationship is never questioned, though presumably all the following authors had the time and opportunity to do so. As you have stated, when homosexuality is discussed, it is done with a negative connotation - or at least never positively.

So if this is just an assumption - why does that make a difference? The logical explanation is the authors do not feel the need to explain what is assumed to be obvious. One can also look at the surrounding Jewish literature of the day, and one does not find any positive descriptions or advocacy for homosexuality. Whether it is assumed, or explicitly intended as the subject, how does one make the case that negative viewpoints concerning homosexuality are not broadly, if not universally understood.

Let's bring this forward to our issue today. Until our lifetime, the idea that homosexuality is broadly condemned would have been an almost default position. Just in the last 25 years, we now see what millenia of people never have. It just seems like a stretch to take the position that, "well it was only assumed, it was never intended." A better explanation is, it was so assumed, so universally held, that it would never need to be explained.

So my position diverges into two competing roads here. One, a jewish rabbi of the first century would of course assume, sexual immorality to be homosexuality. In the mountains of evidence and writings we have from that time, where is the suggestion that homosexuality is tolerated, let alone embraced. The second wing is are we so much much smarter now that after millenia of understanding, we can confidently state that homosexuality is to be embraced, recognized, and celebrated as holy? If we can now, what is our cause for this? If the opposite was just assumed, then a new understanding of homosexuality as worthy of celebration, would be opposite of what was not only meant, but understood and universally accepted through centuries.

[Benjamin Burch]

Ben, thanks for the question. Let me start off by saying this is intended as dialogue. With a sensitive topic like this, I want to be sure that you do not feel that I am adding heat to this fire. In no way have I perceived you adding heat - I just want to be sure we can dialogue constructively. Thanks.

I just do not see the importance of the distinction you are making. If the author is working with an assumption that family, or sexual relationships are a certain way, is there not reason there for this assumption? In the creation account, the foundational story for Judaism in many ways, we have the distinction between male and female, Creator/creation, and common/holy. This male/female foundational relationship is never questioned, though presumably all the following authors had the time and opportunity to do so. As you have stated, when homosexuality is discussed, it is done with a negative connotation - or at least never positively.

So if this is just an assumption - why does that make a difference? The logical explanation is the authors do not feel the need to explain what is assumed to be obvious. One can also look at the surrounding Jewish literature of the day, and one does not find any positive descriptions or advocacy for homosexuality. Whether it is assumed, or explicitly intended as the subject, how does one make the case that negative viewpoints concerning homosexuality are not broadly, if not universally understood.

Let's bring this forward to our issue today. Until our lifetime, the idea that homosexuality is broadly condemned would have been an almost default position. Just in the last 25 years, we now see what millenia of people never have. It just seems like a stretch to take the position that, "well it was only assumed, it was never intended." A better explanation is, it was so assumed, so universally held, that it would never need to be explained.

So my position diverges into two competing roads here. One, a jewish rabbi of the first century would of course assume, sexual immorality to be homosexuality. In the mountains of evidence and writings we have from that time, where is the suggestion that homosexuality is tolerated, let alone embraced. The second wing is are we so much much smarter now that after millenia of understanding, we can confidently state that homosexuality is to be embraced, recognized, and celebrated as holy? If we can now, what is our cause for this? If the opposite was just assumed, then a new understanding of homosexuality as worthy of celebration, would be opposite of what was not only meant, but understood and universally accepted through centuries.

The original statement was that Scripture cannot mean the opposite of what it was intended to mean. From there, you also proceeded to give a defense of Jesus being the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. From my perspective - what I'm seeing - this seems inconsistent.

That is, either the "intended meaning" speaks to what the words intended to communicate, and those ideas alone, or the exact expectations of the author are submitted as part of the "intended meaning."

Allow me to explain:

Isaiah's intended message: (from your words, and I agree) one will serve as the Lord's representative, and bring healing to God's people. BTW, this same argument I would make about the servant songs.

Isaiah's exact meaning: A child will be born and grow up during the time of Assyrian exile, but will be a sign that God is with God's people, and that God will bring healing to God's people.

That is, the assumption behind the text is that this refers to a specific person, and that either matters as part of the "intended meaning", or it is something extra, from which we can talk about the more general intended message. Because Jesus only "fulfills" this passage if we're willing to abstract it from the concrete reality of what Isaiah intended to communicate and speak only about the general intended communication. In fact, this is even harder, and more profound within this passage than the Ephesians passage. On that note, I'll demonstrate with the Ephesians passage.

Ephesians' intended message: Spouses (assumed to be male and female), should love each other, and that this relationship involves the type of servie and holiness Christ models in his relationship with the Church, and the type of love one has for their own Body.

Ephesians' (assumed) exact message: Marriages are always male and female, and that the male and female sexes define the roles laid out in the above, and the rest follows from the above.

I would contend you'd have to choose one or the other. Either reading Jesus into Isaiah 7:14 is going "counter to the intended message", or, if it isn't, then what I'm doing is not either.

Secondly, I we would still need to be careful about baptizing cultural expectations and assumptions. Thus, the following statement seems to not deal with the reality behind the statement:


This male/female foundational relationship is never questioned, though presumably all the following authors had the time and opportunity to do so.

Why would the authors question this in the 1st Century CE? They wouldn't, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. Thus, I don't think it actually proves anything other than that the author was a contextual 1st Century near easterner.

[Bob Hunter]

The exegetical principles you work with leave a lot of room for interpretation. And the truth is exegesis and hermeneutics are overlapping concepts. So, you are interpreting one thing from the text and Doug (and myself) are interpreting another. We are both wrestling with what the text originally meant and from there exercising our interpretative privileges by discussing what the text means now. Now, it just seems to me, your hermeneutic is weak because it relies on what is not being said or what is absent in the text (which appears to be common in the pro-gay argument which gives way to some interesting syllogisms). Doug, on the other hand, is basing his position on what is actually being said in the text and the inherent assumptions that surround the text.

[Benjamin Burch]

The exegetical principles you work with leave a lot of room for interpretation. And the truth is exegesis and hermeneutics are overlapping concepts. So, you are interpreting one thing from the text and Doug (and myself) are interpreting another. We are both wrestling with what the text originally meant and from there exercising our interpretative privileges by discussing what the text means now. Now, it just seems to me, your hermeneutic is weak because it relies on what is not being said or what is absent in the text (which appears to be common in the pro-gay argument which gives way to some interesting syllogisms). Doug, on the other hand, is basing his position on what is actually being said in the text and the inherent assumptions that surround the text.

Actually, I'm looking at exactly what the text is saying. That was my point earlier. The words themselves say something, and those words convey images and messages which subvert other messages and themselves open theological possibilities. It is not an argument about what is not being said. I'm very much focusing on the discrete words and statements of the text. In fact, in this situation, Doug is the one focusing on what is not being said, by bringing in assumptions/inferences (most likely accurate, and based in solid research) about the author's underlying assumptions and expectations.

So, I want to be clear... From where I stand and see this, I would suggest that it is Doug, not myself, whose hermeneutic relies on what is not being said or what is absent from the text. However, I want to affirm that he is doing so on good empirical grounds, and that he is likely correct in his conclusion as to the author of the Epistle's thoughts concerning homosexuality.

The underlying point here is how important is this in our construal of Scripture.

In the end, we're both saying that the text says things it doesn't say. Let me also be clear about that. I concede that Doug's route is easier to get there than mine is, but my entire point is to suggest that, while more difficult, my route is no less thorough or even Scriptural.

[Bob Hunter]

In the end, we're both saying that the text says things it doesn't say. Let me also be clear about that. I concede that Doug's route is easier to get there than mine is, but my entire point is to suggest that, while more difficult, my route is no less thorough or even Scriptural


Yes, you are indeed taking the long way around and it is your prerogative to do so. I'm not sure you are off the hook just yet as far as the scriptural thing goes. Because I hear this implied rationale seeping through...Jesus is silent on issue "X" so He must, therefore, neither condemn or condone the behavior. Or, the Apostle Paul said blank _____ in THIS context so surely it doesn't apply to contemporary issue "A". I could be describing the fluff arguments you refer to in a previous post--okay whatever.... Either way, I think it is flawed because it begins with the wrong question. I think we can get pretty far with what Jesus actually said and where the Bible actually does speak with clarity. We don't have to build a theology around what He didn't say or where the Bible is silent. I hear it all the time, Jesus was silent on masturbation, so it therefore must be okay. Or, Jesus never addressed premarital sex explicitly, so I guess we are left to our own judgement.

In the traditions you draw heavy inspiration from, the Church actually does have the authority to weigh in on these issues. And it appears to me that in 2,000 years of Church history the overwhelming opinion of Christians is that homosexual relations are not biblically justified. I think we cannot take that lightly, so expect that you will receive a significant amount of pushback.

[Benjamin Burch]

Actually, I'm looking at exactly what the text is saying. That was my point earlier. The words themselves say something, and those words convey images and messages which subvert other messages and themselves open theological possibilities. It is not an argument about what is not being said. I'm very much focusing on the discrete words and statements of the text. In fact, in this situation, Doug is the one focusing on what is not being said, by bringing in assumptions/inferences (most likely accurate, and based in solid research) about the author's underlying assumptions and expectations.

So, I want to be clear... From where I stand and see this, I would suggest that it is Doug, not myself, whose hermeneutic relies on what is not being said or what is absent from the text. However, I want to affirm that he is doing so on good empirical grounds, and that he is likely correct in his conclusion as to the author of the Epistle's thoughts concerning homosexuality.

The underlying point here is how important is this in our construal of Scripture.

In the end, we're both saying that the text says things it doesn't say. Let me also be clear about that. I concede that Doug's route is easier to get there than mine is, but my entire point is to suggest that, while more difficult, my route is no less thorough or even Scriptural.

I think I found a better way to put this...

Doug and I each attempt to hear the text by placing it alongside other texts within a literary context and letting the text speak to us from within that context.

Doug is attempting to hear the text alongside other texts which reflect and illuminate the contextual realities which led to the text's production and reception historically.
I am attempting to hear the text within a conversation developed by placing the text alongside other texts which are canonized alongside it, creating a dialogue between those texts and hearing it in direct dialogue with those other texts.

Each one relies on other texts to create a context in which to hear the original text of Scripture. One is historical and modern, the other is canonical and postmodern. As Doug said, one is not necessarily right and the other necessarily wrong. They're fundamentally different approaches to doing the same exact thing.

However, I fear that the historical route, while valuable, has more than evinced its limitations in terms of Christian proclamation, as I believe it renders Old Testament texts unintelligible as proclamations of the incarnate, crucified, and risen Word of God.

[Bob Hunter]

I found an easier way too put it my verbose friend. You and Doug have dueling models of intertexuality.

[Doug Ward]

In the end, we're both saying that the text says things it doesn't say. Let me also be clear about that. I concede that Doug's route is easier to get there than mine is, but my entire point is to suggest that, while more difficult, my route is no less thorough or even Scriptural.

I would of course, deny this. While I may not get back to what the author meant, I can get pretty close.

[Doug Ward]

I think I found a better way to put this...

Doug and I each attempt to hear the text by placing it alongside other texts within a literary context and letting the text speak to us from within that context.

Doug is attempting to hear the text alongside other texts which reflect and illuminate the contextual realities which led to the text's production and reception historically.
I am attempting to hear the text within a conversation developed by placing the text alongside other texts which are canonized alongside it, creating a dialogue between those texts and hearing it in direct dialogue with those other texts.

Each one relies on other texts to create a context in which to hear the original text of Scripture. One is historical and modern, the other is canonical and postmodern. As Doug said, one is not necessarily right and the other necessarily wrong. They're fundamentally different approaches to doing the same exact thing.

However, I fear that the historical route, while valuable, has more than evinced its limitations in terms of Christian proclamation, as I believe it renders Old Testament texts unintelligible as proclamations of the incarnate, crucified, and risen Word of God.

Ahh, I do think this is a better way to describe this. Yes, I am using other texts, contemporaneous to our canonical text, in order to decipher what the original author intended. It is this message that we bring forward to our day. My great fear is that Ben's method can make the text say any number of things. The message we take from the text can be influenced by whatever text we seek to "dialogue" with a part of the Canon. Such efforts, in my opinion, create a text disconnected from history, able to float here and there to whatever harbor we seek. I think the current discussion of homosexuality is evidence of this, as Ben's method has the text saying what it has never said in 2,000 years.

[Hans Deventer]

However, I fear that the historical route, while valuable, has more than evinced its limitations in terms of Christian proclamation, as I believe it renders Old Testament texts unintelligible as proclamations of the incarnate, crucified, and risen Word of God.

I would love to hear Dennis Bratcher on this.