The redemptive-movement hermeneutic (hereafter, RM hermeneutic), as proposed by William Webb, is a hermeneutical approach which seeks to provide a basis for going beyond the Bible. Webb summarizes his view saying that redemptive movement “means that God in a pastoral sense accommodates himself to meeting people and society where they are in their existing social ethic and (from there) he gently moves them with incremental steps towards something better.”[3] Thus, a RM hermeneutic is a system of interpretation in which it is understood that God is advancing an ethical program. This program is a progression of ethics that is realized as the word of God is revealed and applied within the various historical and cultural contexts that have existed over the course of redemptive history. The necessity of a progressive plan stems from the great moral decadence intrinsic to ancient culture. A RM hermeneutic is a method of biblical analysis in which one is to understand immorality as being gradually purged from society through a series of revelatory liberations that move society further and further towards a more perfect standard. The ultimate realization of this series of liberations is an “ultimate ethic” which most completely reflects God’s nature and character.
Webb maintains that an interpreter can discover an ultimate ethic by examining biblical teachings within their social and canonical contexts. In order to identify the presence or absence of an ultimate ethic on a given issue, Webb has listed eighteen criteria which he suggests can be employed in order to determine whether aspects of biblical texts are cultural or transcultural. It should be noted that the relevancy of a particular criterion is dependent upon the biblical principle that is being evaluated. But as the interpreter compares that evidence which seems to indicate that some aspect of a passage is cultural with evidence that seems to support a transcultural understanding of the passage, an ultimate ethic may become increasingly apparent.
It is certain that Webb has provided a significant contribution to the present conversation on hermeneutics. The complexity of his system reflects the vast amount work that he has put into analyzing the issue. And yet, while it is without question that Webb has thought long and hard about the hermeneutical approach that he is proposing, there are some questions that remain unanswered. One such question concerns the ability of an interpreter to identify an ultimate ethic by way of Webb's eighteen criteria. The ultimate ethic of an RM hermeneutic is understood to be something that is implicitly communicated by the biblical text. But this idea does not seem to be a notion that can be conveyed by the text of Scripture since the specificity of such an idea requires additional information. Fundamentally, an ultimate ethic does not look to be something that is being expressed by the text as it was intended by the original authors. The additional information that is required in the formulation of an ultimate ethic appears to be of such specificity that it must be acknowledged as something new that is being introduced. Ultimately, it seems that the concept of an ultimate ethic ought to be recognized as something originating in the presuppositions of the interpreter.
This question of whether or not it is possible for an interpreter to identify an ultimate ethic is a question that becomes apparent as one begins to examine the criteria that Webb suggests an interpreter can use to make this determination. The eighteen criteria that Webb suggests are as follows:
1. Preliminary Movement
2. Seed Ideas
3. Breakouts
4. Purpose/Intent Statements
5. Basis in Fall or Curse
6. Basis in Original Creation, Section 1: Patterns
7. Basis in Original Creation, Section 2: Primogeniture
8. Basis in New Creation
9. Competing Options
10. Opposition to Original Culture
11. Closely Related Issue
12. Penal Code
13. Specific Instructions Versus General Principles
14. Basis in Theological Analogy
15. Contextual Comparisons
16. Appeal to the Old Testament
17. Pragmatic Basis between Two Cultures
18. Scientific and Social-Scientific Evidences [4]
Again, it is important to recognize that Webb believes some of these criteria are more persuasive than others with respect to specific ethical issues. Consequently, he has chosen to organize the criteria in his book, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals, as “persuasive,” “moderately persuasive,” or “inconclusive.” It is significant that the degree of persuasiveness of a particular criterion is dependent upon the textual component in question. Such persuasiveness or lack of persuasiveness is not an inherent quality of the criterion in question. Webb explains that “these three subcategories do not rate the quality of the criterion itself—an ‘inconclusive’ criterion may be an excellent criterion for cultural/transcultural analysis. Rather, they tell the story in terms of the outcome of each criterion as it contributes to the issue being investigated.”[5] And while it is beyond the scope of this paper to evaluate each of the above eighteen criteria, it seems appropriate to examine several which Webb maintains are persuasive in the identification of an ultimate ethic with regard to the issue of women's roles.
The first criterion that Webb lists as being “persuasive” with respect to the issue of women is that of “preliminary movement.” Concerning this criterion, Webb says that “a component of a text may be culturally bound if Scripture modifies the original cultural norms in such a way that suggests further movement is possible and even advantageous in a subsequent culture.”[6] Thus, something prescribed to the readers of a particular text may be a culturally-limited preliminary move toward a higher ethic if the relationship between the biblical mandate and the culture “suggests that further movement is possible and even advantageous in a subsequent culture.”[7] Webb cites the following biblical examples as preliminary movement on the issue of women:
1. Improved rights for female slaves and concubines.It seems obvious that the above provisions exemplify movement in contrast to ANE cultural norms. But notice that the determining factor of a preliminary move is the manner in which the original culture is adjusted. Webb says that cultural norms must be modified “in such a way that suggests further movement is possible and even advantageous in a subsequent culture.”[9] However, he does not seem to specify the distinction between types of modifications which indicate that further movement is advantageous as opposed to types of modifications which imply that further movement is undesirable. Consequently, it is unclear how a cultural norm must be modified in order to indicate that further ethical reform is advantageous in a subsequent culture. If there is no principled way of determining whether further ethical modifications are advantageous, then it seems that preliminary movement cannot be expanded upon. Although it is evident that further movement is possible in each of the above situations, it is not evident as to where such movement might lead. Gary Meadors rightly observes that “Webb's use of ‘change’ as proof of ‘movement’ falls into the fallacy that correlation is causation. ‘Movement’ then becomes a method rather than an observation. ‘Change’ could just as well be the product of the internal continuity of progressive revelation and its application of a biblical worldview and resulting values set without the need to impose the construct of ‘redemptive spirit.’ ”[10] This is the crux of the problem as one seeks to identify an ultimate ethic using this criterion. While interpreters can draw comparisons between cultural norms and biblical mandates, they are not able to establish a trajectory that would show the direction of further movement or the final destination of such movement. Rather, it seems that the specificity of a trajectory and/or the final destination (the ultimate ethic) requires additional information. This can be illustrated in the following example. Concerning improved rights for
2. No bodily punishment of a wife.
3. Women's gain of (limited) inheritance rights.
4. The right of women to initiate divorce.
5. Greater rights in divorce cases.
6. Fairer treatment of women suspected of adultery.
7. Elevation of female sexuality.
8. Improved rape laws.
9. Softening the husband side of household codes. [8]
female slaves and concubines (from the first of Webb’s examples listed above),
Webb writes:
The ANE world permitted the sale of girls to any male, whether domestic or foreign. These young women or concubines fulfilled whatever sexual purposes the owner deemed fit. They held virtually no rights of their own. While the Old Testament permitted the sale of daughters as chattel slaves and concubines, it made a significant redemptive move against this blatantly unchecked expression of patriarchy (Ex 21:7-11). Unlike foreign law codes, the biblical text limited the sale of concubines to within the Israelite nation and granted to these women “rights that were normally afforded to daughters who were married in the customary manner.” [11]
In this example, there is distinction between the biblical mandate and ANE cultural norms. However, the trajectory toward and ultimate ethic is not evident. There is a question as to whether a proposed trajectory would include more rights for those who are sexually exploited, for concubines, for female slaves, for all slaves, or for women in general. There is also a question as to the types of rights that further movement would afford. Are these rights limited to the types of rights that are typically afforded to daughters and wives or should this include equal or superior rights to men? Kevin Vanhoozer observes that “one problem with this approach is that the interpreter has to assume that he or she is standing at the end of the trajectory, or at least further along, than some of the biblical authors in order to see where it leads.”[12] Ultimately, if the trajectory of a divine ethic cannot be identified beyond the location of a biblical mandate in relation to cultural norms, then it does not seem to be possible to identify the final destination of the divine ethic, namely the ultimate ethic.
Another criterion which Webb maintains to be useful in the identification of an ultimate ethic is that of “seed ideas.” Webb says that “a component of a text may be cultural if ‘seed ideas’ are present within the rest of Scripture to suggest and encourage further movement on a particular subject.”[13] He continues saying that, “texts with seed ideas would probably have moved the original audience only in a limited fashion. Nonetheless, within what they affirm these texts imply that the scrimmage maker could be pushed further.”[14] For example, the biblical passages which relate to the institution of slavery provided for a variety of forms of liberation for slaves within the historical contexts in which they were given. Webb observes that “Deuteronomy instructs Israel to provide safety and refuge to slaves fleeing harsh treatment from a foreign country (Deut. 23:15-16). Upon crossing Israel's borders, a fleeing slave was to be given shelter, was permitted to live in any of Israel's cities, and was not to be handed over to his/her master.”[15] This prescribed treatment was one that stood in stark contrast to the treatment of slaves that was common in the surrounding ancient Near Eastern social structures. Webb notes that “most ancient Near Eastern countries had extradition treaties and administered severe punishment to runaway slaves, to their families, and to those who aided their escape.”[16] He also maintains that these liberations are recognizably progressive over the course of the biblical canon. He cites the following New Testament examples:
1 Cor 7:21—"If you [as a slave] can gain your freedom, do so."
1 Cor 12:13—"We were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free . . ."
Galatians 3:28—". . . neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free . . . in Christ Jesus."
Colossians 3:11—Within the new humanity/society, "There is no longer Greek or Jew . . . slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all."
Philemon 15-16—"Have him [Onesimus] back for
good--no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother." [17]
Webb suggests that these texts are “seed ideas” that constitute further movement from the Deuteronomistic mandates towards an ultimate ethic on slavery. Concerning the above New Testament passages, he states that “these texts are quietly suggestive. They foster the idea that the legislative texts could be adapted or modified by later generations to take the redemptive dimension of Scripture to a higher level.”[18] Webb argues that while no biblical texts called for the complete abolition of slavery within the historical contexts in which they were given, modern-day interpreters may understand the biblical teaching on slavery to include these seed ideas for the purpose of communicating an ultimate ethic of total abolition.
A criterion that is similar and related to seed ideas is that of “breakouts.” Webb writes, “while a seedbed idea is subtle and quiet due to its unrealized form, a breakout is a much more pronounced deviation by Scripture from the cultural norms.”[19] Whereas seed ideas are texts which are merely suggestive and imply further movement, breakouts are biblical texts which exemplify a dramatic breaking away from cultural norms.
In the final analysis, it seems that whether a text merely implies movement from a social norm or whether it radically exemplifies such movement, the problem inherent to the criterion of preliminary movement described above remains. Although the differences between cultural norms and biblical mandates can be examined, there is no set of principles by which the interpreter can determine which of these differences or aspects of these differences are definitive in the determination the ethical trajectory.
It should also be noted that even if a trajectory of divine ethics were identifiable, the final destination of such an ethic must remain in question. If Webb was suggesting that the possibility of further movement would be an indication of the necessity for such movement, then an ultimate ethic could be understood to be the furthest possible move along the identified trajectory. However, this is not Webb's position. Notice Webb’s description as he stresses the importance of evaluating whether ethical reforms are “absolute” or “preliminary.” He says that “absolute movement” is movement in which “the biblical author has pushed society so far and that is as far as it is supposed to go; further movement is not desired.”[20] “Preliminary movement” refers to movement in which “the biblical author has pushed society as far as it could go at that time without creating more damage than good; however, it can and should ultimately go further.”[21] What is clear in Webb's description of these two types of movement is that both may allow for further movement. Of course, “preliminary movement” is movement that “can and should go further.”[22] But it should also be recognized that while “absolute movement” is movement in which society has been pushed as far as it is supposed to go, society has not necessarily been pushed as far as it could go. Even though further movement might occur, it is simply not desirable because the ultimate ethic has already been achieved. But the question is, how does an interpreter identify where such movement should come to rest? What is the final destination? What is the basis by which an interpreter can determine the location of the ultimate ethic along the identified trajectory assuming that such a trajectory could be identified?
The problem is that there may be a variety of relationships between what was prescribed in Scripture and ANE cultural norms. But a question remains about which of the differences between biblical directives and ANE cultural norms interpreters should understand as paradigmatic as they seek to identify a trajectory of divine ethics. The specificity of an ultimate ethic is such that interpreters must have additional information in order to determine which of these associations they should recognize as paradigmatic.
In conclusion, it seems that individual presuppositions may be the only basis by which interpreters are able to identify the trajectory and final destination of an ultimate ethic in a RM hermeneutic. If an ultimate ethic cannot be identified using the criteria that Webb has proposed, then something else must be at work as ultimate ethics are specified. This seems to be the thrust of Wayne Grudem’s concern. Grudem suggests that socialists, capitalists, Arminians, Calvinists, paedobaptists, and others who hold to differing opinions, would be able to identify redemptive movement in support of their various positions.[23] And while it remains to be seen where Webb’s RM hermeneutic will lead, it seems that such concerns may have some merit.
____________
Endnotes
[1] William Webb, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001), 67.
[2] I. Howard Marshall, Beyond the Bible, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 36.
[3] William Webb, “A Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic: Encouraging Dialogue among Four Evangelical Views,” JETS 48:2 (2005), 332.
[4] Webb, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals, 73-235.
[5] Ibid., 68.
[6] Ibid., 73.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid., 76-81.
[9] Ibid., 73.
[10] Gary T. Meadors, “Probing the 'Redemptive Movement Hermeneutic' Model.” (A Seminar Panel for Pastors Held at Heritage Theological Seminary, Cambridge Ontario, January 17, 2005), 16.
[11] Webb, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals, 76-77.
[12] Kevin Vanhoozer, "Into the Great Beyond: A Theologian's Response to the Marshall Plan," Beyond the Bible, ed. I. Howard Marshall, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 90.
[13] Webb, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals, 83.
[14] Ibid.
[15] William Webb, “Slavery,” Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 751.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Webb, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals, 84.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid., 91.
[20] Ibid., 73.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Wayne Grudem, “Should We Move Beyond the New Testament to a Better Ethic?” JETS 47:2 (2004), 306.
No comments:
Post a Comment