God reveals. The biblical writers\u00a0interpret God\u2019s revelation.<\/p>\n
Those\u00a0interpretations eventually become\u00a0the Bible.<\/p>\n
The fact that different writers are interpreting God\u2019s revelation at different times, for different reasons, and for different circumstances accounts for why the Bible contains diverse and contradictory points of view.<\/p>\n
In a nutshell, that is one of the core points Benjamin D. Sommer makes in his recent book Revelation and Authority: Sinai in Jewish Scripture and Tradition<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(see also here<\/a>\u00a0and here<\/a>).<\/p>\n I\u2019m on spring break this week and trying to do fun things. But I keep coming back to this book. I\u2019m having trouble putting it down.<\/p>\n The book is scholarly but quite readable, and, of course, it is loaded with long, learned citations of the Bible, the history of interpretation, and contemporary scholarship (so please, no simple refutations on the comments section). But one example he turns to, and somewhat briefly because it speaks for itself, is how the Bible handles the Passover meal.<\/p>\n I first came across this issue in graduate school and in reading another important book, Michael Fishbane\u2019s Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel<\/i><\/a>.<\/i> This issue is one of several that made me realize I had some thinking to do about \u201cWhat the Bible Is\u201d that would take me well beyond my evangelical\/Calvinist training up to that point. (I talk about this for a few pages, too, in\u00a0The Bible Tells Me So<\/i><\/a>.)\u00a0<\/i><\/p>\n The issue is that the Passover law is given twice: in Exodus 12 and then in Deuteronomy 16. But they do not agree in details\u2014in fact they contradict each other, and that contradiction is \u201cresolved\u201d in a third passage, 2 Chronicles 35:13.<\/p>\n As Sommer explains it,<\/p>\n Both Exodus 12 and Deuteronomy\u00a016 require all Israelite families to slaughter and consume an animal as a Passover ritual. But they differ on details: Exodus 12.5 stipulates that the offering must be a lamb or kid, while\u00a0Deuteronomy\u00a016.2 allows one to\u00a0bring\u00a0the offering from the flock of the heard\u2014that is, in addition to sheep and goats, large cattle are permissible. Whereas \u00a0Exodus 12.8 directs Israelites to roast the offering [and\u00a0explicitly NOT\u00a0to boil it or eat it raw], Deuteronomy 16.6-7 require that the offering be boiled. <\/i>(p. 136)<\/p>\n I would add that Exodus presents the Passover as a family meal whereas Deuteronomy presents it as a pilgrimage meal held in only\u00a0one place, namely the Temple in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n To sum up:<\/p>\n Exodus 12<\/span>: <\/strong>roast the lamb or kid (do not boil it) and eat it at home. No matter what you do, you\u2019re going to disobey one of these laws.<\/p>\n And then along comes the book of Chronicles, which attempts (somewhat awkwardly but still ingeniously) to harmonize at least one aspect of the two laws: \u201cThey boiled<\/i><\/b> the Passover offering in fire<\/i><\/b>, in accordance with the law,\u201d the underlined\u00a0phrase alerting us to the fact that this author feels some obligation to\u00a0account for both laws in order to be \u201cin accordance with the law.\u201d<\/p>\n Sommer\u2019s point is that biblical authors, though\u00a0they believed\u00a0that legal obligations were central, nevertheless adapted\u2014interpreted\u2014God\u2019s revelation as they saw fit.\u00a0But\u2014and this is Sommer\u2019s point\u2014we should not think of the later text of Deuteronomy messing with the original, authoritative Passover law in Exodus<\/b>.<\/p>\n Rather, both Exodus and Deuteronomy\u2014and then 2 Chronicles to follow\u2014are interpreting an\u00a0original revelation by God uttered on Mt. Sinai that\u00a0needed<\/i> to be interpreted because it was flexible and even ambiguous, not a final draft of a constitution, so to speak, as many Christians think of it, but an \u201cutterance\u201d of God that\u00a0required<\/i> human engagement to flesh out.<\/p>\n Exodus 12 is not the original that Deuteronomy 16 changed. Exodus is already a needed interpretation of revelation, to which Deuteronomy and Chronicles add their\u00a0interpretations<\/b>.<\/p>\n This need<\/i> to interpret revelation (see\u00a0the other blog posts linked above)\u00a0Sommer calls\u00a0a \u201cparticipatory\u201d model of revelation. The biblical writers, to put it another way, contribute to the content of revelation by faithfully trying to articulate God\u2019s revelation<\/b>.<\/p>\n I know this concept can sound a bit abstract (although, we ARE dealing with God<\/a>, after all). But for my tastes,\u00a0a \u201cparticipatory\u201d model\u00a0of\u00a0the Bible beats inerrantist models hands down\u00a0because it does what inerrantist models\u00a0routinely\u00a0do not and cannot do:\u00a0<\/i>account for how the Bible behaves rather than wishing it were behaving some other way or relying on a few\u00a0prooftexts to\u00a0maintain\u00a0an inerrantist model.<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n And what is extra-fascinating here is that our\u00a0biblical authors\u2014while knowing full well these laws cannot be simultaneously obeyed\u2014nevertheless place them all squarely\u00a0as commands of God given to Moses on Mt. Sinai<\/i>: all 3 are\u00a0extensions of the original utterance of God and therefore all three are the \u201cLaw of Moses.\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n It is not God<\/i> speaking in diverse voices, but humans hearing God\u2019s voice differently<\/i>. And it\u2019s all good.<\/p>\n Make what you will of the Passover laws and the many other similar issues, but how we view the Bible as God\u2019s word, revelatory, authoritative, etc., cannot be ignorant or dismissive of how this Bible actually behaves.<\/p>\n This blog was first posted in February 2017.<\/em><\/p>\n \u2014<\/p>\n Did you enjoy this blog? Curious about the book of Exodus?<\/p>\n Read Pete\u2019s newest book: Exodus for Normal People<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n
Deuteronomy 16<\/strong><\/span>:\u00a0<\/strong>boil an animal from the herd and eat it in Jerusalem.<\/p>\nIf revelation is understood as \u201cparticipatory,\u201d then accounting for this diversity is not a problem but an invitation.<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/peteenns.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/exodus_book_cover_24-212x300.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/div>\n