Institute for Christian Teaching

BIBLICAL AUTHORITY & BIBLICAL FOUNDATIONS

FOR ETHICS

Ron du Preez

2^nd Symposium on the Bible and Adventist Scholarship

Juan Dolio, Dominican Republic

March 15-20, 2004

Biblical Authority & Biblical Foundations for Ethics

by Ron du Preez, ThD, DMin

Senior Pastor, Michigan Conference

Introduction¹

In their 2003 book on ethics,² Glen Stassen and David Gushee note that “the issue of authority, in particular biblical authority, is a recurring question in church life and in Christian ethics.”³ Reflecting on how Christians actually make decisions, Stassen and Gushee indicate that during the Holocaust some Christians went primarily to the Bible for direction as to how to treat Jews in need; frequently, such persons also prayed for direct divine guidance; others turned inward to a religiously informed conscience; many looked to the moral tradition of their churches; while others turned to current church leaders for counsel. “These five sources of authority, in some mix . . . can be seen as the most distinctively Christian sources of authority.”⁴

In line with the above observation, Old Testament theologian Walter Kaiser recognized that the “traditional link between the Bible and Christian ethics has been seriously challenged” and even flatly repudiated during the 20^th century.⁵ For example, Reinhold Niebuhr alleged that any use of the Bible as an authority in ethics was to make the Scriptures “a vehicle of sinful sanctification of relative standards of knowledge.”⁶ About three decades later, in a so-called “magisterial article on Scripture and ethics,”⁷ James Gustafson proposed a “looser use of Scripture,” and categorically claimed that “Scripture alone is never the final court of appeal for Christian ethics.”⁸ Taking that notion a bit further, Lisa Cahill suggested “that Scripture and other sources, such as tradition, experience, the empirical sciences, and philosophy, are not even fully distinguishable from one another.”⁹ Christopher Marshall concurred that, “while the five components may be conceptually distinguished, they are in practice inseparable,” and are “intertwined.¹⁰” Indeed, Richard Jones concluded that “in practice nobody actually uses the Bible alone as the sole authority, even if they claim that they are relying upon scripture alone.”¹¹

Other scholars, like Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, allege that the Bible’s message has “multivalent and often contradictory meanings.”¹² Similarly, Philip Wogaman maintained that the biblical legacy contains a “variety of ethical perspectives” which stand in tension with one another, such as “grace versus law,” and “love versus force.”¹³ Thus, charging that there is no consistent ethical message to be found in the Bible,¹⁴ it is deduced that the Scriptures “can never function as the final authority for today’s ethical issues.”¹⁵

This allegation of the so-called “moral diversity” of the Bible,¹⁶ is often coupled with the argument about the supposed unbridgeable gap between the biblical world and our postmodern society. As Jack Sanders concluded:

The ethical positions of the New Testament are the children of their own times and places, alien and foreign to this day and age. Amidst the ethical dilemmas which confront us, we are now at least relieved of the need or temptation to begin with Jesus, or the early church, or the New Testament, if we wish to develop coherent ethical positions. We are freed from bondage to that tradition.¹⁷

In view of challenges such as these, it is hardly surprising that voices are being raised “questioning whether the Bible can be regarded as a meaningful authority for the moral life.”¹⁸ This minimizing of the relevance of the message of Scripture can be observed from the very manner in which various respected scholars have related to the Bible. In a recent book, Scripture and Ethics, Jeffrey Siker sought to analyze how the Bible has actually been used for ethics by eight selected Christian thinkers: Reinhold Niebuhr, H. Richard Niebuhr, Bernard Haring, Paul Ramsey, Stanley Hauerwas, Gustavo Gutierrez, James Cone, and Rosemary Radford Ruether.¹⁹ According to one reviewer, Siker’s study suggests that, “for none of the writers did the Bible have any effective ‘authority’.”²⁰

Interestingly, it was another Old Testament theologian, Gerhard Hasel, who sketched out “the roots of the eclipse of authority” of Scripture. He noted that three revolutions in western thought have left an indelible mark on culture, society, and theology. First, in the field of natural science, the Copernican revolution “made a lasting impact not only on science but also on the understanding and authority of the Bible.”²¹ This new view contended that “science is no longer informed by Scripture, but Scripture is now to be interpreted by means of the conclusions of science.”²² This meant that, as Edgar Krentz put it, “the Bible’s authority was diminished.”²³ A second revolution was in the field of history. A new procedure for the study of history was formulated, which understands history as a closed continuum of an unbroken series of causes and effects. This historical critical method purports, as Rudolph Bultmann noted, “that the continuum of historical happenings cannot be rent by the interference of supernatural, transcendent powers.”²⁴ In short, the Bible must be seen simply as any other ancient literature, and cannot be regarded as supernaturally inspired, an aspect fundamental to the question of its nature and its authority.²⁵ The third major movement involved in the crisis of the authority of Scripture is the revolution in philosophy, centering largely in Immanuel Kant. His critique led to the collapse of the traditional arguments for the existence of God, which precipitated the developments of arguments for God’s existence on the basis of practical reason.²⁶ As a consequence, from this time on, “theology has become anthropology.”²⁷ Acknowledging this “demise of authority,” J. I. Packer suggests the need for a “strategy for restoring the authority of Christian faith and morals,”²⁸ a task we will now set out to consider.

The Issue of Biblical Authority

The new Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines authority as “a power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior.”²⁹ However, since the term authority is related to the word author, “one that originates or creates,” it also suggests a personal relationship.³⁰ Thus, the one who creates has the right to command proper conduct, as much as an automobile manufacturer has the right to make a manual for correct car maintenance.

Though made in the context of a discussion of the role of governing powers, Paul’s divinely-inspired statement has crucial implications, when considered from a broad, principled perspective: “For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God” (Rom 13:1 NKJV).³¹

The Divine Inspiration of Scripture

Based on key passages, such as 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:19-21, the Judeo-Christian heritage has consistently affirmed that Yahweh, the Creator, has disclosed Himself in revelation.³² “This revelation is inscribed by inspiration in the Bible,”³³ where God has revealed Himself in the propositions of Scripture. The term “inspiration” means that in both its conception and its content the Bible is recognized as coming from God. As such, the authority of Scripture for ethics is “rooted in its being divinely inspired.”³⁴ Talking about “God's inspired word,” Ellen White notes that, “here is divine authority.”³⁵ It is the “word of the living God that is to decide all controversies.”³⁶ “This sacred book, inspired by God, and written by holy men, is a perfect guide under all circumstances of life.”³⁷

In practical terms, God’s Word provides guidance for life’s decisions, as a “lamp on my path” (Ps 119:105 CJB). Or, as Paul noted to Timothy: “All Scripture is given by God and is useful” for “showing people what is wrong in their lives,” and “for teaching how to live right” (2 Tim 3:16, 17 NCV). Ellen White concurred: “The Bible presents a perfect standard of character.“³⁸ It is “the great standard of right and wrong, clearly defining sin and holiness,”³⁹ the “standard of every practice,”⁴⁰ that is, “the correct standard of right and wrong and of moral practice.”⁴¹

Jesus and the Sources of Authority

The New Testament reveals that though Jesus made use of various sources, He accepted the Bible of His day, the Old Testament, as an undisputed authority (see Matt 5:17-19; Luke 10:25-28; 16:19-31).⁴² In His lifestyle, His teaching and His preaching, He repeatedly appealed to the Scriptures, quoting, alluding to, or showing the impact of every aspect of His Bible. Jesus immersed Himself in the Word, knew it well, and lived what it taught.⁴³ He stated that, “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a letter in the law to be dropped” (Luke 16:17 NRSV). For Jesus, “the Scriptures are thoroughly authoritative for our ethics.”⁴⁴

The discussions that Jesus had with thought leaders of His day, regarding certain religious traditions, make the centrality and authority of the Scriptures even more strikingly clear. In an incident recorded in Mark 7:1-23, He juxtaposed “human tradition” – the carefully developed “tradition of the elders” – over against the Scriptures, rejecting the former in favor of the later when they conflict. He referred to Scripture as the ”commandment of God” (Mark 7:8 NKJV), and the “word of God” (Mark 7:13), and their practices as the “traditions of men” (Mark 7:8). On scriptural authority Jesus rejected their anti-biblical tradition.

Clearly, Jesus did utilize other “general” sources. For example, the Sermon on the Mount, as well as numerous parables, show His generous use of reasoning from human experience, and observed facts of nature (see Matt 6:26, 28; etc.). He was deeply moved by the evidences of God’s providential design and care. But, His life shows that He was focused on the centrality of Scripture. Therefore, “if Christian ethics is following Jesus, we have little choice but to follow his lead on this point, to affirm along with him the supremacy of Scripture as the central authoritative source for Christian ethics.”⁴⁵

Issues in the Interpretation of Scripture for Ethics

Even when the above concept – that Scripture is a God-inspired guide – is embraced, the matter of biblical authority is still an issue. Put simply, the problem is as follows: “If the Bible when interpreted in one way gave a quite different impression from the Bible when interpreted in another way, then the Bible in itself could hardly be taken as a decisive authority.”⁴⁶ Paul Jersild notes that “there is in fact no reference to the message of Scripture, whether theological or ethical, that does not involve interpretation.”⁴⁷ As Hasel astutely observes: “The crisis of the authority of the Bible is thus very much a matter of how it is interpreted.”⁴⁸

From his analysis of the various writers who have grappled “with how and in just what way the Bible is normative for Christians,” Walter Kaiser has identified the following six hermeneutical stances:⁴⁹

1. The Bible Used as a General Orientation to Ethical Issues. Scripture alone is not sufficient, and can supply only a basic orientation towards particular decisions, made mainly by the community (especially the church).⁵⁰

2. The Bible Used in Multiple Variations. Pluralism is the preferred approach here. There is no one right way – that is the only “right” conclusion.⁵¹

3. The Bible Used as a Source of Images. Put simply, one cannot expect to find biblical solutions to contemporary problems. However, one can see how Bible writers approached the problems of their day.⁵²

4. The Bible Used as a Witness to God’s Will. But how does one know what God’s will is? This method suggests that we are presented with a wide range of alternatives from the text, and many approaches to an issue, resulting in considerable pluralism.⁵³

5. The Bible Used as One Source Among Many. Since the Bible writers were not confronted with many of the current moral problems, the Scriptures are not the sole source of ethical wisdom. Guidance may come from other human sources.⁵⁴

6. The Bible Used as a Shaper of Moral Identity. Here the Bible’s use in decision-making and action is not as significant or helpful as it is in character formation; however, it can and ought to be a major force in molding dispositions and intentions.⁵⁵

In summary, Kaiser concludes that for all of these hermeneutical stances, “Scripture is not viewed as supplying the content (whether propositional or conceptual) for ethical character or decision making.”⁵⁶ While “each of the solutions contains some aspects of the truth,” none of them will work!⁵⁷ Instead, Kaiser lays down the challenge, that, “somehow and in someway Christian ethicists are going to need to grapple with the ethical and moral materials of the Bible (in all their genre) seriously and exegetically in detail,” in order to discover the connection between the Bible and ethics.⁵⁸

Biblical Foundations⁵⁹ for Ethics

There is no way to minimize the reality that, as Christopher Marshall notes, “every claim to understand the Bible presupposes finite human interpretation, and every interpretation is invariably conditioned by a wide range of (extra-biblical) personal and contextual factors.” ⁶⁰ As Paul Jersild notes:

As Christians we bring our moral and social issues to Scripture, together with deeply held convictions about them that have been shaped by a variety of influences from within the culture, including the ethos of our churches. From within this context we then draw our conclusions as to how the message of Scripture should be understood and applied. . . . What we receive from it [i.e., the Bible] reflects the cultural orientation and the questions and concerns – the particular agenda – that we bring to it.⁶¹

Increasingly, modern scholars acknowledge that all approach the Bible with certain preunderstandings, presuppositions, and biases.⁶² Nevertheless, every interpreter must seek to be as objective as possible, to “make a conscious effort in the study of any passage to become more and more aware of his own pre-understanding and presuppositions and seek to control as much as possible his own biases.”⁶³ Furthermore, as Richard Davidson notes, “Interpreters must make a decision that their preunderstandings will derive from and be under the control of the Bible, constantly open to modification and enlargement of their ideas on the basis of Scripture.”⁶⁴ Christians who believe the promises of the Bible can ask and trust that God will transform their minds so that they increasingly adopt and incorporate the presuppositions of Scripture rather than depending on their own biases (see Rom 12:1-2).⁶⁵ Jesus Christ personally promised the Spirit of Truth to His disciples as well as to all His followers: “When He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13 NKJV). Through the study of the Bible and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, God Himself “creates in the interpreter the necessary presuppositions and the essential perspective for the understanding of Scripture.”⁶⁶ In brief, through the power of the Spirit (John 16:7-9, 13-16), and the sanctifying of the written word (John 17:17), we can overcome relativistic subjectivism, and discern the objective truths of Scripture, as God intended for us His children.

Proposals for the Use of Scripture for Ethics

Even a cursory perusal of the Bible will show that “God did not send us a theology or ethics text but a compendium of letters, poetry, visions, discourses, prayers, and laments.”⁶⁷ While ethics “is the central theme or dominant interest of a number of the books,”⁶⁸ there is an “immense variety of biblical literature which might be pertinent to ethical concerns.”⁶⁹ These include commands, laws, warnings, exhortations, prohibitions, vice and virtue lists, wisdom sayings, proverbs, allegories, narratives, living examples, dialogues,⁷⁰ prophetic oracles, historical events, eschatological information, liturgical material,⁷¹ counsel, pastoral admonitions, prescriptions, and the call to imitate Christ.⁷²

Paul Jersild has suggested that, while not exhaustive, most of the Bible’s ethical message can be classified under the following four basic concepts: (1) Laws or Commandments; (2) Paradigms or Models of conduct; (3) Principles or Ideals; and (4) Exhortations and Imperatives.⁷³ Recognizing these essential types of ethical material, and in an effort to provide an overall structure for factors such as ethical reflection, moral behavior, and character formation, scholars have proposed various models for as to how to actually engage in biblical ethics.⁷⁴

1. A Reference-Manual View⁷⁵

First, the Bible has been viewed as a direct guide to moral living – a book of rules, an instruction manual, or a reference book. Here, the Bible is sometimes seen as not merely providing principles, but rather as a work that embraces the particularities of life, furnishing specific guidelines for ethical decisions.⁷⁶ Over time, some scholars, adopting a more carefully crafted view, have concluded that these rules “belong to one or more moral principles from which they are derived and to which they apply.”⁷⁷ This nuanced approach accords well with the properly-prioritized perspective of Jesus, when He said: “You should have practiced the latter [justice, mercy, and faithfulness], without neglecting the former [returning a tithe on the mint, dill and cummin]” (Matt 23:23).

2. A Principles-Only Approach

A second model places all the emphasis on the universal principles which can be found in Scripture. The interpreter must look beneath the regulations in order to discern the universal principles which presumably gave rise to such legislation, and after discovering them, apply those same principles to present-day issues. While of value, this approach stakes too much on the skill of individual interpreters, without adequately identifying the essential intra-scriptural hermeneutical guidelines needed to safeguard the process of discerning universal principles. Unless done aright, the interpreter may be misled by relying on the “basic principles of this world rather than on Christ” (Col 2:8).

3. A Personal-Encounter Emphasis

A third approach places all the stress on God’s free encounter through His Spirit with a person as that individual reads Scripture. In other words, the Bible does not present general moral principles or even rules of action; but, the Christian is to act in response to the personal command of God. While it is vital for the believer to remain open to the voice of God, especially as He speaks through His Spirit (see Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 29; etc.), the question arises: How is one to specifically hear the “command of God,” and how does one know that it is God’s command and not that of another voice?

4. A Contextual-Love Model

A fourth method, rejecting the so-called “legalism” of those who utilize rules and/or principles, and the “subjectivism” of the encounter approach, maintains that “whatever is the most loving thing in the situation is the right and good thing” to do.⁷⁸ No action is morally wrong: Adultery, blasphemy, even prostitution are right and good,⁷⁹ as long as it is the “most loving” thing in that particular context or situation. While serving as a helpful reminder of the importance of showing genuine love for people (see John 13:34; 15:13; etc.), this method should be avoided due to its distortion of Scripture. “Love is the fulfilment of the law” (Rom 13:10), and not the denial or rejection of it.⁸⁰

5. A Response-Imitation Method

Fifth, the Christian moral life should be understood as one of response and imitation; not an imitation of the externals of Jesus’ ministry, but rather a transformation of the heart (see 2 Cor 3:18; Phil 2:5; 2 Pet 3:18, etc.). This process requires daily communion with God through prayer and a regular Spirit-directed study of Scripture to lead one in the contemplation of God and His goodness. Thus, when confronted with difficult issues, the Christian response comes “super”-naturally (as a “fruit of the Spirit”), because quality time has been spent with God, learning what He values and what pleases Him, and what compassionate action would be morally appropriate in any given situation.

In short, to varying degrees, each of the above models provides valuable insights or perspectives into how to approach the study of ethics in Scripture.⁸¹ Now that we have surveyed basic approaches proposed for the use of Scripture for ethics some indispensable factors for reliably interpreting the moral material of the Bible need to be considered.

The Sevenfold Task of Interpreting Biblical Ethics⁸²

To explore and understand the moral themes of the Bible the interpreter must engage in various overlapping and integrated critical operations. These undertakings can be identified through an examination of the life and teachings of Jesus. In addition to His personal example and His explicit exhortations regarding prayer, practical guidance for extracting ethics from Scripture can be learned from various encounters Jesus had, one of which specifically dealt with matters of morality (see Luke 10:25-37; 24:25-47). An integration of the essential methods used by Jesus on these occasions brings to light a vital sevenfold task incumbent on every interpreter of the Word.⁸³

1. Supplication – The Submissive Task

Jesus’ words and works show the indispensability of prayer (see Mark 6:46; 14:38; Luke 5:16; 6:12; 9:28; 18:1; etc.). As Ellen White cautioned: “Never should the Bible be studied without prayer . . . . for the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit”⁸⁴ (see also Matt 7:7; John 16:13; James 1:5; etc.); for, “without the guidance of the Holy Spirit we shall be continually liable to wrest the Scriptures or to misinterpret them.”⁸⁵ Interpreters must thus be submissive to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in order to have their thoughts and lives shaped by the Word.⁸⁶ This is Stage One – supplication, where the interpreter humbly seeks for divine guidance in the study of the Bible. This submissive task responds to the vital question: “What does the Holy Spirit desire to teach us?”

2. Revelation – The Foundational Task

As Jesus walked with two disciples on the road to Emmaus, He could simply have revealed His wounds in order to convince them as to who He really was. “But Jesus determined that their faith not be based primarily upon physical phenomena but rather on the testimony of the Scriptures.”⁸⁷ Thus, only after they were convinced by the written Word concerning the mission of the Messiah, did Jesus disclose His identity by revealing His wounds, in the breaking of the bread (see Luke 24:25-31). In a similar manner, during His earlier ministry Jesus repeatedly referred to the written word of God as the basis for life, and the foundation of His work (see Matt 4:4, 7, 10; 12:1-7; etc.). This emphasis on the Scriptures as the fundamental authority in the life of the believer, forms Stage Two – revelation. Thus, the foundational task of the Bible student is to inquire: “What does the written Word of God say?”

3. Observation – The Exegetical Task

When Jesus was first approached by “an expert in the [biblical] Law” with a question, He responded with a counter-question, “What is written in the Law?” (Luke 10:26). Beyond simply referring to the Old Testament writings, Jesus at times put emphasis upon the meaning of a single word (e.g., John 10:34),⁸⁸ and thus took great care to faithfully represent the meaning of crucial terms found in these sacred writings. Since biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek are no longer living languages, it is vital for the modern interpreter to “engage in careful study of crucial words in the passage under consideration.”⁸⁹ Thus, Stage Three, observation, calls for reading the text carefully. This exegetical task answers the query: “What does the specific passage actually say?”

4. Identification – The Christological Task

On the way to Emmaus, Jesus “explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). Later, in speaking with the eleven disciples, Jesus essentially repeated this point about the focus of Scripture, by saying, “‘When I was with you before, I told you that everything written about me by Moses and the prophets and in the Psalms must all come true’” (Luke 24:44 NLT). Or as He stated so unequivocally: “These are the Scriptures that testify about me” (John 5:39). In other words, “The Bible is not flat; Christ is its peak and its center. No moral issue should be addressed apart from consideration of the meaning of Jesus Christ for reflection on that issue.”⁹⁰ This attention to Jesus Christ forms Stage Four – identification. This christological task asks the vital query: “What does this text teach about Jesus?”

5. Synthesization – The Integrative Task

This reading of the text, however, must not be done in isolation from the rest of Holy Writ. In fact, the importance of seeing passages within their larger canonical context is emphasized by Jesus on His trip to Emmaus. Here Jesus “explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (Luke 24:27; cf. 24:44). This expanded reflection upon Scripture forms Stage Five – synthesization. By placing individual texts within their broader canonical context, the interpreter can find coherence in the moral vision of Scripture. This integrative task answers the query: “What do the Scriptures as a whole say?”

6. Interpretation – The Theological Task

Returning to Jesus’ encounter with the expert in the law, we find Him asking, “How do you read it [i.e., the Law]?” (Luke 10:26). A careful reading of this interview indicates that this second question of Jesus was not merely a restatement of His first query, “What is written in the Law?” In the immediate and broader usage of the phrase “have you not read?” (see Matt 12:3, 5; 19:4; 21:16, 42; etc.), it becomes apparent that this question deals with more than simply enunciating words – it deals with meaning. As the New English Translation puts it: “How do you understand it?”⁹¹ This need for proper understanding of Scripture is what Jesus sought to provide His disciples on His resurrection day, when “He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures” (Luke 24:45 NKJV). Stage Six – interpretation – thus has to do with understanding the passage for personal reflection.⁹² This theological task answers the basic question: “What does this text mean for us?”

7. Application – The Pragmatic Task

Finally, after the expert in the Law had appropriately responded by quoting two pivotal passages, Jesus challenged him, “Do this and you will live” (Luke 10:28). After telling the story of the Good Samaritan, Jesus essentially repeated this charge, saying, “Go and do likewise” (Luke 10:37). Stage seven, and most vital for morality, thus deals with application. This pragmatic task, that has to do with living out the Word in concrete everyday life, responds to the essential question: “What then shall we do?”

Naturally then, the ultimate concern of the faithful, committed Bible-believer would be: How is one to determine what the divinely-directed universal absolute moral requirements are? To this matter we will now turn our attention.

Intra-Scriptural Guidelines to Differentiate Laws

Since the Bible is crucial for Christian ethics, scholars have examined the use of Scripture in ethics.⁹³ Yet, David Clark and Robert Rakestraw note a disturbing trend:

The emerging consensus among many scholars gives decreasing legitimacy to the prescriptive uses of Scripture and places increasing emphasis on the descriptive nature of biblical ethics. . . . Most devalue prescriptive portions of Scripture such as specific moral rules and commands. Many refuse even to use the Bible as a source of general moral principles.

Most contemporary ethicists outside the conservative Christian tradition propose an illustrative rather than a normative use of Scripture. In this view, the Bible does not prescribe moral absolutes for godly conduct.⁹⁴

The newer narrative/virtue-oriented ethics is usually presented as an alternative to the conventional duty-based or results-focused ethical approaches.⁹⁵

While a few conservative scholars have produced ethics texts showing that the Bible does communicate prescriptive absolute moral laws,⁹⁶ “‘talk about divine moral commands is extremely unpopular,’”⁹⁷ as Richard Mouw observes. There could be many reasons for this, besides the fact that many do not accept the Bible as authoritative for their lives. For one, humans do not like being told what to do, by anyone including God.⁹⁸ Also, some avoid absolutes for fear of “legalism,”⁹⁹ or due to the alleged conflict between the “spirit” and the “letter” of the law.¹⁰⁰ Then, even some theologians do not feel “that it is possible or legitimate to identify universal moral absolutes in Scripture.”¹⁰¹

For the sincere Bible-believer, however, there are sufficient reasons for which to continue to believe in universal moral absolutes. One reason is that Christian morality is based on the unchanging nature of God (e.g., Mal 3:6; 1 Pet 1:15, 16). Moreover, since humankind is sinful by nature, there is a need for absolutes in order to live together in some sort of harmony; for without any absolutes, there would eventually be anarchy.¹⁰²

Yet, the astute Bible reader will soon see that there are many biblical regulations which different Christian communities, to varying degrees, no longer keep. In fact, sincere believers have at times become confused when reading the specific commands of Scripture. For example, on reading his Bible a new believer came across the matter of circumcision (see Gen 17:10; Exod 12:48; Lev 12:3; etc.), and was wondering whether this practice was still mandatory. Then, there was the church board that voted to purchase hats for women who showed up at church without any head-coverings (see 1 Cor 11:5-7). And what about the regulation that states: “Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material” (Lev 19:19)?¹⁰³ While one of the most common ways of dealing with this problem “was to make a distinction between the civil, ceremonial, and moral law of God in the Old Testament,”¹⁰⁴ this method is not adequate for the plethora of regulations in both Old and New Testaments. The question thus arises: Are there any intra-scriptural guidelines to aid the interpreter in the task of discerning which regulations are cultural practices, and thus no longer binding, and which are clearly transcultural absolute norms, that are still required of all believers? Several proposals will now be outlined to facilitate this process of interpretation.¹⁰⁵

Proposals for Discerning Transcultural Absolutes

1. Reflection of the Moral Nature of God

Universal moral absolutes can be identified by their basis in the moral nature of the Creator. For example, the Ten Commandments have an obvious connection with God’s own nature. Since He is the only true and living God, who created humanity, He alone is to be worshiped, His name reverenced, and His day of rest hallowed (Exod 20:1-11). Because He is the Giver of human life, humans are forbidden to take it (vs. 13).¹⁰⁶ God is truth; therefore His image-bearers must emulate this character trait (vs. 16); and so forth. Since the Decalogue is so fundamentally part of God’s nature it is not surprising to find it repeated so often throughout Scripture. Because God does not change, the universal moral norms that are grounded in His nature will transcend time and culture.¹⁰⁷

2. Grounded in an Overarching Biblical Theology

The interpreter must observe the morality and theology that undergirds each law,¹⁰⁸ as a means of determining its permanence. This would include noting the immediate and larger contexts, the explicit reasons given for the legislation, the direct or indirect references to earlier teaching, comparisons with similar legislation, as well as the principle of legitimate inference. Take for example, the issue of the intentional abortion of a human fetus, which is never explicitly addressed in Scripture. Moral perspectives, however, can be extracted from the study of civil laws given to the Israelite theocracy, in which the unborn was accorded the status of a living person (see Exod 21:22-25).¹⁰⁹ Legitimate inferences can also be drawn from the interchangeable terms used for pre- and post-natal human life (e.g., Luke 1:41; cf. 2:12),¹¹⁰ from the concern shown for the vulnerable (e.g., Deut 24:17; Ps 10:14-18; Isa 1:17), and from a comparative study of the overall sanctity-of-life theme in Scripture (e.g., Gen 9:6; Deut 19:4-13; Rev 21:8).

3. Based in the Ethical Patterns of the Creation Order

Universal moral norms are identifiable by their basis in the creation order. While some practices in Eden were obviously culturally relative, such as farming or the apparel of the first family, the moral practices established there have transcultural application. For example, regarding marriage, we find Jesus taking his questioners back to the created order (Mark 10:6, 9).¹¹¹ Similarly, as confirmed in the Decalogue, the seventh-day Sabbath is rooted in the creation order, and therefore has enduring moral significance. Likewise, as demonstrated from a careful intertextual investigation, the issue of clean and unclean meats also has its basis in creation, and is thus a moral issue.¹¹²

4. Opposition to the Immoral Practices of Surrounding Cultures¹¹³

When practices, intrinsic to pagan culture, are forbidden in Scripture, they are forbidden to all believers as well.¹¹⁴ For example, the Bible openly condemns bestiality, which to varying degrees was part of some ancient pagan cultures (see Lev 18:3, 23-28). Thus, when Scripture speaks directly against an ancient cultural practice, this serves to indicate a transcultural norm. In a similar vein, though many may consider ornamental jewelry as merely a cultural matter, closer examination of the biblical materials reveals that the call to avoid the use of such jewelry has transcultural moral implications.¹¹⁵

5. Behavioral Expectations for Foreigners Living Among Israel