Introduction to the Bible: some notes IV:Big Love

We had a discussion about polygamy tonight...

There is an excellent article on the matter of polygamy here by Bishop Glenn Davies from Sydney - Is Polygamy a Sin? He makes this comment:

While it is true that legislation existed under Mosaic Law to regulate polygam(Exodus 21:10-11), such legislation did not thereby legitimise polygamy. Rather it is akin to the sufferance exercised by God, a divine permission, which best explains the accounts of polygamy in the Old Testament.

Serena's question however related rather to the felt imbalance: on the one hand, men were allowed this polygamous lifestyle; on the other, those accused of adultery were usually wives rather than husbands. I think the right responses is to say that, as Davies suggests, polygamy is conceded rather than endorsed; that it is a sign of wealth and power rather than a social norm, or seen as a sexual liberterianism of a kind; and that as such it still involved vows and contractual agreements that needed to be honoured...anything else?

To take it further: is the OT unacceptably patriachal? Does the whole approach to polygamy/adultery indicate that the status given to women was somehow offensive to our contemporary sensibilities? Is violence against women not condemned as it should be? Here are a few points in reply:

1. Women share co-humanity with men. Genesis 1 and 2, quite remarkably for their times, assert the full participation of women in the image of God and the flesh of Adam. She is not a lesser being, or a being of a different nature. She stands side by side with Adam.

2. Women are given a voice. One complaint from feminist interpreters is that women are largely silent in the Bible's narrative. But this would be to neglect the Songs of Miriam, Deborah and Hannah in which they are certainly given a voice. The Song of Songs seems to be largely narrated by a female voice - and gives startling (if we are expecting to see patriarchalism everywhere) expression to female sexual desire. God frequently uses women rather than men to show his subversion of men's determination to sort it out for themselves.

3. If women are significant in terms of their roles as wives, mothers, daughters and so on, it is worth saying that the individualism we now value so highly was not a part of the cultural context of the Bible. It is true of men as well that they were fathers, brothers and sons as much as individuals. Sins against individuals had ramifications for their families.

4. The law actually seeks to protect women as vulnerable to abuse by men. It also takes the actions of women just as seriously as men in that they are held responsible for their sin as well.

5. In Leviticus it is true that menstruation leads to a state of ritual uncleanness which needs purification. But it is also true that any male emission leads to the same uncleanness. Note that this does not mean 'sinfulness', by the way. It is a symbolic reminder of the human inability to remain holy.

It helps to remember that, in the OT, there are laws and customs given that are particular to the time and place: not everything should be held as a universal affirmation that this is the right course of action for all times and places. Remember that the OT points ahead to something greater - the need for something more definitive and lasting if the promises of God are to be fulfilled.

Introduction to the Bible: some notes III: Deuteronomy

At the Space Centre in Leicester.

1. 1. In his Antiquities of the Jews written at the end of the first century, Josephus treated his enlightened Gentile audience to an apologetically motivated re-reading of Deuteronomy. In his opinion, the book preserved the politeia not just the nomos of Israel; in other words, torah had not merely a legal or moral sense in Deuteronomy but a constitutional, genuinely political sense.

Josephus intended to prove to his Hellenic audience that Jewish political thought preceded the thought of the Greeks, Plato and Aristotle. And he thought that in Deuteronomy he had found his proof: “a social charter of extraordinary literary coherence and political sophistication”, as McBride puts it. Arguably, Deuteronomy had a direct influence on the development of modern western constitutionalism, especially in the United States.

2. Like a modern novel, Deuteronomy is narrative: it has a character, setting and plot. However, the narrative really only acts as a frame in which the great speeches of Moses are embedded. The frame helps us to remember that we are listening in on Moses’ speech which is directed to a certain group of people in history. The readers of the written text read it over the shoulders of that first audience; clearly, these readers are to take to heart what they read but in the light of their different circumstances. Noticeably, Moses is able to collapse one generation of Israelites into another by addressing them as “you”. He narrates in the second person, so that the effect is immediate. It is not too much to suppose that the readers are meant to, in the same way, see themselves as the people of God likewise addressed by the text. Deuteronomy calls its readers for decision and action: to trust and obey.

3. Moses death also makes necessary the writing down of the law. We read here about the enscripturation of the words of Moses: the beginnings of the idea of Holy Scripture, which will ensure that the voice of Moses teaching and expounding the law of Yhwh himself will continue to ring out in Israel long after his death. Any doctrine of Scripture ought to begin here, with Scripture's emerging self-awareness of - and unembarassment about - the idea of the Word of God taking a written form...

Introduction to the Bible: some notes II

Some further thoughts on discussions we had last night.

1. If you want something really good to read, D. Clines' The Theme of the Pentateuch is pretty good, though a little pricey I notice.
His basic thesis is this:

The theme of the Pentateuch is the partial fulfilment—which implies also the partial non-fulfilment—of the promise to or blessing of the patriarchs. The promise or blessing is both the divine initiative in a world where human initiatives always lead to disaster, and a re-affirmation of the primal divine intentions for man.

This is a pretty good summary. Notice how, as we suggested last night, the first five books of the bible propel us forward into the future. They suggest that more is to come: though there is a partial fulfilment, there is still much of what God has promised left outstanding.

2. We talked a bit about 'covenants': Noah, Abraham, Moses/Israel, David, (Jeremiah). Could you also call the Garden of Eden a 'covenant' arrangement? Certainly, the structure of a covenant is there, with an act of sheer grace - creation - followed by a stipulation which is really a designation of the freedom of Adam and Eve to carry out their task within the parameters that God sets and under his protection. What do you think? An old teacher of mine, Bill Dumbrell, in his excellent book Covenant and Creation reckons that this is a covenant pure and simple. (You might also see his truly excellent book The Faith of Israel, which gives a great summary of every OT book. )

3. The question was raised: 'since the human situation appears to degenerate so quickly after Noah's time, what does the flood achieve?'

It's a fair enough question. First of all, I would say that the little story about the angelic love affairs with human women suggests an almost demonic condition of the pre-flood world. This infection of the lineage of humanity was broken by the flood. So, in that sense it could be argued that the flood provided a decisive break but also a continuity of God's plan. (NB - is this what is meant by the 'spirits in prison' in 1 Peter 3:8? Could be!)

Secondly, the NT sees the flood as a great demonstration of the pattern and scope of God's judgement on the earth AND his plan of salvation - see 2 Peter 2 for example:

5if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others ...9if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.

Introduction to the Bible: some notes.

Last night at Introduction to the Bible at St Ebbe's we were speaking about the ten Northern Tribes of Israel. Usually they are described as 'lost' tribes: after the invasion by the Assyrians they seem to disappear from history. Certainly, there is almost no mention of them made in the Bible subsequent to their captivity and exile.

However, David raised an interesting anomoly for this theory: in Luke 2:36 the prophetess Anna is described as being of the tribe of Asher - one of the allegedly lost tribes. What gives?

Well, a litte help from NT Scholar Richard Bauckham's book 'Gospel Women' reveals that the traditional 'lost tribes' theory is not exactly true. It is thought now that certainly there were some remnants of the conquered Northern tribes remaining in the land after their conquest. Such fragmentary evidence as we have reveals that some small presence of these tribal identities continued in some way. It would have been unusual to read of a woman of the tribe of Asher being at the temple in Jerusalem, because in that region the Jews were primarily from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. But it would have been historically credible to find someone from the tribe of Asher in the story, because there were a small number of such people maintaining this identity, as far as we can tell.