Tag: Bible

The Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses: A Selected Comparative Look

On By Jovan PayesIn Ancient History, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, ANE, College Papers, Exodus, Mesopotamia, Mesopotamia, Old Testament Background, Women Studies

[Note: This was a comparative historical paper for a history course exploring ancient societies. It forced me to examine ancient literature–even the Bible–as a historical source. ]

If one were to think of the most significant influences in lawmaking one who be hard-pressed to consider two greater and oldest than that the Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses. Even today, hanging above the gallery doors of the House Chamber in Washington, D.C., are twenty-three marble relief portraits of all those whose works have influenced the establishment of the principles of American law.

Among them are King Hammurabi and the prophet Moses (“About Relief Portrait” in SNT 36). Hammurabi’s Law ( or “Code”) is available today due to a monument relief and extant manuscript evidence (Roth 336). The Law of Moses has been preserved in the biblical manuscripts used for both the Hebrew and Christian Bibles.

In this paper, I focus on four touching points between the “Code of Hammurabi” (Roth) and the Law of Moses (Exod 19:3–24:8) by examining their similarities and suggesting some differences. These touching points are their sources of authority and their significance, the relationship between Moses and his people with the relationship between Hammurabi and his people, the position(s) of women in both societies as revealed by the laws, and what both sources of the law reveal about their two societies.

While this is not an exhaustive evaluation, it is an attempt to understand from these literary sources insights helpful toward a historical understanding of ancient Mesopotamia and ancient Israel. The most fundamental conclusion from this comparison and contrast may be that despite the similar concerns for establishing order in their respective societies, the differences demonstrate the unique trajectories of each society’s beliefs, expectations, and social concerns.

Sources of Authority

The first touching point is their source(s) of authority and their significance. There are points of comparison between the Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses when it comes to their sources of authority; however, there are significant contrasts that highlight the unique trajectory of each set of laws.

On the one hand, the preamble of the Code of Hammurabi and the beginning chapters leading to the specific Laws of Moses share a similar concern with establishing the view that each law has a divine source. Lockard points to a black basalt stone in the temple of Marduk (Babylon’s patron god) which pictures Hammurabi “receiving” kingship from Shamash (sun-god and lawgiver), and this provides the divine authority for the king to enforce his code of 282 laws upon his people (SNT 37). The preamble of the Code of Hammurabi likewise enlists this motif of the kings being “called” by name to bring justice and protection for the weak a reality. The laws of Moses, very similarly, presume the call of Moses for the Hebrews to be a “treasured possession” of the “Lord God” as a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19:5–6).

The very connection between man and the divine realm supports the shared worldview of theism and the order and accountability that follows from that view. Accordingly, then, such a relationship would make Hammurabi and Moses mediators of such divinely given laws rather than their chief architects.

On the other hand, the divine sources of authority are significantly distinct in their presumption of polytheism and monotheism. The first words in the “Code of Hammurabi” are, “When the exalted Anum king of the Annunaki.” Anum is the “sky god of the old Babylonian pantheon” of which the Annunaki were the “lesser Babylonian gods of heaven who served Enlil.” This demonstrates the full placement of the polytheistic belief system of Hammurabi and the Babylonian world (Roth 335). For example, Roth’s translation reads, 

“When the august god Anu, king of the Anunnaku deities” (335).

The preamble affirms that both gods Anum and Enlil gave all power to the god Marduk (son of Ea) and elevated him above the “Igigu deities.” It is this pantheon, as it were, of Babylonian and Mesopotamian gods that form the authoritative source for the call of Hammurabi as mediator of his law. The inclusion of these unifying acts in the heavens would create a significant plea for unity under this law on earth.

Yet, Moses and the laws in the Exodus record are based on a monotheistic view and this is significant since it ties in with their heritage. The Hebrews are believed to be descendants of a man named Abraham who departed from the Mesopotamian city of Ur (Gen. 12–13) and abandoned polytheism and idolatry. The Laws of Moses reaffirm this belief system, for example, in Exodus:

“You shall have no other gods besides me” (20:3 NJPS)

“With Me, therefore, you shall not make any gods of silver, nor shall you make for yourselves any gods of gold” (20:23 NJPS).

The monotheistic tone set at the beginning and throughout connects the Hebrews to their heritage, the sense that the God of Abraham has overthrown the gods of Egypt, and will be their only “LORD God” even in the future in polytheistic lands (Exod 23:23–24 ESV). This law will be their guide and source of unity in such conflicting environments.

Relationship with the Governed

The second touching point is the relationship between Moses and his people with the relationship between Hammurabi and his people. On the one hand, Moses is described as a servant rather than a prince. Moses dialogues with the “LORD God,” and then is said to communicate the conclusion of that dialogue to the people. As briefly noted above, Moses was called by the Lord God; however, the Exodus narrative describes Moses as one who does not always have the trust of the people. Nevertheless, it is the exodus (mass migration) out of Egypt and the procession toward the mountain of the “LORD God” that establishes the relationship for which he is known most, the servant of the “Lord God,” mediator, and law-giver (Exod. 19; 20:19-21). It is through Moses that the Hebrews agree in the community to the Laws of the Lord (Exod. 24:3). Moses does not appear as an architect or prince, but as the mediator chosen by the people and by the Lord God.

On the other hand, Hammurabi’s relationship with his empire is distinct. He comes to the throne, according to Roth, as a descendant of Sumu-abum (c. 1894-1881 B.C.E.) and consequently has an established relationship with the Mesopotamian empire (Roth 335). It is clear from the Code of Hammurabi that the king was involved in the development of the laws:

When the god Marduk commanded me to provide just ways for the people of the land (in order to attain) appropriate behavior, I established truth and justice as the declaration of the land, I enhanced the well-being of the people. (Roth 337)

Lockard describes the significant career of the king as one who stabilized, maintained, and expanded his kingdom. Consequently, Hammurabi’s relationship was far more formal than that of Moses with the Hebrews.

The Status of Women

The third touching point is the position(s) of women in both societies as revealed by the laws. On the one hand, information in the “Code of Hammurabi” demonstrates a considerable need to regulate the treatment and care of women facing a variety of injustices. Lockard holds a similar view (SNT 36). Following Roth’s and Harper’s sectioning of the Laws, sections §131-136 demonstrate considerable regulations on how to treat an accusation of adultery. 

§131 If her husband accuses his own wife (of adultery), although she has not been seized lying with another male, she shall swear (to her innocence by) an oath by the god, and return to her house.
§132 If a man’s wife should have a finger pointed against her in accusation involving another male, although she has not been seized lying with another male, she shall submit to the divine River Ordeal for her husband.
§133a If a man should be captured and there are sufficient provisions in his house, his wife […, she will not] enter [another’s house].
§133b If that woman does not keep herself chaste but enters another’s house, they shall charge and convict that woman and cast her into the water.
§134 If a man should be captured and there are not sufficient provisions in his house, his wife may enter another’s house; that woman will not be subject to any penalty.
§135 If a man should be captured and there are not sufficient provisions in his house, before his return his wife enters another’s house and bears children, and afterwards her husband returns and gets back to his city, that woman shall return to her first husband; the children shall inherit from their father.
§136 If a man deserts his city and flees, and after his departure his wife enters another’s house — if that man then should return and seize his wife, because he repudiated his city and fled, the wife of the deserter will not return to her husband. (Roth COS 343)

Apparently, there was such considerable mistreatment that legislation was provided to give the local judges the necessary guidelines to protect mistreated women and children.

Some of the more intriguing laws that deal with the protection of women are in the cases of abandonment and mistreatment (section 138-141). 

§138 If a man intends to divorce his first-ranking wife who did not bear him children, he shall give her silver as much as was her bridewealth and restore to her the dowry that she brought from her father’s house, and he shall divorce her. 
§139 If there is no bridewealth, he shall give her 60 shekels of silver as a divorce settlement.
§140 If he is a commoner, he shall give her 20 shekels of silver.
§141 If the wife of a man who is residing in the man’s house should decide to leave, and she appropriates goods, squanders her household possessions, or disparages her husband, they shall charge and convict her; and if her husband should declare his intention to divorce her, then he shall divorce her; neither her travel expenses, nor her divorce settlement, nor anything else shall be given to her. If her husband should declare his intention to not divorce her, then her husband may marry another woman and that (first) woman shall reside in her husband’s house as a slave woman. (Roth COS 343)

It is not that every law was written in the women’s favor because there appears evidence that a woman’s marital conduct can be actionable if abusive to her husband, but they implicitly suggest that these laws were needed in Hammurabi’s empire. Yet, this is only based on literary evidence. Nevertheless, it implies there was a negative treatment of women, so much so that it required legislation.

On the other hand, in Exodus 21:1–23:33 there are several sections addressing varying roles women were found in. Apparently, some fathers sold their daughters as slaves (21:7) but her potential manumission was legislated, as was legitimate marriage to the family’s son (21:7–11).

7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 

8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money. (ESV)

There were also retributive laws of justice if a pregnant woman was hurt or killed (21:22–32). 

22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.26 “When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. 27 If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth. 28 “When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox shall not be liable. 29 But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. 30 If a ransom is imposed on him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is imposed on him. 31 If it gores a man’s son or daughter, he shall be dealt with according to this same rule. 32 If the ox gores a slave, male or female, the owner shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. (ESV)

Even in the case of consensual premarital sex, the Law legislated that the male “give the bride-price” for her to legitimize the marriage (22:16–17; NJPS 22:15–16). Sociological morés of promiscuity would have rendered the woman vulnerable to social scandal and familial shame. 

16 “If a man seduces [or, entices] a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins. (ESV)

Widows were to be cared for and never mistreated, and if so the perpetrators would receive the sword so their wives would become widows (22:22–24; NJPS 22:21–23). The language carries a passionate emphasis:

22 You shall not mistreat any widow or fatherless child. 23 If you do mistreat them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry, 24 and my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless. (ESV)

Related to the issue of adultery, there was a clear prohibition against such practices in the Law: “You shall not commit adultery” (Exod 20:14). In contrast to the wide practice of polygamy (but not polyandry) in ancient societies of the Near East, the LORD God established monogamy as the mandated ideal of marriage (Gen 2:24). Consequently, adultery was viewed as a social wrong and a violation against God’s order. There was a concession for divorce and remarriage found in the teachings of Moses (Deut 24:1–4), but it is very restrictive.

Overall, such legislation in Israel was required because there were problems with the mistreatment of widows and slave girls, and also the abuse of rejection or abandonment of women after premarital sex.

If one is careful to read between the lines, Hammurabi and the Exodus Laws seek correctives on matters of injustice and oppression. These may not meet the modern social expectations regarding what are protective laws for women, but it should be noted different social norms and morés are being addressed in the ancient world than those of today.

Impact on the Society

The fourth observation focuses on what both sources of law reveal about these two societies. The earlier society of Hammurabi appears to have considerable social unrest and a sense of injustice in the air. The sorts of laws are of such a micromanagement level that they reflect a tremendous amount of abuse in society at large. The laws do cover more than just social matters, but it cannot be ignored that Hammurabi’s Code was, as he affirms, to: 

“make justice to appear in the land, to destroy evil and the wicked that the strong might not oppress the weak.”

This law reveals that retribution towards evil, the wicked, and oppression was not only viewed as a social necessity but was also a divine ruling. The gods will hold the mortals accountable for their mistreatment of others.

Likewise, in the emerging society of the Hebrews, it was expected that all previous and current expectations of justice and injustice must now be reevaluated from the perspective of the moral and religious expectation of the “LORD God.” One of the premises of the Exodus Law is their liberation from Egyptian slavery and its moral application to how a neighbor treats their neighbor. The case law nature of the Mosaic Law demonstrates this transition, especially in the Ten Commandments proper (Exod 20:1–17). The good standing in the Hebrew community was based upon how one interacted with their neighbor; consequently, it may be inferred from the law section of Exodus that Hebrew society needed much legislation to correct their conduct toward their neighbor: “…you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord (Leviticus 19:18 ESV).

Observations

Initially, it may be said that despite the similar concerns for establishing order in their respective societies, the Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses demonstrate the unique trajectories of each society’s beliefs, expectations, and social concerns.

This is seen in the following four areas as evaluated above. First, despite sharing a concern with connecting their source(s) of authority with the divine realm (i.e., the gods/God), and thus, making Moses and Hammurabi mediators of a law that centers on moral accountability and justice, they are markedly distinct in their theism.

Second, despite there being a common motif of mediation between the gods/God and the people they led, Moses and Hammurabi held distinct relationships with their people. Moses rose to leadership and was summoned to lead by the people; whereas, Hammurabi ascended to the thorn and had an established and formal regnal relationship with his empire.

Third, although the Hammurabi handout had selected sections on what is available shows that when compared to Exodus Laws, both were concerned with correcting and abolishing, through retributive legislation, the abuse of women in their communities in areas of sexuality, honor, abandonment, and humiliation.

Finally, both sources of law reveal that human societies always deal with matters of injustice and oppression, and these tend to be focused on the mistreatment of vulnerable women and widows. The consequences of such laws demonstrate the rough and violent nature of society and its expectations.

Bibliography

(ESV) English Standard Version of The Holy Bible. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001.

Harper, Robert Francis. The Code of Hammurabi King of Babylon About 2250. 2nd edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 1904.

(NJPS) TANAKH: The Holy Scriptures, A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures According to the Traditional Hebrew Text. Philadelphia, PA: Jerusalem Publication Society, 1985.

(SNT) Lockard, Craig A. Societies, Networks, and Transitions: A Global History. Volume I: To 1500. 3rd edition. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, 2015.

(COS) Roth, Martha. “The Laws of Hammurabi.” In volume 3 of The Context of Scripture: Archival Documents from the Biblical World. Edited by William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr. New York: Brill, 2002.

My Friends and the Snowman Prank

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Brotherhood, Christmas, Devotional, Discipleship, Freed-Hardeman University, Proverbs, Wisdom Literature

Recently, traveling for a speaking engagement some dear friends and I reminisced over the time when they pulled one of the most memorable pranks on me that will live on in the lore of our friendship until the Lord returns. As we talked about this event, I realized I learned something important about friendship that had not truly crossed my mind before. I would like to invite you to join me in the retelling of this story and a reflection on friendship.

The Snowman Prank

The setting. It was a cold Spring Semester at Freed-Hardeman University in Henderson, Tennessee. Usually, snow would fall in February and last for a few weeks. I can tell you driving in snow was one of the more challenging adjustments I had to make, as the driving I experienced in San Francisco little prepared me for it. After living in Henderson for a couple of years, I had developed some comfort with the cold and awareness for driving in the snow–especially becoming alert for “black ice.”

Snow out on the roads is one thing, but it was beyond thought to anticipate the sight I came upon one cold day in my car. I was heading to my car after taking a test in an undergraduate Bible class, when I noticed a car that looked just like mine with a snowman in the front passenger seat. I told myself, “wow, that’s funny… a snowman is sitting in the car,” shaking my head in disbelief. No way that was my car. No way a snowman was in my car.

It wasn’t until I tapped my key fob, heard the beep and saw the lights flicker that I accepted the truth. Even then it was tentative. I walked up to the car in disbelief, examining through the window the incredulous reality that a snowman sat on my front passenger seat. It was a fully three-tiered perfectly white snowman. I even marveled that whoever had done this was at least “Christian” about it as they had placed a garbage bag underneath it to protect the fabric. “Wow, this is what Christian pranks look like,” I thought to myself.

I realized I had left my car unlocked which in turn gave the pranksters the literal “open door.” In the course of a couple of years in small town Henderson, I had grown comfortable contrary to all the security precautions I had learned in the big-city. We locked everything. The front door to the home I grew up in had five locks. But now, I felt safe and comfortable, and look at how I was repaid… with a snowman! I was no longer the guarded city-kid who distrusted any person walking on the side of the street.

Unexpected Reactions

Today I chuckle at this story. I wish I had then my sensibilities that I have now. But I can assure you that my prankster friends bore witness to an unexpected reaction from their Christian brother. They had an aerial view of whole encounter from the large and wide windows of the Student Center/Cafeteria overlooking the parking lot. It was the perfect perch for them to be rewarded by seeing the comedy but that’s not entirely what happened.

I decided to remove the snowman, as one does, from my car. Instead of a calm and somewhat goofy procedure to move it to the sidewalk, I proceeded to dismember the snowman and slam each frozen sphere to the ground. My friends realized that I did not take the prank so kindly or jovial as they had hoped. They saw rage. As it was at this time they realized they messed up.

I can tell you, each time I picked an increasingly larger icy ball over my head I dropped it with all the force I could muster. I was not used to good-humored pranks. Every prank I received or dished out in the streets never had good-willed intentions. Humiliations were not really tolerated, unless you were on the lower end of the totem pole. Like Coolio said, “Me be treated like a punk, you know that’s unheard of.”[1]

When my friends saw my reaction, they knew it was time to go. As they have told me, they quickly vacated the premises, hopped in a car and tried to escape undetected. They tried. After I took my heat off on the snowman, I proceeded to investigate to see if there were any witnesses to the “crime.” Nothing proved fruitful until I saw a car pull up. I could not identify who was in it, but it looked guilty. After a few attempts to corner them, they escaped my grasp. Eventually, I took a call in which they confessed guilt to this prank.

Accepting Good-willed Friendship Fun

Suddenly, my indignation melted away to relief that my friends meant the prank as nothing more than some friendly winter fun. At that time in my life, I had very little experience with this type of fun. This was not a cruelly-intended hazing, it was just fun shared among good friends. It was a practical joke, a rather hilarious one.

It is not that I lacked friends growing up, but the “jokes” we played on each other always had an element of humiliation that betrayed trust. Even the “jokes” were deceptions designed to manipulate me and my emotions. I once had a friend that told me my wife and toddler daughter died in a car accident they had actually been in. It felt as the Proverb says:

Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows, and death is the man who deceives his neighbor and says, “I am only joking!” (Proverbs 26:18–19 ESV)

But my friends were people of quality. I went from gangsters to pranksters. Again, the Proverbs tell us

A man of many companions may come to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother. (Proverbs 18:24)

Over the past twenty plus years, despite the passing of time, the reunions with my closest friends have been sweeter than honey–even if some of them placed a snowman in my car.

Friendship in the Bible

The Bible speaks about friendship, of the 187* instances of the Hebrew word rea’ (friend, companion, neighbor, fellow, associate), the English Standard Version of the Bible translates it “friend” thirty-three times. Broadly, however, it means to suggest an acquaintance or fellow–a neighbor. It is the word used in the Second Great Commandment, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord” (Lev 19:18; 19: 13, 16; Matt 22:34–40; Mark 12:28–34; Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8). While not all “neighbors” are those that stick closer than a brother, God’s people are called to treat all neighbors with dignity and respect (i.e., love).

The book of Proverbs provides a number of insightful principles for appreciating the value of good friendships.

We need good friends. More importantly we need good friends. Additionally, we need not only to be “friends” to many, but a good friend who treats people with dignity and respect. We make our interactions personal, rather than impersonal.[2] The proverbs of Solomon continue this theme in the following couplet (Prov 10:1):

A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity.
One who lacks sense gives a pledge and puts up security in the presence of his neighbor. (Proverbs 17:17–18)

These two verses are connected by the word rea’, translated “friend” and “neighbor.” There seems to be an intensification of “friend” who expresses a loyalty like a sibling, the closest relationship in the ancient world. Such a friend will be there even in times of rushed decisions without abandoning them in their time of need.[3]

Perhaps no better example of this type of friendship is found outside of David and Jonathan. In the midst of David’s rise in Israel during the reign of King Saul, Jonathan and David’s friendship transcended family allegiances. It is said that “the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul” and makes a covenant with him (1 Sam 18:1). He even protected David from his father’s wrath (1 Sam 20).

Good friends are not pushovers. They are not enablers. Many a “ride or die” friendship has imploded because they offer no space for accountability. Proverbs calls us to this very truth:

Better is open rebuke than hidden love. Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy. One who is full loathes honey, but to one who is hungry everything bitter is sweet. Like a bird that strays from its nest is a man who strays from his home. Oil and perfume make the heart glad, and the sweetness of a friend comes from his earnest counsel. Do not forsake your friend and your father’s friend, and do not go to your brother’s house in the day of your calamity. Better is a neighbor who is near than a brother who is far away. (Proverbs 27:5–10)

The word friend in this section is the translation of ahabāh means “love,” as in “one who loves.” A faithful friend who loves us will not withhold their love from us, but will offer words that may leave a mark. These “wounds” are not the sort to injure, but to provide counsel so their friend may redirect their decisions. It may hurt on the front end, but the outcome will be like sweet food or an enjoyable fragrance.[4] Such friends are comparable family who have a vested interest in our success.

Could we have a better friend than God? James writes of Abraham that it was his faith in God that led to his deep relationship with the Lord. He affirms that “‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness’—and he was called a friend of God” (Jas 2:23). Moses spent time in the Tent of Meeting and communed with the Lord there. “Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend” (Exod 33:11a). Faith in the words and character of God, and the boldness to commune with the Lord are vital components to a vibrant “friendship” with the Lord.

Concluding Thoughts

God clearly points us to forging good friendships. Being a good neighbor is the foundation to offering authentic friendship and loyalty to those outside our families. Sometimes, we find deeper relationships or comparable ones in outsiders to the point that our neighbor is now our soul knit friend.

It can be very difficult for many of us to make friendships and trust in the good will they offer. This is often due to trauma. At least it was in my case. I did not know how to have fun and playful friendships. These pranksters helped me break through a hang up I did not know was there. I am beyond grateful the Lord has blessed me with friends like these at different stages in my life.

I pray that in your lifetime, and despite any trauma, you too will appreciate and be blessed by good friends. Finally, I pray that you will learn to be the friend your neighbor needs in their time of difficulties and hardships. This is the commandment of love that identify us as disciples of Jesus (Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8).

Endnotes

  1. Coolio, “Gangsta’s Paradise” (1995).
  2. Derek Kidner, Proverbs: An Introduction and Commentary (1964; repr., Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008), 41.
  3. Dave Bland, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon (Joplin, MO: College Press, 2002), 165.
  4. Kidner, Proverbs, 158.

Tips for the Wise: Reading Proverbs

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Bulletin, Old Testament, Popular Essays, Proverbs, Wisdom Literature

Communication requires a certain sensibility to understand what is being said, written, or acted. A McDonalds menu communicates certain that “edible” products are available for a certain price, but the sentiment is very different from a romantic poetic Valentine’s Day card. A bank statement certainly tells a story, but does it use the same language and method as horror movie? For some it just might! These communicate to their readers but they do so with quite different expectations in mind. In fact, communication depends on certain expectations set by its author and the setting (context) it is offered.

The Bible presents a unique challenge because it is a library of several genres of communication written to people in a variety of context. Modern readers of the Bible should be aware that they are reading an ancient book with ancient models of communication. It becomes an imperative for the modern reader to respect the various genres of Scripture as intended by God and his chosen prophets.

A type of literature that is both popular but also easily misread is Hebrew wisdom. This type of literature is should not be taken as hard promises from God. I would like to explain why and offer a few suggestions to help God’s people read this section of scripture better.

The Importance of Genre

It is important to recognize that Old Testament books must be analyzed with respect. Conscientious Bible students recognize this. Respect must be rendered to the text not only due to the nature of the document as being the very breath of God’s mouth (2 Tim 3:16), but also because each document is a literary work composed in a unique style – a unique genre.

For example, one should not consider the creation week in Genesis 1 as a fictional-poetic treatise because the book of Genesis is a historical document, designed to instruct humanity concerning the origin of man, the fall of humanity, and the promise of the seed which would come to bless all the nations of the earth – Jesus Christ (Gen 22:18; Gal 3:9). Genesis is an inspired historical narrative and must be analyzed with this in mind.[1]

It is unfortunate that inspired historical documents are often treated by some as poetry or as a fictional novella, at the mercy of any revisionist who disagrees with its message or storyline.

Wisdom in Proverbs

Another unfortunate error, which is often overlooked, is that which transforms wisdom literature into absolute historical fact void of any sense of generality. The value of the proverbs is precisely because they are generalities which provide thoughtful guidance for those seeking to life a wise and spiritual life. Walter Russell calls attention to this aspect of wisdom literature:

It is concise, memorable, simple, and profound; it observes life and reflects the voice of experience; it is thoughtful about human experience and designed to give us practical living skills for confusing circumstances. It also challenges us not to falsely spiritualize everything in life.[2]

Walter Russell, Playing with Fire (NavPress, 2000)

A classic example of the generalness of wisdom literature is found in proverbs like the following:

When a man's ways please the Lord, he makes even his enemies to be at peace with him. (Pro 16:7 ESV)

How should such passages be understood: as an absolute formula or as general principles? Did Jesus experience this as an absolute promise? Hardly! What should the Bible reader do, then, with passages like this? Read them based on the merits of the expectations for its genre.

Here are a few suggestions.

First, it is the nature of a proverb to provide general wisdom principles:

The nature of the proverbs is such that they should not be interpreted as prophecy or as promises about certain effects and results. Rather, they are best viewed as theological and pragmatic principles.[3]

Samuel J. Schultz, The Old Testament Speaks, 5th ed. (HarperCollins, 2000)

For as much as we would want them to be absolute promises we must be cautious. Proverbial passages are not to be pressed beyond their intent, which is: to be general truths to guide the godly in the path of righteousness (Pro 1:1–9).

Second, the generalness of proverbs should discourage their use as an infallible rule.

For example, it is certainly true that the guidance of Proverbs 16:7 has run true to many who have lived a godly life. But it is also true that living consistent with the will of God will bring heartache and sorrow due to persecution (Matt 5:1–12, 2 Tim 3:12–13). A person’s enemies may become one-hundred-fold almost immediately when following God.

Recall the Lord Jesus’ ways which pleased the Father (John 8:29). Might one suppose that his enemies should come to a state of peace with him? If one took this proverb as an absolute formula, then yes. However, not all saw Jesus as a teacher come from God (John 3:1–2) and his enemies multiplied and waited to catch him in their theological traps (Luke 11:53–54). Proverb 16:7 is general in scope, emphasizing a positive aspect of godly living, never intending to exclude negative factors.

Finally, perhaps the most problematic factor in dealing with general principles is the failure of some to take into account that no one verse carries embedded within it the totality of a biblical subject.

While the sum of God’s word is truth (Psa 119:160), the Proverbs are maxims. In Proverbs 22:6 it is written: 

Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it. (ESV)

The passage is designed to emphasize that children are impacted by their parents long after they leave home. The impact of domestic education is life lasting. Yet one should not take this passage as an absolute formula, for this would dismiss one of the most vital elements of the nature of man: free moral agency. The impact is life lasting, but the choices are left to the child.

It is unfortunate to see some depart from the faith after being “raised in the church.” It should not be assumed that it is the direct result of the parents being derelict in their parental duties. Life and decision-making are complicated matters.

Concluding Thoughts

Biblical literature is composed of a wide range of genres. These genres of literature ought to be treated with the respect they rightly deserve, otherwise poor exegesis will follow. In principle we run the danger of binding were God has not bound. 

We must be conscientious Bible students using Scripture correctly. May we never apply general principles as absolute infallible rules.

Endnotes

  1. There is a debate over how to read Genesis 1, but I find no reason to reject the twenty-four hour view even when presented in a stylistic way. See David G. Hagopian, ed., The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (Mission Viejo, CA: Crux Press, 2001), Stanley N. Gundry, ed., Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), and John F. Ashton, ed., In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation (2000; Repr., Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2001).
  2. Walter B. Russell, Playing with Fire: How the Bible Ignites Change in Your Soul (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2000), 161.
  3. Samuel J. Schultz, The Old Testament Speaks, 5th ed. (New York: HarperCollins, 2000), 290.

Shall We Dictate to Scripture?

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Hermeneutics, Interpretation, Spiritual Formation4 Comments

All who strive for a life of faith must recognize a fundamental principle of Divine religion: a life of faith is grounded and developed through the incorporation of the word of God into their lives. It is only until we harmonize our lifestyle with the influence of the inspired word, that we can find ourselves progressing towards spiritual maturity (2 Tim 3:16-17). If we do the former, the latter will follow.

It is the proclamation of the events leading up to the redemptive work of Jesus and the continued ministry of his apostles set forth in the written gospel message of the New Testament that is  “bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations” (Rom 1:5, cf. Rom 16:26). Paul puts the matter into focus in Romans 10:17 when he sets for the principle of faith: “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”

The question considered in this piece is focused on our attitude to Scripture’s application to our lives. We are asking, shall we dictate to Scripture regarding how we ought to live, or will we humbly submit to its teaching?

God and His Word

In Scripture, faithfulness to the instruction of God is paramount from both Divine and human vantage points (Hos 4:6; Psa 119). From the Divine side, God has often warned his people from adding to or removing from what He has entrusted humanity with (Deut 4:2; Rev 22:18-19). Little wonder, then, that Peter once said that if anyone should speak, they should “as one who speaks oracles of God” (1 Pet 4:11).

When Joshua, the son of Nun, succeeded Moses as the prophetic leader over Israel and representation of the Lord’s will, God gave him this encouragement:

Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to do according to all the law that Moses my servant commanded you. Do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may have good success wherever you go. This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success. (Joshua 1:7-8 English Standard Version)[1]

As the representative of the Lord’s leadership among the Israelites, Joshua’s success depended upon his courage to live his life upon the line of faithfulness. Commentary on Joshua’s influence due to his faithfulness is found in the words of Joshua 24:31. This could only be accomplished after extensive meditation and determined application of the Mosaic law.

The opening Psalm of the Psalter echoes these sentiments quite vividly. Psalm 1 is described as “a blessing or beatitude that lays down the two ways of living, exemplified by the character of the just and the wicked.”[2]

Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night. He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers. The wicked are not so, but are like chaff that the wind drives away. (Psalm 1:1-4)

The restatement of “meditation” of the “law” and the subsequent “prosperity” in the life of Joshua 1:8 is not coincidental. It is the foundation of a faithful life of obedience. To “fear God and keep his commandments” is the very fulfillment of the purpose of life (Eccl 12:13).

A millennium later, Jesus speaks to his disciples regarding the importance of abiding in his word. In the Gospel of John, Jesus affirms this principle quite clearly in John 8:31-32, where it is through abiding in his word (“the truth”) that individuals become free from sin. Later, at the close of his earthly ministry, Jesus appeals to the image of a vine and its branches with the emphasis upon the branches abiding in the life-giving vine in order to produce fruit (John 15:1-11).

The illustration stripped away from all metaphor, comes to a focal point in verses 9-11 where Jesus says:

As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you." (John 15:9-11)

As Barnabas Lindars summarizes, “the loving relationship of mutual indwelling is pre-eminently a moral union. Hence, love is shown by the voluntary keeping of the Master’s commandments.”[3] We see, then, that love of God is expressed in faithful obedience to the divine commands reflected in a moral and spiritual lifestyle.

God’s Word in Human Hands

From the human vantage point, the application of God’s word derives from “rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15). The significance of the word translated “rightly handling” (Grk. orthotomeo) is expressed by William E. Vine:[4]

The stress is on orthos; the Word of God is to be “handled” strictly along the lines of its teaching. If the metaphor is taken from plowing, cutting a straight furrow, the word would express a careful cultivation, the Word of God viewed as ground designed to give the best results from its ministry and in the life. (Link)

W. E. Vine, M. F. Unger, and W. White, Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1984)

In order to properly apply Scripture to life, we must seek the true meaning of the biblical text. This is the human side of living by faith. In essence, God has given his word and expects humans to obey it in love; meanwhile, we must employ our minds to understand and apply his word (cf. 1 Cor 2:11-14; Eph 3:4).

There are several approaches many take to find out the nature of God’s will – that is, His desire or plan for a person’s life. Some randomly open the Bible and apply the first verse under the tip of their finger, and find some mystical application to their situation. Though insight is no doubt obtainable, this is not the most effective approach to incorporating God’s word into everyday life. Scripture was never designed to be approached in this fashion.

Others may have read through the whole Bible several times but still have not figured out what to do with the Bible. The pieces of the biblical puzzle are still scattered throughout their mind because they have never really studied the Bible – they have merely read the Bible as one would read a fictional title. Biblical literature was designed to be meditated upon, memorized, and rigorously studied. It is not literature to enjoy as a pastime or hobby.

We are therefore submitting for consideration the need to study the word of God in such a way that produces spiritual formation; as Paul has said elsewhere, “until Christ is formed in you” (Gal 4:19b). To do this, we must “attempt to hear the Word as the original recipients were to have heard it, to find out what was the original intent of the words of the Bible.”[5] This is the process of exegesis.

The word exegesis is actually derived from two Greek words, ek (“out”) and egeisthas (“to guide or lead”).[6] This is the process of drawing out “the meaning of the biblical text and explaining it.”[7] Biblical faith, and the obedience which is inherent in it, occurs when the meaning of Scripture is drawn out, that meaning is then articulated in meaningful ways, and then applied to contemporary circumstances. This is the noble handling of God’s word.

It is always easier to spout off some superficial interpretation of Scripture that is grounded in inadequate research than it is to produce a well-reasoned, well-understood explanation of a biblical passage or message. Bible study is for all, but it must be candidly acknowledged that there is a difference between the academic exegesis of the Bible and the exegesis usually explored by those untrained in biblical academics. This is an important distinction to address.[8]

Briefly, the non-academic must constantly rely heavily upon the “expert” scholar with the added difficulty of not being able to personally cross-examine “expert” research. However, more resources available today are written at the popular level for the non-expert so that, provided sufficient study, they may become more knowledgeable than ever before (biblical languages, cultural context, tools to study the forms of biblical literature, etc.).[9] This is a matter of mental industry and dedication (Ezra 7:6).

The opposite of exegesis is eisegesis, a word that likewise is derived from two Greek words, eis (“into”) and egeisthas (“to guide or lead”). Eisegesis is “the mistake of reading meaning into a text rather than deriving meaning from it.”[10] It may also be stated as reading into the text “meaning that one wants to get out of it.”[11] The point is: eisegesis is the exact opposite of exegesis. It is a hostile take over of the biblical teaching – intentionally or unintentionally.

In his work, From Scripture to Theology: A Canonical Journey into Hermeneutics, Charles J. Scalise uses the analogy of backpacking and camping to show the need for appropriate hermeneutics. Biblical “campers” must prepare for their trip, employing an important guidance tool for directing their theological travels – a map. The map is the biblical teaching, and it is, therefore, important to stay on the map for the right guidance.

Read carefully the following point Scalise makes contrasting exegesis from eisegesis. It should put the two Bible approaches into perspective:

Instead of Scripture functioning as the rule of doctrine, exaggeration of particular doctrines have sought to become the rule of Scripture. Proponents of a specific view have sought to read their particular opinions into Scripture (eisegesis) rather than letting the Scripture rule their view. Prooftexts have been claimed for an amazing variety of additions to and aberrations of the Christian tradition […] Christians who seek to claim authority for beliefs and actions supported by such scriptural pretexts are making maps where there is no biblical territory.[12]

C. J. Scalise, From Scripture to Theology (1996)

If exegesis is what we do to “stay on the map we are given,” then the opposite is to make, as Scalise observes, a map “where there is no biblical territory.” Shame on us should we fall into this hermeneutical snare. We should always be ready to be taught more accurately and adjust our understandings (our bearings) based upon the Map of Life (Acts 18:24-28).

God’s Word in Human Hearts

After considering the importance God places upon the observance of His word and observing the responsibility laid upon us to properly interpret the Bible, it would be a misfortune not to discuss the need to apply God’s word in the practical everyday life setting. Some seem to simply mentally enjoy the study and proclamation of God’s word, but fail to have the same zeal in the application of its spiritual instruction.

The biblical books were always composed in such a way that they are complete within themselves to teach and to be understood. For example, when Paul composed his letter to the Ephesians regarding “the mystery of Christ” concerning the inclusion of all nations – Jew and Gentile – into the redemption offered by God, he was confident that they would read the letter and perceive its instruction (Eph 3:1-7).

In order to apply God’s teaching to their lives in the most effective way, Christians must be personal students of the Bible. They must be people who hear the word, perceive it, give it space to grow and flourish. Their teacher must be God, and they must never settle for any scholar’s “explanation.” It is Jesus’ words that give life, not the words of the scholar, preacher, or teacher (John 6:68).

As Merrill C. Tenney once said:

[T]here is a danger of substituting the explanation for the text itself. Men read what Dr. X and Professor Y have to say about the text rather than let the text talk to them.[13]

M. C. Tenney, John: The Gospel of Belief (1948)

The Bible is fully capable of inducing belief and providing instruction for faithful living. Knowledge of “the book” prevents destruction, and it is for this reason that Hosea lamented for Israel. They failed to allow Scripture to instruct them and guide them (Hos 4:6).

We must allow Scripture to dictate our behavior in public and in private, at work or at play, “at church” or out “in the world” – wherever we are, we must stay conscious of our responsibilities to “do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8 cf. Rom 12:1). To this point, the Lord spoke very clearly to his auditors (Matt 12:33-37). The genuineness of our faithfulness will become evident to those around us.

Jesus once spoke a parable regarding various souls in a field. It is recorded in three Gospel accounts (Mark 4:1-25; Matt 13:3-23; Luke 8:4-18). It was based on an agricultural backdrop, where a person scatters seeds in a field so that he could grow a crop. In this process the seed is tossed out liberally all around the field: “some here,” “some there,” “some over there,” and “some right here.”

Actually, Jesus set forth four places in the field – the pathway, the rocky soil, the thorny patches, and then the good soil. Each seed produced different results depending upon the soil it was embedded within. The seed that fell on the pathway was quickly devoured by the birds, the rocky soil produced superficial growth of the seed, and the thorn patches choked out the developing seedlings. Finally, the good soil developed seed exponentially, according to the ability of the seed to produce.

But when Jesus spoke this parable, the seed was to represent the word of God, and the different soils represent the different receptive hearts. One group (i.e. pathway) is so dense that the word of God will not penetrate their heart, others (i.e. rocky soil) have no real spiritual depth to them and the spiritual effects of the word only last temporarily, another group (i.e. thorn patches) were so occupied with the cares of life that there was no dedication to the word.

These three groups all have failed relationships with the word. But there are some (i.e. good soil) who have receptive hearts, they are tender and pliable before the God who created them and loved them. These are submissive to the word and develop spiritually, according to the person’s ability to develop spiritual vitality. These individuals allow the word to dictate the terms and conditions of their faith.

Finally, in connection with these thoughts, reflect upon the words of Paul as he speaks of the power of the Word of God:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

God’s word should have full reign in molding the human heart. Heaven help those who desire to live in eternity with their God to be so minded.

Conclusion

Returning to the question which led to this study, shall we dictate to Scripture regarding how we ought to live, or will we humbly submit to its teaching? God has clearly shown that we must submit to his word in order to have a lifestyle representative of biblical faith. We must view the Scriptures are authored by God and, therefore, are capable to accomplish the task of spiritual formation.

God has always expected his word to be faithfully kept and never altered. We must exert great care in deriving our understanding from God’s word. And finally, the application is the only way to truly be the people that seek after God. Mere knowledge will lead to destruction, both knowledge and action are the keys to unlocking spiritual vitality in God’s way.

References

  1. Unless otherwise stated all Scripture quotations are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001).
  2. Roland E. Murphy, The Gift of the Psalms (2000; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 18.
  3. Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John (1981; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), 490.
  4. W. E. Vine, M. F. Unger, and W. White, Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1984; repr., Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1996), 2:289.
  5. Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All its Worth, 3d ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003), 23 (emphasis original).
  6. D. R. Dungan, Hermeneutics: A Text-Book (repr., Delight, AR: Gospel Light, n.d.), 1.
  7. Matthew S. DeMoss, Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 54.
  8. Jack P. Lewis, “The Importance of Biblical Languages,” Man of God: Essays on the Life and Work of the Preacher, ed. Shawn D. Mathis (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1996). Lewis specifically addresses the difference in ability between the minister who is a student of the word in its original language, versus the minister who simply preaches and studies from an English text. The former allows ministers to be more certain of their conclusions while the latter finds ministers encumbered with exegetical limitations. Basically, Lewis affirms, “If one is to be an expositor of Scripture, then he matures in that through a life-long study of the languages of Scripture” (162). The difference spoken of here equally resonates with the members of the congregations: it’s a matter of depth of personal certainty upon which a conclusion is drawn. Otherwise, heavy reliance upon “expert” opinion can be and often is costly.
  9. I have seen flaws on both sides of the debate. On the one hand, I have seen students that know more of their English Bible demonstrated in their deep faith and devoted life than some academics caught up in their theoretical debates on hermeneutics. On the other hand, I have seen students make many egregious errors because they press a biblical passage from an English Bible beyond its intended meaning – an error that could have been relieved by appealing to a more in-depth study of the passage.
  10. DeMoss, Pocket Dictionary, 50.
  11. Richard N. Soulen and R. Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, 3d ed. (Louisville, KY: WJK, 2001), 52.
  12. Charles J. Scalise, From Scripture to Theology: A Canonical Journey into Hermeneutics (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996), 70 (emphasis added).
  13. Merrill C. Tenney, John: The Gospel of Belief – An Analytical Study of the Text (1948; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 21.