Anyone
who has read the Bible knows it’s weird. Some of the commands found in its
pages are utterly foreign to contemporary readers. Some instructions sound ridiculous:
injunctions against cooking an animal a certain way (Deut14.21), or
avoiding pork as unclean to the touch (Deut 14.8; cf. Lev 11.26). Or consider
this one: “You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you
wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material” (Lev 19.19). Really?
Not
only do most Christians ignore these commands, but they don’t even understand
them. A typical Christian response to these passages is, “Ah yes, but these are
Old Testament commands. So, clearly
they don’t apply to us as Christians.” This response is woefully inadequate,
not least because there are equally odd commands in the New Testament that
contemporary Christians do not understand or practice either.
For
example, when was the last time you entered a church service to “greet one
another with a holy kiss” (1 Cor 16.20)? Most churches follow, in some form or
another, Jesus’ command to remember the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11.23-25; cf. Mt
26.26-29 || Mk 14.22-25 || Lk 22.18-20). Why, then, do they ignore the command
recorded in John’s version of the story, “You ought to wash one another’s feet”
(Jn 14.13; cf. 1 Tim 5.10)? The Apostle Paul commands women in worship to cover
their heads (1 Cor 11.6-7), ignored every Sunday at my church. James said that
if a man is sick he should, “call for the elders of the church, and let them
pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord” (James 5.14). Both
testaments contain commands and teachings that people, even self-proclaimed “Bible-followers,”
ignore. No matter loudly or adamantly people claim to “just do what the Bible
says,” they do not.
We
all interpret the Bible to make sense
of it. Indeed, for most people a large part of this has already been done for
them since they read the Bible from a translation. One of the most important
questions when reading scripture is evaluating how it should be applied. Why
are some passages still applicable and others abrogated? It is precisely this
question that William J. Webb attempts to answer in his brilliant book, Slaves
Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis. Webb focuses on three issues that
make the Bible distasteful in modern culture – slavery, women and
homosexuality.
Webb
describes his approach to application as a “redemptive-movement hermeneutic.”
The redemptive-movement hermeneutic (RMH) endeavors to “engage the redemptive
spirit of the text in a way that moves the contemporary appropriation of the
text beyond its original-application framing” (30). Thus, passages that are
culturally irrelevant today have to be read first in the framework of their
original culture and then the spirit of that text must be translated. Some
passages are enduring and require little to no cultural translation. Other
texts, however, are actually misapplied if applied without cultural
translation.
The
RMH is set in contrast to what Webb calls a “static appropriation of scripture.”
A static hermeneutic applies the words of a text without little concern for how
the words of a text fit in their original cultural context (30-31). A static
hermeneutic assumes that the best application of scripture is simply what the
text says regardless of cultural context. A RMH, in contrast, tries to discover
the original intent of a text before applying it in a new cultural context.
The
book addresses three issues with his RMH. First, Webb analyzes the issue of
slavery. The Bible does not condemn slavery in either testament (Lev 25.44; Eph
6.5-9; 1 Pet 2.18). Indeed, many Christians were slave-owners and attempted to
defend their dehumanizing activity with the Bible. On the other hand, the
abolitionist movement was spearheaded by Christians who also used the Bible to
defend their cause. Second, Webb addresses the contentious issue of what role
women ought to have in the church. The Bible reflects the patriarchal cultures in
which it was produced (Gen 3.16; 1 Cor 11.2-16; Eph 5.22-24; etc.). This issue,
unlike slavery, is still widely debated though the cultural trend in the western
world is moving toward women gaining increased leadership. Third, Webb applies
the same criteria of cultural analysis to homosexuality. It is condemned in
both the Old and New Testament (Lev 18.22; 20.13; Rom 1.27; 1 Cor 6.9-10; 1 Tim
1.9-10), but is this just another example of a culturally relative teaching? Webb
attempts to apply the same criteria to all three issues.
This
nuanced approach has much to commend it. First, it allows for consistency in
application. I remember teaching at a Bible Study when a man in attendance claimed,
“If the Bible was written today, it probably wouldn’t command us to wait until marriage
to have sex.” He assumed that sex within the confines of marriage was a cultural
value of the ancient world, which is completely incorrect. But, to his credit
he was trying to read the Bible with cultural awareness. The fact is, as Webb
points out, “Most of us are oblivious to the culture around us. Like the air
that we breathe, it is invisible and we simply take it for granted” (21). How
do we discern what parts of the Bible are actually culturally relative and what
parts we simply don’t like because of our own cultural assumptions? Webb’s consistency
is one way to allow ourselves to be culturally aware and still submissive to
the intent of scripture.
In
addition to consistency, Webb’s approach reads the Bible appropriately as a product
of culture. Indeed, “Not only were the authors [of the Bible] influenced by
their own cultures, but the text itself was transmitted through various
cultural forms, known as genres” (23). The Bible is written by people situated
in specific cultures who, though divinely inspired, could not see outside of
their cultures. Webb laments, however, “Many Christians, particularly at a popular
level, read the Bible simply as a flat-surfaced, two-dimensional kind of text.
They seek to understand what the words of the text say as if they were spoken
in a vacuum” (83). This approach ignores the fact that the Bible did not fall
out of the sky. A culturally-aware reading of the text is both historically
disciplined interpreting the meaning of a text in its original context and intent
on allowing the Spirit to speak through the text anew to challenge our own cultural
values and assumptions.
To
this end Webb develops 18 criteria for evaluating the cultural components of a passage
of scripture. He also categorizes the criteria according to their relationship
to the text of scripture and their persuasiveness. The first category consists
of “persuasive intrascriptural” criteria (criteria 1-5, chpt. 4). The second
category describes “moderately persuasive intrascriptural” criteria (criteria
6-13, chpt. 5). The third category refers to “inclusive criteria” (criteria
14-16, chpt. 6) which refers to theological analogy (does this reflect God’s
character?), contextual comparison (do other commands in the same context have
enduring cultural significance?) and continuity/discontinuity between
testaments (is the command consistent in both the Old and New testaments?). The fourth category of criteria is “persuasive
extrascriptural criteria” (criteria 17-18, chpt 7) which refers to pragmatic
comparison (does the command make sense in another culture?) and scientific/social
scientific evidence (does cross-cultural analysis or modern science help
explain features of this text as cultural relative or enduring?). The next chapter
is intriguingly titled, “What if I Am Wrong?” Here Webb weighs the merits of
his interpretive decisions on the women issue and concludes that while there is
some “wiggle room” it is untenable to conclude with either an ultra-patriarchal
or feminist view.
What
are his conclusions on the three major issues? I would encourage anyone interested
in these questions to read Webb’s book to see how he arrives at these
conclusions based on each criteria, but these are the general conclusions:
Slavery: Though the
Bible does not condemn slavery outright, there is a consistent movement away
from its dehumanizing practices in both the OT (Deut 16.10-11; 15.12-18; 31.10-13;
Exod 21.20-21; 23.12; Lev 25.39-43) and NT (Philemon; Gal 3.28; 1 Cor 12.13; Col
3.11). Culturally, slavery was an assumed institution in the ancient world. The
early church did not oppose it structurally for the sake of the more urgent
need to preach the gospel (Titus 2.9-10; 1 Tim 6.1). Ultimately, Webb concludes
that slavery was a cultural reality that was not God’s desire.
Women: As we have
already observed, the Bible was written in a patriarchal context. It was a
common cultural assumption that women were not good leaders (cf. Isa 3.12). Still,
Webb points out, “On the whole, the biblical material is headed toward an
elevation of women in status and rights” (76). He notes that the Bible has
numerous instances of women being protected, elevated in status or serving in
leadership roles that are counter-cultural in their original contexts (i.e. Num
27.1-11; 36.1-13; Deut 20.10-14; 22.19;, 29; 24.1-4; Judg 5.8-16; Acts 18.26; Rom
16.1-2). This along with numerous other criteria, lead Webb to conclude that
women were kept from leadership positions not because of some eternally enduring
difference between men and women but because of cultural realities.
For
example, in 1 Timothy women are prohibited from teaching in Ephesus in the
first century (1 Tim 2.11-15). Webb’s RMH attempts to understand why Paul said this
about women in leadership in that context, and then he applies the principle
today. In this case, Webb thinks Paul is opposed to women serving in teaching leadership
roles at Ephesus because in that culture they lacked education, experience and
awareness of broader cultural nuances. Thus, a RMH application of 1 Tim 2.11-15
is that people who are easily deceived regardless of gender should not teach.
Homosexuality: Unlike slavery
and women’s status/leadership, the Bible demonstrates a consistently negative
view of homosexuality. In this discussion, it is important to define “homosexuality”
because some interpreters claim that what the Bible actually condemns is rape
or the ancient practice of pederasty – a culturally accepted practice in the ancient
world (particularly Greece and Rome) wherein older men would have sex with younger
boys. Webb argues that consensual homosexuality was practiced in the ancient
world and is included in the negative commands in the Bible (39, 81-82, 156,
250). Webb maintains that homosexuality is consistently condemned in the Bible while
the wider culture of the ancient world accepted the practice. In this instance
the counter-cultural movement of the Bible is to condemn homosexual practice. For
this and other reasons, therefore, Webb thinks injunctions against homosexuality
are enduring commands not culturally relative. Webb also suggests, however,
that “a redemptive focus to our lives means that we love homosexual people as
ourselves. It means that we treat them with the same kind of grace, respect,
care and compassion with which we want to be treated” (40).
Even
if you do not agree with his conclusions, William Webb has given a gift to the
church by creating a series of interpretive criteria whereby we can consistently
interpret and apply the Bible in all its cultural nuances. The book is an
attempt to provide, “a tool for the application process in hermeneutics.” While
Webb has focused on only three very timely issues, he suggests “the various
criteria may be used as a grid to explore any aspect of Scripture where one
might suspect or question the impact of culture” (246). Indeed, this is a
fascinating prospect that I thought ought to be explored further. How might
Webb’s criteria work out in relation to other issues?
Webb
provides the answer as it relates to corporal punishment in his latest book,
published just this year Corporal
Punishment in the Bible: A Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic for Troubling Texts.
I have received a copy for review from the good people at IVP and as a new
parent I’m glad to have it. The book is designed, like Slaves, Women and Homosexuals to be an exercise in cultural hermeneutics.
In this instance Webb touches on a culturally relevant parenting issue. What
does the Bible say about spanking? Having read the introduction and skimmed
large portions of the book, Webb’s recent work looks to be a strong sequel. Whether
you agree with his conclusions or not, I think Webb is exactly right to create
a consistent hermeneutic to address the very different cultural realities in the
Bible and how the text can still speak today.
