Edgework

We have demonstrated in earlier essays that both Jesus and Paul were selective in how they read the Old Testament. Another way of saying that is that they did not simply endorse Old Testament teachings but rather identified trajectories set within that narrative that pointed to more profound understandings that emerged in light of the Jesus event.

In his book, The Nonviolent God, J. Denny Weaver suggests that whether we consider the Old or New Testament, “…the narrative implies and portrays development and change. The fact that movement and change are visible within the biblical narrative itself makes it possible to identify trajectories of change” (134). It is on this basis that he can say “…that it is impossible to harmonize all views in the Bible” (135). That is not to say some parts of the biblical text are superfluous. “Only with this unexpurgated version in view do we see that there is an unfolding understanding that comes to fruition in Jesus…” (137).

Many of us can accept this dynamic in its movement from the Old to the New Testament but find it harder to accept its presence in the New Testament text itself. It seems we desperately want the New Testament to be a clear and final revelation of God that eliminates the need for wrestling. But Weaver cites two obvious cases where trajectories are at work in the New Testament; slavery and women.

Derek Flood picks up on these examples in his book, Disarming Scripture.  He says that as followers of Jesus we must recognize the redemptive trajectory set even within the New Testament. In other words he says, “…we cannot stop at the place the New Testament got to, but must recognize where it is headed” (124).

In the case of slavery, for example, Flood notes that the New Testament does not directly condemn slavery or call for it to be abolished.  It even gives some guidance for how masters and slaves are to behave. Masters are to treat their slaves well and slaves are to submit to their masters – even in the face of cruelty or oppression. American slave-holding Christians read such admonitions as “frozen in time” directives that assumed slavery to be well within the will of God for all time.

But there are some trajectories set within the New Testament that appear to lean in the direction of the abolition of slavery. In I Corinthians 7:21 Paul encourages slaves to gain their freedom if that is a possibility. In Ephesians 6:9 he admonishes masters to view God as Master of both them and their slaves and that God doesn’t show any kind of favoritism. And then in Galatians 3:28 Paul declares that in Christ there is no distinction between slave and free; in other words in Christ there is no room class distinction.

Flood suggests that such passages set a trajectory which faithful followers of Christ are called to follow to its ultimate conclusion. When American abolitionists did this in the 19th century they were accused of twisting the text to suit their own biases. The truth is that defenders of slavery had more and lengthier biblical texts in their favor, but the abolitionists had the biblical trajectory of freedom for all on their side. And there is no serious suggestion among Christians today that we should go back to endorse slavery as God’s plan for the ages as American slave holders did. By following a biblical trajectory we have all come to the conclusion that slavery is, in fact, immoral.

The same kind of argument can be made with respect to the emancipation of women. On the one hand, much of the New Testament writing reflects the patriarchal view of the first century. It was a man’s world. None of the twelve disciples of Jesus were women. Most of the apostles and church leaders were men and many passages about leadership in the home and church implicitly imply that women play a secondary, although important, role. There are even some specific instructions for women to remain silent in church and learn from their husbands at home.

But again there is a trajectory set within the terrain of the New Testament projecting a different kind of future. Contrary to tradition, Jesus was particularly welcoming to women and addressed them directly as responsible agents. A large group of women followed and supported Jesus. Paul used Priscilla as a mentor and teacher for new male, pastoral recruits (Acts 18). And in his instructions about marriage, Paul declared that husbands and wives should submit to one another out of reverence for Christ (Ephesians 5:21).

The question is whether modern readers of the New Testament will build a case on the majority of the texts which seem to imply the superiority of men over women, or whether they will follow the trajectory set in the New Testament that eventually lead to the emancipation of women.  Many have indeed followed that trajectory, something Weaver and Flood would consider an example of being faithful to the text.

When we follow trajectories set within the New Testament we are learning to differentiate between Spirit-inspired directions and the cultural assumptions of the time. When modern readers identify a trajectory within Scripture it may at first glance appear to be regressive because it has not yet been fully fleshed out. That is why it is not enough to play it “safe” by simply doing what the text says because we understand that , “…the New Testament is not a final unchangeable eternal ethic, but rather the ‘first major concrete steps’ from the dominant religious and political narrative…towards a better way rooted in compassion” (127).

Flood summarizes this topic by saying, “In the end, it comes down to reading the Bible like grown-ups – fully engaging our intelligence and approaching the text as morally responsible readers. That may not be ‘safe’ or easy, but it is most certainly good” (148).