|
|
|---|
|
Rule 3. We may not ascribe statements or assertions to
a biblical author which lie outside his intended scope.
“The sacred books need not exclude any of
the forms of expression which were commonly used in human speech by the ancient
peoples, especially of the East, to convey their meaning. Such forms are only
then excluded when they would be incompatible with God’s sanctity and
truth”.
Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu, Denz. 2294
(3829-3830).
We explain this rule at the hand of the following famous examples:
- half affirmations and opinions
- doubts in Kohelet's mind
- image and teaching in the creation stories
- the intended scope of Jesus' words and
deeds
- the intended scope of the ‘household
codes’
Half affirmations and
opinions
Diplomats usually possess an uncanny mastery over speech. In fact, they owe
their very name to this quality of careful, if not ambiguous, expression! Have
you ever reflected on the infinite variety of affirmation that is at your
disposal? Discussing the United Kingdom’s acceptance or rejection of the
European currency, British politicians may make remarks as the following:
“Britain will surely enter the European currency !”
“What !
a European currency without Britain”!?
“Britain’s staying
out of the Euro is highly improbable. ”
“Britain may, perhaps,
join the European currency.”
“Britain might very well join the
European currency.”
“It is not excluded that Britain might enter
the common currency.”
“I do not know if Britain will ever become
member of the European currency.”
“Doubts can be raised as to
Britain’s eventual entry into the European currency.”
“It
seems unlikely that Britain will ever take part in the European currency.”
“It’s my opinion that Britain will never join the European
currency”.
It
should be noted how such statements contain much more than simple affirmations
or negations. They express a whole range of assertion: from absolute certainty
down to probability or opinion.
What
happens if such statements are inspired? Could God inspire a probable
statement, a doubtful remark or a mere opinion ? The answer is: yes. And:
God affirms no more nor less than what is affirmed by the human authors. In
other words: if the human author asserts a doubtful statement, God’s
inspiration will not change the nature of the assertion. It will remain an
inspired, yet doubtful remark! It is Saint Paul who provides us with a
classical proof. Speaking with great indignation he says to the Corinthians:
“Or were you baptized in the name of Paul ?
A. I am thankful that I
baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius! Lest anyone should say that you
were baptized in my name.
B. I did baptize also the household of
Stephanas.
C. Beyond that I do not know whether I baptized anyone else."
1 Cor. 1/13-16.
We
can follow Paul’s thought. With some vehemence he states that he baptized
no one except Crispus and Gaius (statement A). It then comes to his mind that
he also baptized Stephanas’ family (statement B). He ends up expressing
his mind as in doubt: “I do not know whether I baptized anyone else”
(statement C). It is a really human way of speaking. All three statements have
to be read together, since the second and third correct the first one.
Moreover, the sum total of the three statements remains a doubt. Does the fact
of the text’s inspiration change this human aspect ! Does it make a dogma
of each of these statements? Does it turn the doubt into a certainly? Of course
it doesn’t! Paul’s basic affirmation that it does not matter how many
people he baptized, because the important thing is that they were all baptized
in Jesus’s name: this basic affirmation with all nuances is what he
actually asserted by the Holy Spirit!
Doubts in Kohelet's mind
The
author of Kohelet wrestles with a real problem: What is the purpose of life ?
What gain has a man from all the toil and strain with which he toils beneath
the sun ? (Koh. 2,22). It is a theme repeated over and over again by the
author. Life stands before him as one great question mark: “Who knows what
is good for a man while he lives the few days of his vain life, which he passes
like a shadow?” (Koh. 6/12). He even raises questions about life after
death: “For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of the beasts is the
same; as one dies, so dies the other, They all have the same breath, and man
has no advantage over the beasts; for all is vanity. All go to one place: all
are from the dust and all turn to dust again. Who knows whether the spirit of
man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down to the earth?” (Koh.
3/19-21). The author does not succeed in finding a complete answer to his
question. He affirms faith in God who will punish the wicked and reward the
good (Koh 8/12; 12/1; etc), but his problem as to the ultimate purpose of this
hard life of man remains!
What
to make of this inspired book ? The answer is simple. God inspired a
philosopher, a thinker, not to make statements but to raise questions. It
was his task to make his contemporaries think, to make them realize that indeed
suffering and death are -humanly speaking-insoluble riddles. It was only the
revelation and redemption brought by Jesus Christ that would provide God’s
solution to these problems. Here again inspiration followed the nature of the
book inspired: the author meant to put his finger on a problem without
providing a full solution. God inspired him to do precisely that much and
nothing more.
Image and teaching in the Creation
stories
In
Gen. 1,1 - 2,4a we read about the creation of the world. The author presents us
with a very schematic picture of six days. In the course of these six days God
is narrated to have created all things according to the scientific picture of
the universe entertained at that time: a flat earth with the dome of the sky as
roof and the sun and the moon as lamps ! What did the inspired author want to
affirm ? Was he teaching science ? Did he mean us to take the six-day scheme
literally ? An analysis of the text makes clear that he only wanted to
instruct us in the truths of faith, that God created everything, that he made
all things beautiful, that he crowned human beings as kings and queens of the
universe, that he wants people to worship him every seventh day. This the
author wanted to affirm, and this it is, too, that God wants us to know and
believe! Astronomy, science or biology were outside his scope.
Take
the so-called contradictions in scripture! They certainly do exist, but not
between assertions or affirmations affecting the teaching. Contradictions will
be found to adhere to the accidental trappings under which the affirmation lies
hidden. Gen. 1,20-28 (in the first creation story) recounts human creation as
the last crowning feature of God’s creative work. Gen. 2,7 (in the second
creation story) makes God begin with human beings. The contradiction concerns
the image used, not the fundamental affirmation intended in both passages. that
human beings rank highest among all creatures made by God
The intended scope of Jesus' words and
deeds
In the
parable of the Good Samaritan Jesus states: “A man went down from
Jerusalem to Jericho ..." (Lk. 10/30).
What
does Jesus want to affirm? Surely the need of fraternal charity (“do you
likewise”, vs. 37!), and not the actual occurrence of the
incident!
Jesus
says: “The Son of Man has no stone to lay his head on” (Matthew
8,19).
Was
Jesus interested in teaching us about stones? Did he mean that he literally
could not find nor buy a stone to lay his head on? In fact, we know from St.
John’s Gospel that Jesus possessed a small fund of money (Jn. 13,29). What
Jesus wanted to affirm was, consequently, his complete detachment from earthly
possessions.
Jesus
stated: “ Do not call yourself ‘teacher’, for you have one
Teacher and you are all brothers and sisters. Call no man ‘father’ on
earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven” (Matthew 23,8-9).
Does Jesus really forbid these titles? What did he have in mind?
“I tell you, do not take any oaths . . . . Let what you say be simply
‘Yes’ or ‘No’.” (Matthew 5,33-37.
Does Jesus ban the taking of sworn statements in court? Was that his real
intention? Notice, Jesus himself speaks under oath in Matthew
26,63-64.
“Do not offer resistance to violence. If someone strikes you on the right
cheek, turn to him the other too” (Matthew 5,38-41).
Does Jesus veto self defence? Does he prohibit a state to have police, or
an army? What did he want to say? Note how Jesus himself protests when he is
struck on the cheek (John 18,22-23). Read also Romans
13,4.
Let
us proceed further by studying another text. Jesus, we are told, prayed for a
whole night. Then he called certain people to himself, ‘those whom he
wanted’. They were the twelve apostles, chosen to help him announce the
Kingdom of God.
“These are their names: first Simon who is called Peter, and his brother
Andrew; James the son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew;
Thomas, and Matthew the tax collector; James, the son of Alphaeus, and
Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot” (Matthew 10,1-4; Mark
3,16-19; Luke 6,13-16).
These
were twelve men. There was not a single woman among them! On other occasions,
the Congregation for Doctrine argues, Jesus showed great sensitivity to women.
‘More than once he broke with social custom in their regard. But not here.
He refused to take even one woman into the apostolic team. It proves that Jesus
did not want women to become leaders in his Church! By deliberately not
selecting even one woman, he excluded women from priestly ordination for all
time to come’.
The
argument fails because it goes beyond the intended scope of Jesus' action.
- For all twelve apostles were Jews; there was not a single non-Jew
among them. But does it then follow that Jesus wanted only Jews as bishops and
priests?
- Also, all twelve apostles were free persons; not one among them had
been born in slavery. Would that exclude former slaves from ordination?
- Why then would his choice of men rather than women be a deliberate
exclusion?
The truth is that Jesus chose twelve free, Jewish men because in the social
conditions of his time that was the most practical thing for him to do. Jesus
had only a limited scope: to begin the recruitment of future leaders. In no way
did he intend to decide for future generations that certain categories of
people should be excluded from leadership. That was clearly outside the scope
of his action at that moment.
The intended scope of the
‘household codes’
The
same applies to what the New Testament says in the socalled household
code passages. They suggest how people in different conditions of life
should behave. Here is one typical extract:
“WIVES, be subject to your husbands, as is proper in the Lord.
HUSBANDS, love your wives. Do not treat them harshly . . .
SLAVES, obey
your earthly masters in everything; not only when you are under their
supervision, as if you only had to please human beings, but with sincerity, out
of respect for the Master. Whatever your job is, put your whole heart into it,
as a service to the Lord and not for human beings. For you know that the Lord
will repay you by making you his heirs. It is Christ the Lord that you are
serving . . . .
MASTERS, treat your slaves justly and fairly. Realise that
you too have a Master in heaven”.
Colossians 3,18 - 4,1; see also Ephesians 5,22 -
6,9; 1 Peter 2,18 - 3,7; 1 Timothy 6,1-2.
The
scope of such passages is, obviously, to encourage Christian households to live
together in harmony. Christian leaders probably copied the practice of having
such lists of instructions from the Jews, who used to instruct proselytes in
similar ways. The specific form the suggestions take derive partly from
a new Christian perspective and partly from the standard expectations of
society at the time. The intention is to guide Christian families within the
specific situation of the time.
D.DAUBE, The
New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, London 1956, pp. 90-140, 336-351;
D.SCHROEDER, Die Haustafeln des Neuen Testaments, Hamburg 1959;
J.E.CROUCH, The Origin and Intention of the Colossian Haustafel,
Göttingen 1972; W.LILLIE, ‘The Pauline House-tables’, The
Expository Times 86 (1975) pp. 179-183.
And that is also their limitation. For the catechists who taught these
household codes did not address such fundamental questions as the basic
equality of men and women, or the inalienable right of every slave to be a free
person. That was simply outside their scope. Such basic matters are touched
upon elsewhere, when Paul asserts that there is no distinction between men and
women, free person or slave, Greek or Jew (Galatians 3,28; Colossians 3,11;
Romans 10,12). Here the purpose is simply immediate, practical advice.
It
is, therefore, entirely mistaken to claim that these household texts give
inspired backing to slavery or to the subjection of women to men. But this is
precisely how they have been used by theologians in the past, and how they are
still being used by some fundamentalist Christians today. The mistake lies in
imputing an intention to the inspired authors which they did not have.
Costly mistakes have been made by people who read Scripture superficially; who
believe it is the sound of the words and not the intention of the speaker that
matters; or who infer an intention into a text that was outside the scope of
the biblical author.
The rule of the intended scope is closely related to the other
rules:
- the rule of literary forms;
- the rule of the “literal”
sense;
- the rule of rationalization.
John Wijngaards
Join our Women Priests' Mailing List
for occasional newsletters:
An email will be immediately sent to you
requesting your confirmation.
Please bookmark us & tell your friends about our website
Stumble
Reddit
Squidoo
Facebook
Del.icio.us
Digg
Slashdot
Fark
Furl
Newsvine
Magnolia
BlinkList
Spurl
Simpy
Do not forget to say a good word about us on your blog
Put a link to us on your own website
Make our website one of your favourites
Google
MyYahoo
Live
Ask
Netscape
Please, credit this document
as published by www.womenpriests.org!
