Right and wrong within the Bible

[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 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.