What Is Sound Doctrine concerning the Doctrinal Importance of Narratives in Scripture?
In a recent thread, the following comments were made:
Yes, it’s God doing this, but we need to keep in mind that Deuteronomy 34:6 is not law, but rather narrative, and trying to derive doctrine from narrative is extremely dangerous business.
Again, narrative passages tell us what happened, but not always the why. That’s why it’s extremely dangerous to try to derive doctrine from narrative passages.
The passages used by Rajesh to justify his position are narrative, description and not prescription, and hence it’s (again) extremely dangerous business to try and draw doctrine from these narratives.
This is one view concerning what is sound doctrine concerning the doctrinal importance of narratives in Scripture. When someone makes an assertion that something is so, they are responsible for proving that what they assert is so.
The maker of these comments, however, has provided no support for his position beyond mere assertion. Mere assertion is not proof.
What is sound doctrine concerning the doctrinal importance of narratives in Scripture? Who decides what is the correct view and what is not?
- 106 views
Narrative is, literarily speaking, simply the story, or, put in simple terms, “what happened?”. There are narratives that are very good, narratives that are very evil, narratives that are a mix of the two, and finally narratives where it’s not intuitively clear whether the actions being described are inherently good or evil.
And hence when one is trying to apply a narrative to doctrine, you have any number of contexts—social context, cultural context, situational context, context in the passage as a whole, context in the “book of the Bible” as a whole, and finally Old Testament/New Testament/Biblical/systematic context. If you skip or misplace any of these, you will tend to introduce a lot of error when trying to apply narrative do doctrine.
In other words, by very definition, using narrative for doctrine is dangerous business. It’s a principle that applies to all works of literature, not just the Bible, because it’s logically derived.
If you try to derive this principle “from Scripture”, as some would demand, what you end up with is a tautology or Catch-22; before you can process Scripture to learn what God’s will is for your life, you have to process it to find your exegetical principles, but before that you must have approached Scripture to find your exegetical principles.
In other words, before you can get started, you must have already started and come up with something. It’s a dog chasing its tail, rhetorically speaking.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Who gets to decide when things seen in narrative should be taken as prescriptive commands?
Really, this entire conversation is out of my league, as I am hardly a hermeneutic expert. But, as a Christian, desiring to obey God, and with the knowledge that God speaks to me through his Word, I have an interest in understanding this conversation. I’d love to know what Paul Henebury thinks about this, but I’m pretty sure cremation would fall into a C4 or even C5 if that subject were run through his Rules of Affinity. That doesn’t mean Paul Henebury’s man-made rules are absolutes in every single case, of course, but they are awfully difficult to argue against.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
The answer: “The Principlizing bridge”
See : Duvall, J. S., & Hays, J. D. (2012). Grasping God’s Word: A hands-on approach to reading, interpreting, and applying the Bible
https://www.amazon.com/Grasping-Gods-Word-Hands-Interpreting/dp/0310492…
This helpful image
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/573e2b0d22482e41b0415678/…
[JNoël]1. Listen to God:Who gets to decide when things seen in narrative should be taken as prescriptive commands?
Really, this entire conversation is out of my league, as I am hardly a hermeneutic expert. But, as a Christian, desiring to obey God, and with the knowledge that God speaks to me through his Word, I have an interest in understanding this conversation.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
1 Cor. 10:6 Now these things were our examples … 11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
Pay close attention to how Scripture writers themselves use Scripture passages.
2. Reject nonsense statements:
“It’s extremely dangerous to try to derive doctrine from narrative passages.”
“I will wipe Jerusalem as a man wipeth a dish, wiping it, and turning it upside down.” (2 Kings 21:13)
[RajeshG]I appreciate your interest in interacting on this subject and hope that there will be more interaction that is profitable and edifying.
It is not my intent that this thread become another thread about burial vs. cremation. That is for the other thread…
If you could keep your focus on examining how the Bible itself reveals the doctrinal importance of narratives, that would be great. Maybe, you could copy these comments into the other thread and continue in that thread the discussions of the parts in your comments that are specific to burial vs. cremation?
That’s fine, I guess. I have tried to have theoretical discussions (no examples - only theory) in the past and it doesn’t work as well as you would hope.
However, I think we all agree that all Scripture is useful for doctrine, reproof, and instruction in righteousness.
JNoel says deriving doctrine from narrative is “extremely dangerous.” Rajesh rejects “extremely dangerous.” I suggest you both agree that it’s necessary but dangerous.
–––- Moving on to theory –––
Rajesh, do you see this thread as,
- “True or False - narratives in Scripture are doctrinally important” or
- “What are the Biblical principles according to which doctrine should be derived from narratives in Scripture?”
[Dan Miller]JNoel says deriving doctrine from narrative is “extremely dangerous.” Rajesh rejects “extremely dangerous.” I suggest you both agree that it’s necessary but dangerous.
I never said that - Bert Perry did. I also did not say whether or not I agreed with Bert.
https://sharperiron.org/comment/127905
[Bert Perry]To be sure, God did not need to do some of these things, but it’s worth noting that had God said to do something else with the bodies—Abraham, executed criminals, Moses—that would have been going against known cultural preferences in the region, and would have had a very clear meaning. So in those cases, He’s simply going along with what these people would have chosen to begin with. In other words, following cultural preferences in areas where they didn’t have sufficient wood to light a funeral pyre.
Again, narrative passages tell us what happened, but not always the why. That’s why it’s extremely dangerous to try to derive doctrine from narrative passages.
Come on, Rajesh, you should have learned this at BJU. You should not be making mistakes like this with your level of training.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
Regardless, my point is that “extremely” doesn’t have much meaning in the sentence. It’s enough to say “dangerous.”
[Dan Miller]Both, but the 2nd one will not be my focus in the thread until much later. Before doing that, the most important data that must be thoroughly treated in this thread is what we see in Scripture itself about how narrative passages were used by Jesus and by the Scripture writers, especially to give prescriptive statements.That’s fine, I guess. I have tried to have theoretical discussions (no examples - only theory) in the past and it doesn’t work as well as you would hope.
However, I think we all agree that all Scripture is useful for doctrine, reproof, and instruction in righteousness.
JNoel says deriving doctrine from narrative is “extremely dangerous.” Rajesh rejects “extremely dangerous.” I suggest you both agree that it’s necessary but dangerous.
–––- Moving on to theory –––
Rajesh, do you see this thread as,
- “True or False - narratives in Scripture are doctrinally important” or
- “What are the Biblical principles according to which doctrine should be derived from narratives in Scripture?”
I have treated the first example concerning the command that Jesus gave about remembering Lot’s wife.
Jesus’ command about something given us in a narrative passage
RajeshG - Mon, 07/04/2022 - 7:09am
Here is an example of how Jesus used information that is given to us in a narrative passage:
Luke 17:32 Remember Lot’s wife.
Gen. 19:26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.
“Descriptive”–>”Prescriptive” #1
No one so far has commented on that biblical example. How about engaging with that example that is directly from the Bible itself?
[RajeshG]1. Listen to God
Of course. I don’t think any of us have any question about that. God speaks to me as a Christian by way of the words in the Bible.
[RajeshG]2. Reject nonsense statements
Also of course.
[RajeshG]Your opinions about me do not change the fact that saying that “it’s extremely dangerous to try to derive doctrine from narrative passages” is an indefensible and highly unbiblical statement.
I reject what you just said there. Bert Perry’s position is defensible and it is not highly unbiblical. I have listened to many people in this conversation defend Bert’s position well, with sound, logical arguments.
“Deriving doctrine” even in itself is dangerous - it requires great care. This is one reason why God gave us pastors - those who are skilled in helping us understand the sense of the scriptures. Christians are on dangerous ground to take an absolute stand on any doctrine that is scripturally ambiguous. What you are doing is taking a matter of conscience and elevating it to a matter of strict doctrine. There are scriptural prohibitions against what you are doing. I do not condemn you in your position regarding the matter in the other thread: it is a matter of conscience, and yours is bound to that position. But, respectfully, and as lovingly as can be done in a public forum, I am calling you out as wrong for elevating a matter of conscience above what it is. We believe in God the Father, creator of Heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ his only son, our Lord. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, and you know the rest. That and many other things not in the apostle’s creed are immovable objects of doctrine. Handling of the dead, styles of music, braiding of hair, church polity, food choices, human ownership, divorce, remarriage, tobacco, wine, caffeine, etc., should never be elevated to a level beyond conscience. To do so violates principles clearly laid out in Romans 14 and 1 Cor 8-11:1 and creates division among brothers that should not exist.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
Tip on interpretation and application!
If it’s ‘new’ and you are the only champion of … you’re probably wrong!
After hearing Luther’s “Here I stand” speech, Charles V expressed his skepticism:
“It is certain,” he concluded, “that a single friar errs in his opinion which is against all Christendom and according to which all of Christianity will be and will always have been in error both in the past thousand years and even more in the present.” (Noll, Turning Points)
–––—
Rahesh’s point is somewhat valid, along with (and only along with) the cautions and principles that ought to attend it.
Rajesh, do you see this thread as,
- “True or False - narratives in Scripture are doctrinally important” or
- “What are the Biblical principles according to which doctrine should be derived from narratives in Scripture?”
Both, but the 2nd one will not be my focus in the thread until much later.
I dare say that the 1st is agreed to by all so long as the 2nd is the properly answered.
Not to detract from the thread but Luther was accused of being novel as an insult. He was regularly accused of being a “hussite” (primarily by Johann Eck) before he had even read Huss himself. After reading him, he said to Cajetan that he was a Hussite after all. There were many antecedents to Luther’s theology throughout the Middle Ages. Even his old foe Erasmus was in agreement with many of his criticisms of the church.
Novelty is not a sign that you’re wrong per se, but if you’re innovating, I think basic humility would dictate that one devote even more due diligence to make sure you’re not out to lunch. No?
Regarding saying that deriving doctrine from narrative being “extremely” dangerous vs. just plain dangerous, the reason I used that phrasing is because due to the very definition of narrative, the number of steps between narrative and instruction is greater. Hence the opportunity for error and/or mischief is greater.
Put differently, I don’t believe that any Christian would deny that all of Scripture can be used for doctrine. What’s in dispute is the care and the checkpoints one ought to use when one starts from narrative. My take is that when trying to apply narrative, a lot of people don’t take the culture, geography, and parallel passages into account nearly as strongly as they ought. This is certainly my opinion of the topics Rajesh has brought to this forum.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
In the other thread, Bert Perry made the claim that a particular Israelite practice that we see throughout Scripture was basically more or less just a cultural practice due to a lack of wood. As support for his claim, he merely mentioned the burning of certain other things in Scripture besides wood. (Only after I challenged him forcefully did he later attempt to support it further.)
On the basis of that evidence that was purely his take on information from some narrative passages (ahem), he pronounced that I was sorely lacking in my exegetical abilities, etc.
Tellingly, he cited no authorities who agreed with him that this was basically the explanation for that practice. He offered no proof other than his mere assertion.
I answered his faulty claims by pointing out that I have not seen a single source, whether from a Jewish authority, or a Christian source, or a secular source, that has made any mention of a lack of wood as basically the reason for that allegedly Jewish cultural practice. (There may be such sources, but I have not seen one yet.) I also provided information from both Scripture and other sources to answer his faulty claims.
Apparently, Bert Perry is the only one who makes the claim that practice was more or less a cultural preference due merely to a lack of wood in Israel and the Near East. It seems that novelty in handling Scripture, explaining it, using information from narrative passages (ahem) to interpret it, and charging others with mishandling Scripture is legitimate in Bert Perry’s mind when he is the one who does it. It apparently is also acceptable to some others …
In 1 Cor. 10:6, the Apostle Paul uses information provided to us in a narrative passage in Num. 11 to provide prescriptive teaching to Christians:
1 Corinthians 10:6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
Numbers 11:4 And the mixt multitude that was among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat?
Because of their lusting after evil things, God judged the Israelites fiercely. It’s important to keep in mind that God has not recorded (as far as I can tell from Scripture) that He had previously provided specific warnings to the Israelites not to do what they did on that occasion. Nevertheless, when they sinned in that manner, they experienced intense divine judgment at the hand of God.
From Paul’s stating that example was provided as an example to us with the intent that we would not lust after evil things, as they did, we see clearly that descriptive information from a historical narrative passage was used in apostolic prescriptive teaching to all Christians.
Rajesh, what you just wrote is a set of lies. Regarding a lack of wood, I provided the current climate type for Israel (arid), the fact that Ezekiel records burning manure and vine trimmings (you don’t get dried manure without an arid climate—just ask ranchers), prohibitions against cutting down trees (yes, it has a lot to do with the fact they don’t grow back quickly in arid climates), general listings of the kinds of trees found in Israel, and the fact that most buildings in Israel to this day are built with masonry. I even pointed out that Song of Songs 2:11 points out that the rains don’t come in summer, which is the exact same pattern seen in Israel’s weather today. You don’t get cord after cord of wood to burn when you don’t get rain for half the year.
You can disagree with the importance of the evidence I presented, but to say I didn’t present any is a flat out lie on your part.
Regarding the notion that I’m the only one who’s ever believed that burial was a cultural practice among the Jews, Tacitus described this in Histories 5:5, including a note about their aversion to cremation. See Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible for details. Also of interest is the link this commenter makes to Jewish tradition or “Oral Torah”. So unless we’re going to elevate the Talmud, Midrash, and the like to the status of Scripture, we’ve got to assume that this means burial is a cultural practice of the Jews.
Probably most important, however, is the very set of references you bring to the table that pretty much invariably describe burial as the way the bodies of the dead were handled, combined with the fact that the Torah doesn’t prohibit other means of disposing of a corpse. Any practice that is not required by law, but is done anyway, is cultural.
So yes, Rajesh, given that a lot of my best evidence against your argument comes from you, I think there is something dreadfully wrong in your exegetical methods. And apart from the very definition of “narrative”, your thinking is wonderful proof of how hazardous it can be to try to use narrative to establish doctrine.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]Wrong again. You only provided all of this additional evidence much later when I forcefully challenged you about those claims. In your earlier comments that you used to charge me with mishandling Scripture, you only provided the information that I correctly mentioned in my comment.Rajesh, what you just wrote is a set of lies. Regarding a lack of wood, I provided the current climate type for Israel (arid), the fact that Ezekiel records burning manure and vine trimmings (you don’t get dried manure without an arid climate—just ask ranchers), prohibitions against cutting down trees (yes, it has a lot to do with the fact they don’t grow back quickly in arid climates), general listings of the kinds of trees found in Israel, and the fact that most buildings in Israel to this day are built with masonry. I even pointed out that Song of Songs 2:11 points out that the rains don’t come in summer, which is the exact same pattern seen in Israel’s weather today. You don’t get cord after cord of wood to burn when you don’t get rain for half the year.
You can disagree with the importance of the evidence I presented, but to say I didn’t present any is a flat out lie on your part.
In a parenthetical statement, I said that you provided additional evidence later so I did not lie at all.
[Bert Perry]This is another misrepresentation. I did not say that you are the only one who’s ever believed that burial was a cultural practice among the Jews. I said that you are the only one that I have seen who has argued that it was a cultural practice more or less due to a lack of wood. Your novel claim is that it was a cultural practice because there was not enough wood readily available to cremate.Regarding the notion that I’m the only one who’s ever believed that burial was a cultural practice among the Jews, Tacitus described this in Histories 5:5, including a note about their aversion to cremation. See Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible for details. Also of interest is the link this commenter makes to Jewish tradition or “Oral Torah”. So unless we’re going to elevate the Talmud, Midrash, and the like to the status of Scripture, we’ve got to assume that this means burial is a cultural practice of the Jews.
In 1 Cor. 10:7, the Apostle Paul cited information from a historical narrative passage to forcefully issue an apostolic command:
1 Corinthians 10:7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
In support of this apostolic command, Paul quoted from the end of a narrative statement in Exodus 32:
Exodus 32:6 And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.
Paul’s use of a descriptive statement about the sinfulness of the Israelites on a particular occasion in a prescriptive command to all Christians plainly shows the use of information from a historical narrative to issue a prescriptive statement to all Christians.
[RajeshG]…1 Corinthians 10:6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
Numbers 11:4 …
, we see clearly that descriptive information from a historical narrative passage was used in apostolic prescriptive teaching to all Christians.
I know I am a little late to this thread, but have you guys agreed on definitions for descriptive and prescriptive?
[Dan Miller]Those terms are not biblical terms. I am only using them because those are the terms being used by some others.I know I am a little late to this thread, but have you guys agreed on definitions for descriptive and prescriptive?
What is your understanding of those terms that are not from the Bible?
In 1 Cor. 10:8, the Apostle Paul issued an apostolic mutual exhortation to instruct believers not to be immoral:
1 Corinthians 10:8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
He used information from a historical narrative passage as support for his exhortation:
Numbers 25:1 And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab… . 9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.
Paul’s use of narrative information (about the sinfulness of the Israelites on a particular occasion and God’s judgment of them for doing so) in a negative exhortation to all Christians teaches us that he used information from a historical narrative in Scripture to issue authoritative instruction to all Christians.
[Dan Miller]Here’s an interesting article on this subject: “What does it mean that a biblical passage is descriptive rather than prescriptive?”I know I am a little late to this thread, but have you guys agreed on definitions for descriptive and prescriptive?
[Bert Perry]Asserting that “any practice that is not required by law, but is done anyway, is cultural” is faulty theological reasoning concerning what OT Israel did, especially because God gave to Israel Moses and many other prophets who had direct supernatural access to God and provided direction to His people in many matters that were not directly covered in the Law (cf. Exod. 18:13-27). These prophets gave God’s people infallible direction when they spoke as prophets and had abundant opportunities to direct His people to do God’s will in a matter so basic and important as what was acceptable to God to do when someone has died.Probably most important, however, is the very set of references you bring to the table that pretty much invariably describe burial as the way the bodies of the dead were handled, combined with the fact that the Torah doesn’t prohibit other means of disposing of a corpse. Any practice that is not required by law, but is done anyway, is cultural.
God also gave to Israel judges and priests who served in similar capacities to teach His people what they were supposed to do.
The uniformity of Israel’s practice attests to their being given definitive direction about how they were to please God in that fundamental aspect of life.
[RajeshG]Those terms are not biblical terms. I am only using them because those are the terms being used by some others.
What is your understanding of those terms that are not from the Bible?
Rajesh, there’s really no basis for you guys to have a discussion about the proper way to read narratives until you agree on precise definitions for things like narrative, description, and prescription.
Really, if we’re to have any coherent doctrines of the perspicuity of Scripture, Sola Scriptura, and the First Fundamental, we’ve got to define terms like “narrative”, “description”, and “prescription” according to the common usage. That is, after all, the genius of Wycliffe, Tyndale, and Luther; the use of common language allowed the plowman to have greater expertise in theology than many priests and even academics had prior to the renewed availability of the Bible in the vernacular.
So unless we’re going to do a lot of damage to some critical doctrines, we’ve got to go with Webster’s, or perhaps even better, you’ve got to go with standard methods and definitions by those who engage in literary criticism.
On another topic, this quote of Rajesh’s was interesting:
Asserting that “any practice that is not required by law, but is done anyway, is cultural” is faulty theological reasoning concerning what OT Israel did, especially because God gave to Israel Moses and many other prophets who had direct supernatural access to God and provided direction to His people in many matters that were not directly covered in the Law (cf. Exod. 18:13-27). These prophets gave God’s people infallible direction when they spoke as prophets and had abundant opportunities to direct His people to do God’s will in a matter so basic and important as what was acceptable to God to do when someone has died.
What’s being said here is that Rajesh is assuming that because Moses was at some times a prophet (among others), that any narrative involving Moses, to include the Torah as a whole, must be assumed to implicitly reflect additional knowledge not in the written Torah. Put simply, “what Moses did was Godly”, which is somewhat hard to defend in light of Exodus 2:11-12 and Numbers 27:14.
It is also incredibly problematic because more or less, it allows Rajesh (or anyone else) to presume knowledge in the text that is simply not there—it is, more or less, the reason that the Torah is about 200 pages, and the Talmuds are 15 volumes. One is Scripture, the other is not, and we ought to be rightly suspicious of anyone reading into the text the way Rajesh tends to do. It’s a gateway to all kinds of problems in the church, and quite frankly is a huge undermining of Sola Scriptura.
Reality here as well is that we need to resort to Ockham’s Razor; given two satisfactory explanations of a phenomenon, the simpler one is generally correct. In this case, Rajesh’s “spectral evidence” and my “cultural patterns” will explain what went on. However, my explanation is far simpler, and unlike Rajesh’s, would also be admissible in court. Any judge or opposition lawyer worth his salt would say “not in evidence” to Rajesh, and that would be that.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]Not at all. As far as we know, the only Scripture that the Israelites had when they entered the Promised Land was the Pentateuch, all of which was written by Moses so there is no denial of anything. (We do not know if they had access to the book of Job at that time or not; none of the rest of Scripture had been written at that time.)On another topic, this quote of Rajesh’s was interesting:
Asserting that “any practice that is not required by law, but is done anyway, is cultural” is faulty theological reasoning concerning what OT Israel did, especially because God gave to Israel Moses and many other prophets who had direct supernatural access to God and provided direction to His people in many matters that were not directly covered in the Law (cf. Exod. 18:13-27). These prophets gave God’s people infallible direction when they spoke as prophets and had abundant opportunities to direct His people to do God’s will in a matter so basic and important as what was acceptable to God to do when someone has died.
What’s being said here is that Rajesh is assuming that because Moses was at some times a prophet (among others), that any narrative involving Moses, to include the Torah as a whole, must be assumed to implicitly reflect additional knowledge not in the written Torah. Put simply, “what Moses did was Godly”, which is somewhat hard to defend in light of Exodus 2:11-12 and Numbers 27:14.
It is also incredibly problematic because more or less, it allows Rajesh (or anyone else) to presume knowledge in the text that is simply not there—it is, more or less, the reason that the Torah is about 200 pages, and the Talmuds are 15 volumes. One is Scripture, the other is not, and we ought to be rightly suspicious of anyone reading into the text the way Rajesh tends to do. It’s a gateway to all kinds of problems in the church, and quite frankly is a huge undermining of Sola Scriptura.
Furthermore, it is in the Scripture in the Pentateuch itself that we learn that Moses met regularly with God and went to God to get direction directly from Him on difficult matters (Exod. 18).
It is absurd then to assert that the Israelites had no idea what was pleasing to God about what to do with such a foundational and basic matter as what He wanted to be done with dead bodies when they had in their midst the only prophet that we know of who was only a human and had direct access to God to speak to Him face to face.
What denying this actually does is to beg the question that God had (and has) no will of His own about the matter and did not care one way or the other what they would do with dead bodies; He merely went along with whatever the Israelites wanted to do in their own culture.
[RajeshG]#1: https://sharperiron.org/comment/128191#comment-128191
#2: https://sharperiron.org/comment/128252#comment-128252
#3: https://sharperiron.org/comment/128256#comment-128256
#4: https://sharperiron.org/comment/128266#comment-128266
Can you please post the Descriptive–>Prescriptive analysis that supports your position on whole-body burial?
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
[JNoël]I am working on doing just that, but there is a lot of material to treat to support my position properly. Do you have any comments on the first four examples that I have provided so far?Can you please post the Descriptive–>Prescriptive analysis that supports your position on whole-body burial?
[RajeshG]Do you have any comments on the first four examples that I have provided so far?
No, I do not - because those are all easy. The Holy Spirit used Paul to communicate a clear prescription and used descriptive narrative portions of scripture to support it. There are many prescriptions that do not have supporting descriptive narrative, too - your four examples would stand as prescriptive even without the narrative descriptive support. God can communicate prescriptive requirements any way he wants, but humans should not create prescriptions that are based solely on narrative/descriptive passages. This is why I am waiting patiently for your Descriptive–>Prescriptive support for your whole-body burial position.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
[JNoël]Just to clarify, the primary purpose of this thread is not to provide my full support for my position on that subject. That is the purpose of the other thread. If you are really interested in the subject, why not interact with my treatment of every passage that I have treated in that thread?No, I do not - because those are all easy. The Holy Spirit used Paul to communicate a clear prescription and used descriptive narrative portions of scripture to support it. There are many prescriptions that do not have supporting descriptive narrative, too - your four examples would stand as prescriptive even without the narrative descriptive support. God can communicate prescriptive requirements any way he wants, but humans should not create prescriptions that are based solely on narrative/descriptive passages. This is why I am waiting patiently for your Descriptive–>Prescriptive support is for your whole-body burial position.
One of the major purposes of this thread is to address faulty attacks on my handling of Scripture based on wrong statements put forth by others about how Scripture should be interpreted.
In 1 Cor. 10:9, Paul instructed believers by issuing an apostolic mutual exhortation not to tempt Christ:
1 Corinthians 10:9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
He based his exhortation on a historical narrative passage:
Exodus 17:2 Wherefore the people did chide with Moses, and said, Give us water that we may drink. And Moses said unto them, Why chide ye with me? wherefore do ye tempt the Lord? … 7 And he called the name of the place Massah, and Meribah, because of the chiding of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the Lord, saying, Is the Lord among us, or not?
As in 1 Cor. 10:8, Paul’s use of narrative information (about the sinfulness of the Israelites on a particular occasion and God’s judgment of them for doing so) in a negative exhortation to all Christians in 1 Cor. 10:9 teaches us that he used information from a historical narrative in Scripture to issue authoritative instruction to all Christians.
[RajeshG]In 1 Cor. 10:9, Paul instructed believers not to tempt Christ by issuing an apostolic mutual exhortation:
As in 1 Cor. 10:8, Paul’s use of narrative information (about the sinfulness of the Israelites on a particular occasion and God’s judgment of them for doing so) in a negative exhortation to all Christians in 1 Cor. 10:9 teaches us that he used information from a historical narrative in Scripture to issue authoritative instruction to all Christians.
Again, we have prescriptive language in verse 9 (“neither let us tempt Christ”), with descriptive narrative support. The narrative support helps the audience understand the concept of tempting Christ, but the command itself is clear.
This is another example that is beyond the scope of what you are really seeking to do, which is to prove that you can build a case for a position that lacks any prescriptive scriptural support. But I am still listening, waiting patiently for when you will show us an example of God’s command (prescription) for whole-body interment.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
In 1 Cor. 10:10, Paul commanded believers not to murmur:
1 Corinthians 10:10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
He supported his command to all believers by referring to information provided to us in some historical narrative passages:
Num. 14:2 And all the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron: and the whole congregation said unto them, Would God that we had died in the land of Egypt! or would God we had died in this wilderness!
Num. 14:36 And the men, which Moses sent to search the land, who returned, and made all the congregation to murmur against him, by bringing up a slander upon the land,
Num. 16:3 And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord?
Num. 16:32 And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods.
Num. 16: 41 But on the morrow all the congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron, saying, Ye have killed the people of the Lord.
42 And it came to pass, when the congregation was gathered against Moses and against Aaron, that they looked toward the tabernacle of the congregation: and, behold, the cloud covered it, and the glory of the Lord appeared.
43 And Moses and Aaron came before the tabernacle of the congregation.
44 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
45 Get you up from among this congregation, that I may consume them as in a moment. And they fell upon their faces.
46 And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a censer, and put fire therein from off the altar, and put on incense, and go quickly unto the congregation, and make an atonement for them: for there is wrath gone out from the Lord; the plague is begun.
47 And Aaron took as Moses commanded, and ran into the midst of the congregation; and, behold, the plague was begun among the people: and he put on incense, and made an atonement for the people.
48 And he stood between the dead and the living; and the plague was stayed.
49 Now they that died in the plague were fourteen thousand and seven hundred, beside them that died about the matter of Korah.
Paul’s issuing a prescriptive statement to all believers that has as its basis biblical revelation provided in various descriptive passages shows the use of information from historical narrative passages to issue a prescriptive statement to all Christians.
[JNoël]I already have done this in the other thread. Here’s my treatment of Deut. 21:22-23 from that thread:This is another example that is beyond the scope of what you are really seeking to do, which is to prove that you can build a case for a position that lacks any prescriptive scriptural support. But I am still listening, waiting patiently for when you will show us an example of God’s command (prescription) for whole-body interment.
Deut. 21:22 And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: 23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
[RajeshG]I already have done this in the other thread. See my treatment there of Deut. 21:23.
Yikes! What is your treatment of Deut. 21:18-21? I mean that in all seriousness! Your prescriptive support for whole-body interment is in the context of a bunch of other things that I certainly hope you do not also take as prescriptive!
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
[JNoël]Really? You are denying that Deut. 21:23 was a command in the Law of God?Yikes! What is your treatment of Deut. 21:18-21? I mean that in all seriousness! Your prescriptive support for whole-body interment is in the context of a bunch of other things that I certainly hope you do not also take as prescriptive!
[RajeshG]Really? You are denying that Deut. 21:23 was a command in the Law of God?
Of course not! And do you obey every command in the Law of God that has not been specifically superseded in the New Testament? If you do, then I think we are so far apart in our interpretation of scripture that it would take far more for me to understand your whole-body interment position than “description–>prescription” examples.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
Discussion