A Word of Instruction?
It is that sort of adventure with the Bible that we are looking for, the adventure of staring at the Bible’s words on paper only to find ourselves drawn into the story itself. We feel it, taste it, hear it, and come to know it with such perspective and depth that it renews us. That kind of renewal gives us courage to begin living it all over again in our world, but in a new way for a new day. This is the way of renewal.
Scot McKnight, The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008) 42.
Years ago, I recall a debate on a popular Sunday morning political show where a Muslim scholar was advocating for the importance of developing what he called a “British Islam”. When quizzed about what a “British Islam” might look like, the scholar suggested it would be an Islam that was not hijacked by puritanical conservatives and robbed of its beauty. Whilst I took issue with such values being labelled as “British” - it was not clear to me why allowing the beauty of a religion to be expressed was only the purchase of a particular nationality - his broader point had an almost universal resonance and certainly struck me as I reflected on how the Bible is often employed in ecclesiological settings. I am reminded of the stinging denunciation of lawyers and Pharisees in Matthew 23:
Alas, to you scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites, because you pay a tenth of your mint, dill and cumin and neglected the weighty issues of the Law: justice, mercy and faith. It is necessary to do these things, but not at the expense of the others (Matthew 23:23, my translation).
This is not the place for any lengthy exposition of Jesus’ relationship with Torah or with the diversity of first century Jewish sectarianism – except, perhaps, to say that Jesus’ own Judaism was probably closest to the Pharisees among the various Jewish sects in the early first century, and his numerous clashes with the Pharisees quite likely emerged because he expected more of them. Nonetheless, the so-called ‘woes’ of Matthew 23 share a common theme - the scribes and Pharisees apprehended something true about God's work in the world, but saw what lay on the surface; somehow, their fixation on these surface ideas prevented them from seeing the true beauty of the Law. King David, Israel’s great poet, conceived of the Law thusly:
7 The law of the Lord is perfect, refreshing the soul. The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple. 8 The precepts of the Lord are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the Lord are radiant, giving light to the eyes. 9 The fear of the Lord is pure, enduring forever. The decrees of the Lord are firm and all of them are righteous. 10 They are more precious than gold, than much pure gold; they are sweeter than honey, than honey from the honeycomb (Psalm 19:7–10).
In these beautiful stanzas, the law is a tonic for the soul, trustworthy righteous and joy-giving. It illuminates the eyes in its enduring purity; so much so, no price could be placed on it. The law is sweet to the taste and invaluable beyond measure. It would be most difficult to see a list of regulations in this light. Torah demanded that its devotees tithe on their produce, and someone could “obey” these demands and certainly feel good about their obedience. This is certainly one approach to spirituality; one can observe legal stipulations with resolute efficiency and dogmatic regularity in an attempt to connect with the divine. The declaration, “All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends” from Luke 15 ought to ring true in this context - let the reader understand.
Yet, how often have we seen “older brother” believers in our midst, who slave away, reading the biblical text as a list of commands to obey and trying their best to obey them, but rather than experiencing deep, intimate connection with God, experience burnout, boredom, distance and frustration. A book intended to draw us into adventure, mystery and relationship, renewing our spirits and invigorating our vision instead becomes a bullish taskmaster, sapping our energies, burdening our consciences, reminding us of our inadequacies and filling us with guilt and shame. The example of how Jesus apprehended the Sabbath compared to some of his contemporaries will help to contextualise and illustrate the point I wish to make. Read and absorb the following carefully.
Consider, if you will, the numerous controversies surrounding what did and did not count as work on the Sabbath and, therefore, prohibited activity. The early rabbis had thirty-nine different sorts of activity which were deemed work and as such outlawed on the Sabbath (see Mishnah (m. Šabb. 7:2). Although, interestingly, even within their own speculations, the numerous traditions which had been built up around the Law were not intended to be binding. According to the Mishnah, m. Hagiga 1:8:
“The rules about the Sabbath, festal offerings, and sacrilege are as mountains hanging by a hair, for Scripture is scanty and the rules many”
These rabbinic dictates sometimes had some origin in a biblical command, but the great build-up of outlawed activity was to ensure that Jews didn't even come close to breaking the Sabbath command. The traditions aimed at protecting Israel from violating the Torah were eventually codified in documents like The Mishnah, where we read, for example:
Moses received Torah at Sinai and handed it on to Joshua, Joshua to elders, and elders to prophets.
And prophets handed it on to the men of the great assembly.
They said three things:
(1) Be prudent in judgment.
(2) Raise up many disciples.
(3) Make a fence for the Torah. (Avot 1:1, emphasis added).
Notice stipulation 3 - the rabbinic traditions were intended to make a fence around the Torah, to protect it from being violated. You will recall Jesus’ angst at the priority being placed on these sorts of traditions - they had become so involved that on occasion they would appear to be in conflict with the Torah (Mark 7:8–13)! However, as my friend Greg Kaye once pointed out to me, the Sabbath had so much deeper significance for those following Jesus:
6 On another Sabbath he went into the synagogue and was teaching, and a man was there whose right hand was shrivelled. 7 The Pharisees and the teachers of the law were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal on the Sabbath. 8 But Jesus knew what they were thinking and said to the man with the shrivelled hand, “Get up and stand in front of everyone.” So, he got up and stood there. 9 Then Jesus said to them, “I ask you, which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy it?” 10 He looked around at them all, and then said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He did so, and his hand was completely restored. 11 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law were furious and began to discuss with one another what they might do to Jesus (Luke 6:6–11).
The Pharisees generally held that, on a Sabbath, medical help was only for life and death situations - other than circumcision, no medical procedure could be practiced on the Sabbath. As such, the man with the shrivelled hand could be treated on another day. Jesus knew what they were thinking – “will this Rabbi compromise the Sabbath?” So, Jesus shows up the patent contradiction in their deliberations – Jesus’ rebuttal asks whether obeying God’s commands should lead to good or evil, the affirmation of life or the denigration of it. Hence the Pharisees don’t answer; Jesus answers his own question by healing the man’s hand and the Pharisees are left fuming! The issue of healing on the Sabbath comes up again in Luke 13 and 14:
One Sabbath, when Jesus went to eat in the house of a prominent Pharisee, he was being carefully watched. 2 There in front of him was a man suffering from abnormal swelling of his body. 3 Jesus asked the Pharisees and experts in the law, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not?” 4 But they remained silent. So, taking hold of the man, he healed him and sent him on his way. 5 Then he asked them, “If one of you has a child or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull it out?” 6 And they had nothing to say (Luke 14:1–6).
It seems there were numerous debates amongst Jews over what did and did not constitute work on the Sabbath; despite the fourth commandment, did anyone really fulfil the Sabbath command? Was there any Jew who could truly be said to have kept the Sabbath if no two Torah observers could agree on what did and did not constitute work? Well, there is one Jew we know for sure unambiguously fulfilled the Sabbath command. Jesus was raised on the third day after his execution, which we are told was the first day of the week. As such, according to our system of days of the week, he was raised on Sunday and thus crucified on Friday. Therefore, the only full 24-hour period Jesus was dead was what we call Saturday – the Sabbath. Whether rescuing a donkey that falls down a pit, healing someone or walking too far to the synagogue constitutes work maybe up for debate – what is clear is that no one can work when they are dead! For one full day of his life, Jesus was dead, thus he is the only person to have ever perfectly and unambiguously fulfilled the Sabbath command. There is a reason why this is so significant: 27 Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord, even of the Sabbath.” There are three key issues about how we ‘read the Sabbath’ based on these narratives; they are all pivotal for how we approach the biblical text and we do well to reflect on them meaningfully. They will bring us back to Mark 2:27–28 above.
1. Following the Law: For many ancient Jews the law was the most sacred part of the Bible, and The Ten Commandments, the most sacred part of the law (the actual numbering of the commandments has historically been something of a misnomer - but it is generally held that there are ten). The fourth commandment is contextualised thusly:
8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 For six days you shall labour and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; on it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male slave or your female slave, or your cattle, or your resident who stays with you. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; for that reason, the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
The first four of The Ten Commandments are aimed at nourishing Israel’s relationship with God; the remaining six are aimed at nourishing Israel’s relationship with one another. It is the first four which are elaborated. As is evident above, the Sabbath commandment is grounded in the creation narrative. It was a day when Israel was to imitate God's “resting” from creation; in the very act of imitating God, the people could be focused on Him, undistracted and unencumbered by other pursuits, which, of course, becomes foundational for the spiritual formation of God's people. So even though what we have here is a commandment to be followed, no Jew would simply have seen it as a wooden piece of legislation to be robotically obeyed. Nonetheless, it is a command within a section of commands, and no Jew would have seen obedience to the command as optional.
2. Seeing The Law in Life: Persistent reflection on the Sabbath command, led to the 39 stipulations about what constituted ‘work’ on the Sabbath. However, this kind of ongoing reflective practice was not limited to defining work; at both a theological and practical level, it applied to the meaning of “rest”. One powerful theological argument is, of course, in the book of Hebrews:
4 For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works”; 5 and again in this passage, “They certainly shall not enter My rest.” 6 Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who previously had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, 7 He again sets a certain day, “Today,” saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, “Today if you hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts.” 8 For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that (Heb. 4:4–8).
Using a rabbinic technique, the author of Hebrews continues his commentary on Psalm 95. He compares God resting from creation (the citation of genesis 2:2 in Hebrews 4: 4) to the “rest” which Israel experienced when they entered the promised land Under the tutelage of Joshua (Heb. 4:8). However, by drawing upon Psalm 95:11, and the fact that God spoke through David many years after Joshua still talking about a rest to come, the promised land could not have been the ultimate rest. Theologically, then, rest pointed forward to that time when God would shake heaven and earth (Heb. 12:26, citing Haggai 2:6) in the finality of the Kingdom (cf. Epistle of Barnabas 15).
Practically, the fourth commandment stipulates rest even for slaves and cattle. There is a sense here that everything needs recuperation (cf. Exod. 23:12). The release of ownership over land is also based on the Sabbath cycle: 31 The houses of the villages, however, which have no surrounding wall, shall be regarded as open fields; they have redemption rights and revert in the jubilee (Lev 25:31). Moreover, it was a sign of covenant commitment:
13 “Now as for you, speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘You must keep My Sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, so that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you (Exod. 31:13).
3. Experiencing beauty: The above reading of Jesus being the only one who has unambiguously fulfilled the Sabbath, is a point extrapolated from scripture, rather than one made explicit by one of the New Testament authors. It is a reading based on a sustained reflection on the gospels. This Christological rereading of the meaning of Sabbath draws us into the beauty of Christ fulfilling the law even in death. When we then think of passages like Romans 10: 4, which stipulates that Jesus is the culmination of the law, we may see that in his perfect fulfilment of Sabbath he is indeed the end of the law. This is where scripture becomes a beautiful poetic narrative which draws us into the heart of the divine story, and we see the identity of God reflected in Jesus. Read if you will Augustine’s bizarre rendition of the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:
A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho; Adam himself is meant; Jerusalem is the heavenly city of peace, from whose blessedness Adam fell; Jericho means the moon, and signifies our mortality, because it is born, waxes, wanes, and dies. Thieves are the devil and his angels. Who stripped him, namely, of his immortality; and beat him, by persuading him to sin; and left him half-dead, because in so far as man can understand and know God, he lives, but in so far as he is wasted and oppressed by sin, he is dead; he is therefore called half-dead. The priest and the Levite who saw him and passed by, signify the priesthood and ministry of the Old Testament which could profit nothing for salvation. Samaritan means Guardian, and therefore the Lord Himself is signified by this name. The binding of the wounds is the restraint of sin. Oil is the comfort of good hope; wine the exhortation to work with fervent spirit. The beast is the flesh in which He deigned to come to us. The being set upon the beast is belief in the incarnation of Christ. The inn is the Church, where travellers returning to their heavenly country are refreshed after pilgrimage. The morrow is after the resurrection of the Lord. The two pence are either the two precepts of love, or the promise of this life and of that which is to come. The innkeeper is the Apostle (Paul). The supererogatory payment is either his counsel of celibacy, or the fact that he worked with his own hands lest he should be a burden to any of the weaker brethren when the Gospel was new, though it was lawful for him “to live by the gospel” [Augustine, Quaestiones Evangeliorum, II, 19].
The idea that Luke intended the reader to see the mugging victim as Adam, the innkeeper as the Apostle Paul, the attackers as the devil and his angels and the Samaritan as Christ, is completely historically implausible. Yet there is something mysterious and poetically beautiful about Augustine’s reading. In his own reflection on what God has achieved in Christ, Augustine was able to see the divine story of reconciliation reflected back to him in the story of the Good Samaritan. Was his reading wrong? I would say this is an unhelpful question. Whilst I cannot say whether Augustine genuinely thought his adaptation reflects Luke's intentions, I do not think right or wrong is the issue. The issue is beauty; in our Biblical reflections on what God has done in Christ through the power of the Spirit, our eyes may well be uniquely enlightened to see stories poetically retold in narratives which never intended to tell them. This is not (I repeat NOT) carte blanche for anyone to make the biblical text mean anything that they want to! Rather, it is how the creative retelling of narratives deeply embedded in the text can find creative re-expression, illuminating the divine story in enriching new ways.
God did not make humanity for the Sabbath but the Sabbath for humanity; people are God's ultimate end, and Sabbath observance is just one cog in the huge historical wheel by which He gets there. I want to suggest that scripture itself works toward the same end. God does not love us because He gave us the scriptures; He gave us the scriptures because He loves us.
1. Follow the Scriptures: The Bible has comparatively little by way of command. It is mostly narrative, so following the scriptures is a far more creative, exploratory and poetic exercise than Christians usually imagine. What usually happens is that preachers interpret a passage and then dish out commands, and those commands are deemed to have “come from the Bible”. In the work of the very best expositors of the text, there is certainly some truth to this, but the ‘three points’ in the traditional sermon, drawn from a preacher’s evaluation of a passage is NOT and should never be mistaken for commandments coming from the text.
2. Seeing The Scriptures in Life: The more we study, meditate upon, pray through and internalise scripture, the more we see the powerful narrative that sits atop it all. As we move from the basics and onto complexity (Heb. 5:11–14), without an intense programme of external directives, our lives will become moulded by our great narrative. It is in this way that we are enlightened that we might see how to use our gifts for the explicit purpose of making the love of Christ a more palpable reality in our world. God's law was never intended to remain on stone tablets, but rather to be inscribed on the hearts of his people (Jer. 31:33; cf. 2 Cor. 3:3; Heb. 10:16). We do not worship the book; the book trains us to live a life which is worship to God.
3. Experiencing Beauty: 4 For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope (Romans 15:4, emphasis added).
For Paul the scriptures were an encouragement towards hope. We ought not simply to try to understand the scriptures, but indeed to understand our world, our environment and ourselves through them. When Christians describe their discipleship as “doing what the Bible says”, it is in fact a dilution and reductionism of scripture. Scripture should be understood as odyssey and not instruction manual. Scripture draws us into the mystery of God and not into religious boot camp. When the Bible is merely a tool which self-selected power brokers used to maintain order and get people to do things, it is not only robbed of its beauty, poetry, magnetism and healing energy, it has become a human tool rather than a transcendent communication.
If we want scripture to play its role in connecting us with the divine as we deconstruct our belief systems, two things are worth bearing in mind.
Firstly, Scripture was written for us but not to us! Disheartening as it may be to hear, no biblical author had you in mind! We are dealing with texts ranging from between two and three thousand years old and we are, in no uncertain terms, eavesdroppers on stories and communications that were not written to 21st century Christ believers! As such, it is pivotal that we ask what the writer intended his/her audience to hear and understand. You may well be surprised how much warped and self-serving ‘teaching’ emerges from interpreters who imagined that a biblical author had their 21st century context in mind. Reading scripture is invariably an act of humility where we set our own agendas to one side to hear from those ancient authors and have the respect to immerse ourselves in their world before drawing conclusions for ours.
Secondly, scripture is genre specific. I once heard a preacher unpacking some biblical wisdom from the Book of Proverbs. He raised some very enlightening points, but then proceeded to castigate people who did not ‘obey’ the proverbs. I distinctly recall sitting in the audience and thinking what does he mean obey? A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush; a rolling stone gathers no moss; time and tide wait for no man. All of these aphorisms can be said to be true in some respect, but none of them is a command. They are bits of local wisdom packaged into pithy phrases to help us see the world more clearly. Biblical wisdom is much the same; Israel’s sages and anecdotalists pondered the world - they meditated upon life and death, social inequity, romance, brotherhood, family, creation, politics, monarchy, education and the like, and asked what it all means, where it all fits and where it all stands in relation to God. In prayerful reflection, they penned songs, novellas, wisdom manuals and melodramas. These were not meant to be ‘obeyed’! They were a summons to Israel to join in with the sages as they reflected and meditated, to raise questions, journey spiritually and cry out to God. The Bible contains history, wisdom, poetry, law, gospel, epistle, narrative, parable and apocalyptic - if this is missed, it is not difficult to treat the scriptures as a book of regulations which end up smothering its beauty and stifling its potential to liberate.
Concluding Ideas:
In the previous chapter I suggested that, “because the Bible says so” is an introductory formula that I suggest we use very sparingly. It is not uncommon for those in the midst of deconstruction of any kind to have people effectively closed down debate or mute their questions by simply pointing to a ‘convenient’ biblical text (and, of course, sidestepping the inconvenient ones). If the use of the Bible closes down debate, then the text is not being used but misused. Scripture does not simply command us to obey the Sabbath; it invites us to ask why. Consider the following, somewhat tongue in cheek example.
Readers of this sub stack will almost invariably take divergent positions on the role of women within Christian thought - whether that is in churches, the household or society more broadly. I am not here to settle that debate! However, when I recently heard someone suggest that wives are biblically subordinate to husband on the basis of Genesis 3:16 - 16 To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, in pain you shall deliver children; yet your desire will be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” – (quite aside from the fact that this stipulation is in the context of a curse!), I couldn't help but think of the following rather comical exchange:
Dear Sir,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend female equality, I simply remind him that Genesis 3:16 clearly states that husbands rule over wives. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
· When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?
· I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
· I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19–24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
· Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
· I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
· A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), he can’t give up fried prawns. I think he must! Can you settle this?
· Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
[Adapted from: Mark L. Strauss, How to Read the Bible in Changing Times: Understanding and Applying God’s Word Today (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011), 9–10].
This is not my endorsement of any position one way or another on marriage equality or gender ethics! It is, however, an important reminder of the following:
1. We are eavesdroppers in the world of the biblical text; it is a world we must immerse ourselves in if we are to do justice to it.
2. Treating the Bible as an inflexible book of regulations is downright dangerous; be wary of leaders who weaponize the biblical text to maintain ecclesiological order, rather than preaching it that we may see God more clearly.
3. Bible reading is an art as well as a science; it is an engagement of the heart and the emotions as well as the mind and interpretive strategies. Somehow, truth happens at the nexus of these disciplines, and we do ourselves no favours trying to screen out the ones we find challenging.
4. Bible reading is not (primarily) about looking for things to ‘obey’ or even or simply to ‘do’ in the initial instance; it is about sharpening our of vision of Jesus, becoming more attuned to the voice of The Spirit and exploring the path by which God has called us to make His love known in the world.
Perhaps as we ruminate on the above, we might more safely say with the Psalmist, “Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path”.
