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
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.
This set of statements makes multiple truth claims about God. We must evaluate them rigorously to determine whether these statements speak of God “the thing[s] which [are] right” (Job 42:8).
These statements all assert that God conformed Himself to human cultural preferences when He did the following:
1. Give Abraham a divine promise and prophecy that he would be “buried in a good old age” (Gen. 15:15).
2. Command the Israelites not to allow the body of a criminal who had been executed and then hanged on a tree to remain all night on the tree; instead, He ordained that they must bury him that day (Deut. 21:23).
3. Bury Moses in a sepulchre when no humans were present and no humans knew where He buried him (Deut. 34:6).
To begin with, we must note that all three passages explicitly concern divine actions. Furthermore, all three are in the Pentateuch, which was written by the same human author. The first is part of a historical narrative passage in a different book than the other two. The latter two are in the same book; one is a prescriptive command and the other is part of a historical narrative passage.
This analysis shows that the following statement that was made immediately after the one quoted above misrepresents this set of data:
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.
This is a misrepresentation of my argument because I was not seeking to derive doctrine solely from narrative passages, as this quote misleadingly suggests that I was in the context in which it was made.
Deut. 21:22-23 was prescriptive and in the Law.
Having pointed out the misrepresentation of me made in the second paragraph, I will now proceed to further evaluate the truthfulness of the claim being made about God.
One good illustration of where I part company with Rajesh in his exegetical methods is specifically in this area, where we do indeed have great evidence that it was indeed a cultural preference to dispose of a dead body by burial. Rajesh seems to assume that when, for example, God tells Israel to bury the bodies of dead criminals promptly (Deut 21:22-23), that this also amounts to evidence that other methods of disposal of bodies are prohibited.
But that’s simply not what the passage says; it simply says “bury them.” And in that light, it matters a LOT whether burial is the usual cultural pattern, or whether they knew and had other alternatives that they used routinely.
If cremation was a common practice, but a sinful one, you would expect God to mention it as out of bounds. However, if it was generally unknown (not to mention impractical in the Sinai desert where the command was given), then mentioning it would actually undermine the authority of Moses because people would wonder why on earth he’d mentioned that. You don’t tell people not to do things that are unknown in their culture.
Hence I conclude, reasonably I believe, that the passage really cannot be construed to say anything about other methods of disposal of a body. It just doesn’t match what we know about Hebrew culture. Telling them not to cremate would be like telling Americans not to detonate nuclear weapons over their own houses. “We would have to be told this….why?”
Other checkpoints we could see here are whether those familiar with cremation object to it (they don’t), whether cremation is recorded as a sin committed by pagans in Israel (it’s not), or whether cremation is mentioned as a practice for disposal of an already dead body at all (it’s not).
So I reject Rajesh’s hypothesis because there are simply too many things that do not fit, and that forms my objection to his hermeneutic. He seems to simply skip over those cultural, Biblical, and geographical factors, generally dismissing them with “Well God could have…”. Well, yes, He could have, but in His goodness and mercy, He’s trying to communicate with humans where they are. These factors matter.
It’s also a pattern that ought to be evaluated in light of the principles Paul makes in Galatians and elsewhere, as Rajesh’s general pattern is to argue (very often from narrative) that various things most Christians hold to be adiaphora are in fact vile sins or tantamount to idolatry. If he’s wrong (and I believe he is), Rajesh is doing something very analogous to what the Judiazers were doing in Galatia, arguing that things are sin which in fact are not, limiting the liberty for which Christ died. That’s a huge issue.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]Of the key passages that I have treated in the other thread, half (6/12) are not narrative passages (1 Cor. 15; Deut. 21; Deut. 28; Amos 2; Heb. 11; Ezek. 39). Furthermore, of the narrative passages, 4 of the 6 explicitly concern divine actions (Gen. 15; Lev. 10; Deut. 34; 1 Kings 14; [narratives treated w/o direct divine actions: Gen. 23 & various passages in Job considered as a unit] ). (I also mentioned other passages, but these are the ones that I regard to be the main ones.)It’s also a pattern that ought to be evaluated in light of the principles Paul makes in Galatians and elsewhere, as Rajesh’s general pattern is to argue (very often from narrative) …
Furthermore, there are more passages that I am going to treat that are not narrative passages.
The same has been true of my extensive treatment of other subjects on SI. Ethical people understand the great importance of representing the positions of other people accurately.
…zero address cremation as such, but you’re still assuming that they speak to cremation. These also address the very concern I and others have with your isegesis—you’re reading the concept into the passages without addressing the question of whether the original readers would have seen it as a natural concept at all. Let’s walk through it:
- 1 Cor. 15: mentions that Jesus was buried, which again is simply the command of Deut. 21:22-23, as well as the cultural preference of the Hebrews. Says nothing about other means of disposal of a body.
- Deuteronomy 21: same as above. God’s basically saying “do what you ordinarily do with a dead body promptly because the penalty is already obvious and you don’t want to cause disease.”
- Amos 2: as others have noted, what we have here is desecration of the bones. Nothing to do with a choice to cremate.
- Hebrews 11: again, merely mentions that Joseph gave instructions that amounted to having pagan embalmers work on his corpse for 40 days, removing all internal organs, including the brain. Not quite sure how this matches your hypothesis of not dismembering the body, to put it mildly.
- Ezekiel 39: notice that the birds and animals have already eaten the flesh of the deceased. There is not much left to cremate that will burn.
- Deuteronomy 28: OK, a curse is to (again, Ezekiel 39) have one’s flesh eaten by birds and wild animals. This has what to do with cremation?
Again, Rajesh, what you’re doing is to insert the concept you want to address into passages whether or not it’s actually there or even plausible. This is why it’s so important to ask these questions.
In other words, by your very response, you are proving my point. You read things into all places in Scripture that simply are not there. In doing so, you’re trying to truncate the freedom that God gave us, and that’s a huge, huge issue.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]The Judaizers in Galatia were unbelievers who taught that circumcision was necessary for salvation. Associating me with their sinfulness is a classic example of the use of fallacious guilt-by-association.It’s also a pattern that ought to be evaluated in light of the principles Paul makes in Galatians and elsewhere, as Rajesh’s general pattern is to argue (very often from narrative) that various things most Christians hold to be adiaphora are in fact vile sins or tantamount to idolatry. If he’s wrong (and I believe he is), Rajesh is doing something very analogous to what the Judiazers were doing in Galatia, arguing that things are sin which in fact are not, limiting the liberty for which Christ died. That’s a huge issue.
[Bert Perry]In typical Bert Perry fashion, there is no documentation whatever to support his arguments. No support from Scripture. None.One good illustration of where I part company with Rajesh in his exegetical methods is specifically in this area, where we do indeed have great evidence that it was indeed a cultural preference to dispose of a dead body by burial. Rajesh seems to assume that when, for example, God tells Israel to bury the bodies of dead criminals promptly (Deut 21:22-23), that this also amounts to evidence that other methods of disposal of bodies are prohibited.
But that’s simply not what the passage says; it simply says “bury them.” And in that light, it matters a LOT whether burial is the usual cultural pattern, or whether they knew and had other alternatives that they used routinely.
If cremation was a common practice, but a sinful one, you would expect God to mention it as out of bounds. However, if it was generally unknown (not to mention impractical in the Sinai desert where the command was given), then mentioning it would actually undermine the authority of Moses because people would wonder why on earth he’d mentioned that. You don’t tell people not to do things that are unknown in their culture.
Hence I conclude, reasonably I believe, that the passage really cannot be construed to say anything about other methods of disposal of a body. It just doesn’t match what we know about Hebrew culture. Telling them not to cremate would be like telling Americans not to detonate nuclear weapons over their own houses. “We would have to be told this….why?”
Other checkpoints we could see here are whether those familiar with cremation object to it (they don’t), whether cremation is recorded as a sin committed by pagans in Israel (it’s not), or whether cremation is mentioned as a practice for disposal of an already dead body at all (it’s not).
So I reject Rajesh’s hypothesis because there are simply too many things that do not fit, and that forms my objection to his hermeneutic. He seems to simply skip over those cultural, Biblical, and geographical factors, generally dismissing them with “Well God could have…”. Well, yes, He could have, but in His goodness and mercy, He’s trying to communicate with humans where they are. These factors matter.
Furthermore, he has not provided any citation of “recognized authorities,” whether Christian, Jewish, or secular, to back up his novel view that burial by the Jews was basically a cultural preference due to the shortage of wood. Explaining away all the biblical data in that manner is mere assertion, which is fallacious. Asserting that God conformed Himself to culture on such a basis is …
[Bert Perry]God gave the Law to the Israelites as what they would have to obey everywhere they would ever be forever as His people. Claiming that something was an issue for the comparatively brief time that they were in Sinai and therefore a problem on that basis is laughable.One good illustration of where I part company with Rajesh in his exegetical methods is specifically in this area, where we do indeed have great evidence that it was indeed a cultural preference to dispose of a dead body by burial. Rajesh seems to assume that when, for example, God tells Israel to bury the bodies of dead criminals promptly (Deut 21:22-23), that this also amounts to evidence that other methods of disposal of bodies are prohibited.
But that’s simply not what the passage says; it simply says “bury them.” And in that light, it matters a LOT whether burial is the usual cultural pattern, or whether they knew and had other alternatives that they used routinely.
If cremation was a common practice, but a sinful one, you would expect God to mention it as out of bounds. However, if it was generally unknown (not to mention impractical in the Sinai desert where the command was given), then mentioning it would actually undermine the authority of Moses because people would wonder why on earth he’d mentioned that. You don’t tell people not to do things that are unknown in their culture.
Scripture, in fact, attests to God’s giving His people laws that were very distinct from the laws of all the other peoples:
Esther 3:5 And when Haman saw that Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence, then was Haman full of wrath.
6 And he thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone; for they had shewed him the people of Mordecai: wherefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews that were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus, even the people of Mordecai.
7 In the first month, that is, the month Nisan, in the twelfth year of king Ahasuerus, they cast Pur, that is, the lot, before Haman from day to day, and from month to month, to the twelfth month, that is, the month Adar.
8 And Haman said unto king Ahasuerus, There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of thy kingdom; and their laws are diverse from all people; neither keep they the king’s laws: therefore it is not for the king’s profit to suffer them.
Approximately 1000 years after the giving of the Law, Scripture records testimony from a leading official in the Persian kingdom who attests to the reality that the Jewish laws that God gave them were still distinct from the laws of all the people in all the provinces of the Persian kingdom.
Bert Perry wants to argue that the Law that God gave Israel in Deut. 21:22-23 basically was what He gave them when He conformed Himself to the cultural practices and laws of the people around them at that time and that would be around them in the Promised Land. Scripture, however, shows that one who would take that position must prove it because it is contrary to what Scripture says about the distinctiveness of the Jewish laws.
[Bert Perry]One good illustration of where I part company with Rajesh in his exegetical methods is specifically in this area, where we do indeed have great evidence that it was indeed a cultural preference to dispose of a dead body by burial. Rajesh seems to assume that when, for example, God tells Israel to bury the bodies of dead criminals promptly (Deut 21:22-23), that this also amounts to evidence that other methods of disposal of bodies are prohibited.
But that’s simply not what the passage says; it simply says “bury them.” And in that light, it matters a LOT whether burial is the usual cultural pattern, or whether they knew and had other alternatives that they used routinely.
If cremation was a common practice, but a sinful one, you would expect God to mention it as out of bounds. However, if it was generally unknown (not to mention impractical in the Sinai desert where the command was given), then mentioning it would actually undermine the authority of Moses because people would wonder why on earth he’d mentioned that. You don’t tell people not to do things that are unknown in their culture.
A right handling and understanding of Deut. 21:22-23 is only possible when it is properly considered in connection with what else God provided them in the rest of the book.
Earlier in the book, God warned His people about the wickedness of the peoples that He was going to cut off in the Promised Land:
Deut. 12:29 When the Lord thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land;
30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.
31 Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.
32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
Notice carefully what God said to the Israelites about the wickedness of those nations. He said that every abomination that the Lord hates, they have done to their gods. Then God provides what He regards to be the consummate expression of their wickedness—burning their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.
Bert Perry say that region of the world had such a shortage of wood that cremation was not practiced and not practicable. Scripture, however, tells us that the wicked peoples of the Promised Land burned humans in the fire to their gods. Most certainly, therefore, we know that they had the wood needed to regularly burn people in fire.
If these people were so wicked that they devotedly burned living people in fire, there is no difficulty understanding that they also burned the dead bodies of people in fire. God did not need to mention cremation or condemn it because He mentioned something far worse that was exceedingly similar to it and because He denounced in the strongest possible terms that exceedingly wicked practice of the wicked peoples in the Promised Land.
Bert Perry has made many unrighteous statements about me on SI. I am defending myself against those repeated statements that have attacked me and sought to discredit me.
[RajeshG]In typical Bert Perry fashion, there is no documentation whatever to support his arguments. No support from Scripture. None.
Furthermore, he has not provided any citation of “recognized authorities,” whether Christian, Jewish, or secular, to back up his novel view that burial by the Jews was basically a cultural preference due to the shortage of wood. Explaining away all the biblical data in that manner is mere assertion, which is fallacious. Asserting that God conformed Himself to culture on such a basis is …
Regarding Rajesh’s claim here,my argument is not that burial was done merely due to a shortage of wood, but rather that cremation was unthinkable because of a relative lack of wood and a need to use it for other purposes. I don’t think there’s anything novel about that. Mark Twain recorded the relative treelessness of Israel when he visited over a century ago.
Regarding places where I’ve provided evidence for that position, see here, here, here, here, here, and here. You’ve got climate models (“arid”), satellite maps, descriptions of the plants found in Israel, Song of Songs 2:11’s comment that the rain has stopped for summer (indicating similar climate then & now), prohibitions on cutting down food trees around cites for siege works, the clear description of wood for paneling as a luxury good, Isaac’s conflicts over wells in Beer-Sheba (a desert to this day) in Genesis 26, burning of less optimal fuels like manure and vine trimmings, and more.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
My 2 cents; the mods should close and lock this thread
[Bert Perry]Scripture says that the wicked nations who were in the Promised Land burned humans with fire to their gods (Deut. 12:31). They also sacrificed animals on their altars. They had the wood available to use for cremation.Regarding Rajesh’s claim here,my argument is not that burial was done merely due to a shortage of wood, but rather that cremation was unthinkable because of a relative lack of wood and a need to use it for other purposes.
Much later in their history, these wicked practices abounded in Israel.
Jeremiah 7:31 And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.
Jeremiah 19:5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:
Jeremiah 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
Ezekiel 23:37 That they have committed adultery, and blood is in their hands, and with their idols have they committed adultery, and have also caused their sons, whom they bare unto me, to pass for them through the fire, to devour them.
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.
Scripture proves that God did not conform Himself to the cultural practices of the peoples of the Promised Land when He gave these laws because at least two wicked nations did not follow such a law.
First, the evil Philistines hanged the body of Saul to a wall and it remained there all night, which was contrary to the Law that God gave to Israel:
1 Sam. 31:8 And it came to pass on the morrow, when the Philistines came to strip the slain, that they found Saul and his three sons fallen in mount Gilboa.
9 And they cut off his head, and stripped off his armour, and sent into the land of the Philistines round about, to publish it in the house of their idols, and among the people.
10 And they put his armour in the house of Ashtaroth: and they fastened his body to the wall of Bethshan.
11 And when the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead heard of that which the Philistines had done to Saul;
12 All the valiant men arose, and went all night, and took the body of Saul and the bodies of his sons from the wall of Bethshan, and came to Jabesh, and burnt them there.
13 And they took their bones, and buried them under a tree at Jabesh, and fasted seven days.
Second, the evil Gibeonites did not have and did not follow such a law. They allowed hanged bodies to remain either hanged or unburied or both for many, many days, which was contrary to the Law that God gave to Israel:
2 Samuel 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:
9 And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the Lord: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first days, in the beginning of barley harvest.
10 And Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth, and spread it for her upon the rock, from the beginning of harvest until water dropped upon them out of heaven, and suffered neither the birds of the air to rest on them by day, nor the beasts of the field by night.
There is no Scriptural basis to hold that the wicked peoples of these evil nations ever would have buried the bodies of these who had been hanged and were either left hanging or unburied or both for extended periods of time.
Comparing Scripture to Scripture proves conclusively that God did not conform Himself to any cultural preferences when He gave His people the Law that He gave in Deut. 21:22-23. Rather, He gave them righteous laws that were distinct from the wicked laws and practices of other peoples in the Promised Land.
There is no Scriptural support for holding that God went along with the cultural practices of the peoples in the Promised Land when He gave the commands in Deut. 21:23.
[RajeshG]This is a real stretch and a huge leap of logic. You’re basically saying that because God condemns murder by fire, God must also condemn cremation. How is it that you figure cremation is “exceedingly similar” to murder?If these people were so wicked that they devotedly burned living people in fire, there is no difficulty understanding that they also burned the dead bodies of people in fire. God did not need to mention cremation or condemn it because He mentioned something far worse that was exceedingly similar to it and because He denounced in the strongest possible terms that exceedingly wicked practice of the wicked peoples in the Promised Land.
[RajeshG]So in verse 12, the valiant men basically cremated the bodies and then buried the remains. Was it acceptable to God for them to burn the bodies first before burying the remains? The passage contains no condemnation of the burning of the bodies.First, the evil Philistines hanged the body of Saul to a wall and it remained there all night, which was contrary to the Law that God gave to Israel:
1 Sam. 31:8 And it came to pass on the morrow, when the Philistines came to strip the slain, that they found Saul and his three sons fallen in mount Gilboa.
9 And they cut off his head, and stripped off his armour, and sent into the land of the Philistines round about, to publish it in the house of their idols, and among the people.
10 And they put his armour in the house of Ashtaroth: and they fastened his body to the wall of Bethshan.
11 And when the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead heard of that which the Philistines had done to Saul;
12 All the valiant men arose, and went all night, and took the body of Saul and the bodies of his sons from the wall of Bethshan, and came to Jabesh, and burnt them there.
13 And they took their bones, and buried them under a tree at Jabesh, and fasted seven days.
[Kevin Miller]I am going to copy this comment into the other thread and address it there because I want to move on to other aspects of the doctrinal importance of narratives in this thread.This is a real stretch and a huge leap of logic. You’re basically saying that because God condemns murder by fire, God must also condemn cremation. How is it that you figure cremation is “exceedingly similar” to murder?
[Kevin Miller]I am going to copy this comment into the other thread and address it there because I want to move on to other aspects of the doctrinal importance of narratives in this thread.So in verse 12, the valiant men basically cremated the bodies and then buried the remains. Was it acceptable to God for them to burn the bodies first before burying the remains? The passage contains no condemnation of the burning of the bodies.
Previously in this thread, I have treated 6 biblical examples of how prescriptive commands were formulated from information that was from narratives.
This example is important in part because it is from a different writer of Scripture.
James 5:10 Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience.
11 Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.
James commands NT believers to learn how to suffer affliction and be patient from the examples of how the prophets who genuinely spoke in God’s name suffered affliction and were patient. He then specifically cites Job as exemplary in that regard and points to God’s wonderful dealings with him in the end.
The flow of thought from James 5:10-11 instructs us to regard Job as a prophet who spoke in the name of the Lord. That observation has important ramifications for how we are to interpret what he said in the book of Job.
More broadly, because James has commanded us to take the godly prophets who patiently endured sufferings as our examples, we must not go to narrative passages about the prophets and mishandle them by arguing that because they are merely “stories,” we are only supposed to profit from whatever we determine to be the “main” point of each story.
Regardless of what we may determine (subjectively by necessity in many of the cases) the main points of those narrative accounts to be, James instructs us that we must also profit from those narratives for our learning how to suffer affliction and be patient in our sufferings.
[Larry] There are some places where the NT usage has no apparent relation to the exegesis of the OT text at hand. There are a wide variety of uses, only one of which is exegetical per se. On the general topic I commend to you this article by John Walton: https://tms.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/tmsj13c.pdfI think Walton makes some good points in his paper here. I think I pretty much agree with what he says regarding typology, symbolism, and fulfillment as those are all basically examples of revelation via inspiration. I was less convinced with his role model section, but do agree that we need to be careful here, as this can be greatly abused (e.g., Gideon and decision making, which was an example from another article I read recently). I would not have down-played 1 Cor 10:11 (“these things happened to them as examples…”) like he did. His points about not needing to supply an answer to every question we may have about a text (i.e., what does this symbol mean? or was this action good or bad?) are well-taken and helpful. At the same time, though, I’ve seen some commentators say there is no way to know what a certain thing means, only to find another lay out a pretty cogent argument for what it does mean that is both text-based and supportable.
I would also say that there are plenty of times when the NT authors really are just doing exegesis, and helping readers draw legitimate conclusions and applications form the text, just like we should all be able to do.
This historical evidence proves that cremation was not unknown or unpracticed in the ancient Near East.
It also shows that the arguments that have been used against me to assert that I have not handled the Scripture properly because of my supposed lack of proper attention to the culture and geography of the ancient Near East were invalid arguments.
What it tells us is that thousands of years before Abraham arrived in Israel, a man’s body was burned “in a ritualistic way”, which suggests it was not a cremation in the modern sense, but rather a rather macabre burnt offering, possibly started while the victim was still alive in the hideous tradition of the worship of Molech.
What you’re doing, Rajesh, is grabbing onto any piece of evidence which can possibly be construed to support your position, but you’re not doing the necessary analysis to figure out what it actually means. Congratulations; you’re proving my point that for whatever reason, you’re not capable of doing decent Biblical analysis.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]What it tell us is that people in biblical times did have enough fuel to cremate people in the very geographical location for which you have very erroneously claimed that cremation was not practiced and even unknown because of a supposed shortage of wood.What it tells us is that thousands of years before Abraham arrived in Israel, a man’s body was burned “in a ritualistic way”, which suggests it was not a cremation in the modern sense, but rather a rather macabre burnt offering, possibly started while the victim was still alive in the hideous tradition of the worship of Molech.
What you’re doing, Rajesh, is grabbing onto any piece of evidence which can possibly be construed to support your position, but you’re not doing the necessary analysis to figure out what it actually means. Congratulations; you’re proving my point that for whatever reason, you’re not capable of doing decent Biblical analysis.
It also shows that people did cremate people back then in that location in a way at least somewhat similar to how millions of people have been and are still being cremated today in some parts of the world using fire without the pulverizing of the bones to reduce the body to powder.
I have now decisively refuted those claims of yours about ancient Israel with actual historical evidence. It’s time that you acknowledge the falsity of those claims of yours.
I have now refuted your notions (concerning Israel in biblical times) biblically in many ways and historically with this actual documented evidence.
To profit fully from Scripture, we must remember that the chapter divisions and verse divisions in Scripture are not inspired by God. Hebrews 11:1-12:1 is an important example of this truth.
If we fail to connect Heb. 12:1 to all that is in Heb. 11, we will miss vital truth that God has given us for our profit. In particular, note how 12:1 connects with 11:32-40 (and all that precedes it in Heb. 11) through the word “wherefore” at the beginning of 12:1:
Hebrews 11:32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets: 33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. 35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: 36 And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: 37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; 38 (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. 39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: 40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. 12:1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
Here, the inspired writer of the book of Hebrews issues two prescriptive mutual exhortations that instruct us that we must profit in our own lives from what God has given us in all of Heb. 11.
To the extent that we do not profit from the vital connection between Heb. 12:1 and Heb. 11:1-40, we will not be fully the holy brethren that we should be.
It is a great mistake to take the position that only what is explicitly stated in the NT (or even in the rest of Scripture) is what matters for us. Rather, this passage vitally teaches us that we must profit from the numerous narrative passages in the OT that God has given us in Scripture, especially all the passages about the prophets who spoke and lived faithfully for God (Heb. 11:32).
The writer of Hebrews explicitly tells us that he had much more to say than what he did explicitly talk about in Heb. 11:
Hebrews 11:32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets.
We must not allow unsound doctrine about the doctrinal importance of narratives to deprive us of the full profit that the Spirit wants us to receive from them!
Rajesh wrote:
It is a great mistake to take the position that only what is explicitly stated in the NT (or even in the rest of Scripture) is what matters for us.
I am not aware of anyone having claimed in this or the other thread what was just suggested in the above statement. There is a big difference between asking for clarification on how a narrative should be used prescriptively while questioning a particular application of a narrative, and saying the narrative does not matter.
In this thread, I have provided numerous biblical examples of the formulation of prescriptive statements from descriptive passages. I hold and have argued that formulating such prescriptive statements from certain kinds of narratives is both legitimate and necessary for us to do.
A second key aspect of sound doctrine concerning the doctrinal importance of narratives is the importance of correlating what narrative passages reveal about certain subjects. In my previous post, I treated Hebrews 11, which cites numerous narrative passages to provide vital instruction to believers concerning faith that pleases God and other important matters.
Plainly, those passages were not parallel passages of the same events or even about the same people. Nonetheless, the writer of Hebrews brought out vital truths for us by correlating those numerous narrative passages for what they reveal about certain key matters.
Scripture provides us with another excellent example of such correlating of narrative passages that are not parallel passages about the same events or even about the same people:
2 Pet. 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; 7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: 8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)
Peter here refers to three different events involving three completely different sets of living beings (either angels or people) to support the vital doctrinal instruction that he provides us with both before (2:1-4) and after these verses (2:9ff.).
9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
What we see Peter doing here is what we must do in deriving our proper theological understanding and practice concerning certain subjects for which God has provided abundant revelation to us in multiple narrative passages. We must correlate narrative passages about such subjects even though the passages are about different events and different people.
Doing such subject studies that thoroughly account for what truths God has revealed about such subjects in numerous narrative passages (along with what He has revealed in non-narrative passages about the same subjects) is fully legitimate and necessary. If we fail to account for what God has revealed in narrative passages about these subjects, our doctrinal understanding of them will not be what God wants it to be.
Before presenting more on what is sound doctrine concerning the doctrinal importance of narratives, I want to address the misuse of logical consequence that at least two people on SI have used against me. Here is what Bert Perry said in that regard concerning me earlier in this thread:
In Romans 5:20b-6:2, Scripture shows how an apostle addressed a potential instance of the misuse of logical consequence:
Rom. 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
In 5:20, Paul sets forth as true the theological reality that where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.
In 6:1, he then raises the issue (through the use a question) of what should be said (What shall we say then?) in view of what someone would say is a logical consequence of what he said in 5:20: “Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?”
Here Paul raises the issue of someone setting forth a statement as a logical consequence of the truth that grace did much more abound when sin abounded—if grace abounded much more when sin abounded, then we should continue in sin so that grace may abound even more.
In 6:2, Paul decisively condemns affirming that particular logical consequence (of the valid theological truth and reality that he actually did state in 5:20): “God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?”
Paul did not affirm and would never have affirmed that particular logical consequence of his original statement that he declared to be true.
With this teaching, Paul and the Spirit teach us that just because someone affirms something to be true does not establish that they also thereby affirm any particular logical consequence of the statement to be true.
It is dishonest and unethical to say that someone affirms as true a particular logical consequence of an original statement that they have affirmed to be true.
Moreover, Scripture plainly teaches us here that a statement that is a valid theological truth does not necessitate our holding that a particular logical consequence of that statement is also a valid theological truth.
[RajeshG]What it tell us is that people in biblical times did have enough fuel to cremate people in the very geographical location for which you have very erroneously claimed that cremation was not practiced and even unknown because of a supposed shortage of wood.
It also shows that people did cremate people back then in that location in a way at least somewhat similar to how millions of people have been and are still being cremated today in some parts of the world using fire without the pulverizing of the bones to reduce the body to powder.
I have now decisively refuted those claims of yours about ancient Israel with actual historical evidence. It’s time that you acknowledge the falsity of those claims of yours.
I have now refuted your notions (concerning Israel in biblical times) biblically in many ways and historically with this actual documented evidence.
Rajesh, you’re shouting people down, not refuting anything. You seriously need to learn the difference.
Regarding the case in point, what you have is that someone, theoretically centuries or millenia before Abraham arrived in Canaan, chose to devote a few hundred kG of wood to an immolation. The site does not indicate that this was an actual crematorium that was used repeatedly, but rather was “ritualistic”, and only a few bones from one body burned in that urn remain to tell us what happened. It’s really far more consistent with a pagan sacrifice or rich people showing what they can do than evidence of any consistent practice on their part.
What you’re arguing from this is that thousands of years later, there was enough wood available not only for routine sacrifices to God (and yes, pagan “gods” recorded in the Prophets), baking and heating, but also routine cremations that are for some reason not recorded in Scripture, nor is evidence for this found in the archeological record. To me, it’s inexplicable why the gap of thousands of years, entirely different cultures, anecdotal vs. statistical evidence (e.g. we have evidence of only one immolation) and lack of archeological evidence doesn’t seem to penetrate your mind.
What it does demonstrate clearly to me is that in the hands of the careless, trying to use narrative, “what happened”, to derive doctrine is extremely dangerous business.
I’m not going to go through things line by line, as I don’t have the time, but your attempt to use the story of Elisha’s bones in 2 Kings 13:20 to argue that somehow the Spirit is working through bones/dust is another great example. There is so much that we don’t know about how and why God did this, drawing a conclusion from this is just plain reckless. If you had wanted to demonstrate the huge hazard of trying to derive doctrine from narrative, you’re doing a great job.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]We should note that the time from Abraham to Ezekiel’s time was at least 1200 years (1800 B.C. to 600 B.C.). Yet Bert Perry wants to argue that the same thing was true (a shortage of wood that precluded cremation being prevalent) of the Promised Land in Abraham’s time and in Ezekiel’s time. More than 1200 years is a huge amount of time. Note also how he tries to argue in this very same way in his comments about the elapsing of a vast amount of time …Regarding the case in point, what you have is that someone, theoretically centuries or millenia before Abraham arrived in Canaan, chose to devote a few hundred kG of wood to an immolation. The site does not indicate that this was an actual crematorium that was used repeatedly, but rather was “ritualistic”, and only a few bones from one body burned in that urn remain to tell us what happened. It’s really far more consistent with a pagan sacrifice or rich people showing what they can do than evidence of any consistent practice on their part.
What you’re arguing from this is that thousands of years later, there was enough wood available not only for routine sacrifices to God (and yes, pagan “gods” recorded in the Prophets), baking and heating, but also routine cremations that are for some reason not recorded in Scripture, nor is evidence for this found in the archeological record.
Moreover, in between those two periods, God’s judgments abounded on Israel to devastate the land for its sinfulness.
What’s also worth noting is that in Ezekiel’s time, God speaks of His judging the Israelites in a way that is very interesting:
Ezekiel 16:41 And they shall burn thine houses with fire, and execute judgments upon thee in the sight of many women: and I will cause thee to cease from playing the harlot, and thou also shalt give no hire any more.
Ezekiel 23:47 And the company shall stone them with stones, and dispatch them with their swords; they shall slay their sons and their daughters, and burn up their houses with fire.
If the houses of the Israelites were going to be burned with fire, that would mean that those houses were made of flammable materials. One wonders what the material(s) might have been given that Bert Perry has claimed that there was such a shortage of wood in Ezekiel’s time.
In any case, his assertions are baseless and not supported by Scripture. Had they wanted to do so, the Israelites in ancient Israel had plenty of wood to cremate people.
The reason that they did not do so was not because of a shortage of wood. Rather, God had profoundly and unmistakably taught them that His will for them was to bury His people.
I responded to Rajesh’s latest post this morning. Wonder who took it down, and on what grounds?
But since I apparently have to repeat, I’ll simply point out that Rajesh’s comment really doesn’t address my point, which is that there are a number of logical steps between “pre-Abrahamic example of immolation” and “evidence for routine cremation in the time of Israel”.
Regarding houses being burned with fire, houses can burn due to their contents, as millions of Ukrainians made homeless as their mostly masonry homes were shelled by the Russians can attest. Plus, anyone who follows Biblical archeology, or for that matter reads how the Law tells Israelites to deal with mold and mildew (remove the stones affected), knows very well that the primary material for Israelite homes was rock/masonry.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Posts that have personal attacks are removed when we see them.
[Bert Perry]I have never said that there was or is “evidence for routine cremation in the time of Israel.”I’ll simply point out that Rajesh’s comment really doesn’t address my point, which is that there are a number of logical steps between “pre-Abrahamic example of immolation” and “evidence for routine cremation in the time of Israel”.
I have repeatedly addressed your false notion that the reason that cremation was not routine in Israel and that burial is uniformly seen in Scripture is because there was a shortage of wood that was needed for cremation to be done routinely.
As I have pointed out several times in the past, there is not a single authoritative source that you have produced who has argued that was the case.
You have merely made assertions that are not backed by any factual evidence that proves that the reason that we do not see in Scripture cremation performed in Israel was because they did not have enough wood to cremate those people.
[RajeshG]I have never said that there was or is “evidence for routine cremation in the time of Israel.”
I have repeatedly addressed your false notion that the reason that cremation was not routine in Israel and that burial is uniformly seen in Scripture is because there was a shortage of wood that was needed for cremation to be done routinely.
As I have pointed out several times in the past, there is not a single authoritative source that you have produced who has argued that was the case.
You have merely made assertions that are not backed by any factual evidence that proves that the reason that we do not see in Scripture cremation performed in Israel was because they did not have enough wood to cremate those people.
Rajesh, yes, you have been arguing for a while that there was sufficient fuel for routine cremation, and that the presence of a single archeological site verifies your hermeneutic. Let’s not split hairs here.
Regarding the impracticality of cremation in the ancient Orient due to a lack of fuel, here is my initial comment to that effect. Notice that not only (contrary to your repeated falsehood) do I provide evidence for my position, I also did not say that it was “the” reason they didn’t cremate, only that it would factor into their calculations. If a resource isn’t abundant, you prioritize its use—in this case, first for sacrifices, second for putting a roof on your house, and third for cooking your food and heating that house.
Come on, we’ve been over this a bunch of times. The presence of some forests in Israel does not negate this—it’s not like the Hebrews could take their pickup truck to the forest and drive it back to Beer-Sheba full of wood. They were bound by the resources they could find within a few miles of their homes, by and large.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]Yeah, right, I am not splitting hairs.Rajesh, yes, you have been arguing for a while that there was sufficient fuel for routine cremation, and that the presence of a single archeological site verifies your hermeneutic. Let’s not split hairs here.
I have said that they had sufficient fuel to do cremation, if they had wanted to do so. I never said that they actually did so. There is a huge difference between those two statements.
They did not do so because God taught them conclusively that it was His will that they bury His own.
As I said, we are starting to remove them when we see them. Obviously if we don’t see them, we don’t remove them. We gave a lot of room early on giving both the opportunity to police yourselves. However the nonsense between Bert and Rajesh has gone on way too long. Both of you are making some very weak arguments and poor argumentation in pursuit of a position that has no value whatsoever to the overall issue. So knock it off. Move on.
[Larry]I have moved on. I have continued to address the subject of this thread—the doctrinal importance of narratives. I also have begun to address another related issue (the misuse of logical consequence) that pertains to my subject. I also have another dimension of the doctrinal importance of narratives that I intend to address shortly.As I said, we are starting to remove them when we see them. Obviously if we don’t see them, we don’t remove them. We gave a lot of room early on giving both the opportunity to police yourselves. However the nonsense between Bert and Rajesh has gone on way too long. Both of you are making some very weak arguments and poor argumentation in pursuit of a position that has no value whatsoever to the overall issue. So knock it off. Move on.
He brought up the wood issue, etc. again so I have responded to what he has said.
[Larry]As I said, we are starting to remove them when we see them. Obviously if we don’t see them, we don’t remove them.
To flesh this out a bit, I have at times just excised portions of posts if I thought the rest was salvageable. Other times, I have just removed them wholesale. And as Larry said, sometimes we miss things that need moderating. This time I wasn’t involved at all. We have several moderators, and each operates more or less as he sees fit, with sometimes some discussion amongst ourselves. This means that at times, it may seem that some posters get different treatment. That’s not really our intent, but it can happen, and given all the moderators here do this as a labor of love rather than as a day job, this will likely happen in the future.
Moderators have their own thoughts on what is being argued, and guess what? We don’t always agree on the topic. Big surprise. That doesn’t mean any of us are “cheering” for one of the participants over the other. We are at least attempting to moderate based on the site standards. The calls of umpires are not always agreed with by one side or the other, but that’s life. The other option is to not play the game.
Dave Barnhart
In Romans 6:14-15, Scripture shows how Paul addressed another potential instance of the misuse of logical consequence:
Rom. 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
In 6:14, Paul sets forth as true the theological realities that (1) sin will not have dominion over us because (2) we are not under the law, but under grace.
In 6:15a, he then raises the issue (through the use a question) of what we are to understand as a result (“What then?”) of those theological truths and realities.
In 6:15b, Paul raises the issue of a particular logical consequence of what he said in 6:14b: “Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace?”
Here, using a question, Paul raises the issue of whether we should sin because someone would argue that doing so is a logical consequence of the truth that we are not under law but grace.
In 6:15c (and through his further teaching in the following verses), Paul decisively condemns acting in keeping with that particular logical consequence (of the valid theological truths and realities that he actually did state in 6:14): “God forbid.”
Paul did not teach and would never have taught that we should act in keeping with that particular logical consequence of his original statement that he declared to be true.
With this teaching, Paul and the Spirit teach us again (as they did in 5:20-6:2) that just because someone affirms that something is true does not establish that he also thereby affirms any particular logical consequence of the statement to be true.
Moreover, Scripture plainly teaches us here that a statement that is a valid theological truth does not necessitate our holding that a particular logical consequence of that statement is also a valid theological truth.
…..is non sequitur, literally “it does not follow”. In the case of Romans 6:14-15, the exegetical principle of context would lead us to take a look at Romans 6:16, which tells us exactly why it does not follow that because we are under grace, and not law, that we ought to sin. He tells us that we are slaves to whom we serve.
So there is no “misuse of logical consequence”, just the simple question of whether premises hold, and whether the conclusion follows from the premises. Really, it’s nothing more than a rehashing of “assailment by entailment”, where you also tried to argue that if a person explicitly denies a conclusion that follows from their logic, that it was wrong (even lying) to point out the logical consequences of other premises held by a person.
The danger of this is that that’s simply not how logic and thinking works. There are certain inescapable conclusions when the premises hold, and the conclusion follows from the premises. And if one disassociates the study of Scripture from the rules of logic, you basically undermine the entirety of the authority of Scripture.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]Just as you say that the context of Romans 6:14-15 (in Romans 6:16) shows in this case why it does not follow, so in the instances that you have misused logical consequence to misrepresent me, I have either had biblical truth or had some other factual basis to show why your false statements about my views either do not follow or are not true on some other basis.In the case of Romans 6:14-15, the exegetical principle of context would lead us to take a look at Romans 6:16, which tells us exactly why it does not follow that because we are under grace, and not law, that we ought to sin. He tells us that we are slaves to whom we serve.
The passage that you used for your premises to argue that logical consequences does not follow is Romans 6:14-16, and when taken in context, what we find is that your initial premise was wrong, and hence your conclusion is wrong. There is no such thing as “misuse of logical consequences”, as any competent logician would tell you. (nor is there any fallacy of “assailment by entailment”, which is basically the same thing) Logical consequences proceed whether we like it or not.
And this is key, because if we have arbiters of what is, or is not, permissible inference, what we have, when we’re talking about Scripture, is in effect a new Magisterium or Pope. This is a direct contradiction to Sola Scriptura and the First Fundamental. This is a big deal, Rajesh, and this is why we really, really, really don’t want to try to redefine logic to suit our needs. The consequences are too brutal.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Discussion