Obama’s Bible: Part 2 (…or…la Bible d’Obama: Partie Deux)

Some of you left some great comments concerning Sen. Obama’s methods of Biblical interpretation.  Let’s continue the evaluation.

Where is this reference in the Sermon on the Mount to which the Senator is referring?  Great question.  Answer: it’s anyone’s guess.  He did not make it clear, but simply invoked this lengthy passage by name.

Perhaps he was making a veiled reference to Matt. 5:38-48, the well-known section of turning the other cheek to one who has slapped you, of giving your coat when someone takes your shirt, etc.  Or, even more likely, perhaps he was appealing to the first portion of chapter 7—that of judging oneself before one’s brother.

However, for Sen. Obama to claim that these passages support homosexuality is an eisegetical travesty.  The teachings bundled in this section vary from that of Believers remaining fervent in their example as a “city on a hill” (5:13-16), of men and women being guilty of adultery even if they merely lust after another (5:27-28), of giving to the poor (6:1-4), etc.  To invoke this passage by name and declare it a great ally of homosexual conduct would be to ignore the teachings thereof entirely.  Anyone with a KJV, NIV, NASB—or, for that matter, even an NWT—can clearly see that these chapters teach principles of personal conduct, relationships, witness, and that they do not encourage sinful lifestyles.

There is no didactic (teaching) content in favor of homosexuality.  The reference found here to sexuality does nothing to broaden God’s command.  On the contrary, it makes morality in relation to sexuality much tighter.  Indeed, Jesus commands that mere lust is tantamount to fornication.

The Senator’s flippant attitude toward Romans must also be dealt with.  Not only is this passage not in the least obscure, we have no reason to assume that we can merely pick what we want from the Bible and dispose of the rest.  This smorgasbord attitude is that which has produced the neo-pagan, Buddhist-flavored, Christianity-sprinkled New-Agers which populate our country. 

To deny God’s Word, however, is to deny God.  One who chooses to discard commandments from the Father is choosing not to follow the Father.

Indeed, Jesus said, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15; NASB).  He did not give us access to pick and choose which of those commandments we like.  If we are followers of God, it will naturally follow that we obey Him—and His Word.

Biblical texts may vary in the extent to which they may be easily applied to our lives.  It is quite simple, for example, to see how the Sermon on the Mount ought to guide how we direct our lives.  And, Romans 1:26-27, the “obscure” passage cited by Sen. Obama, can quite readily be applied to our lives in that we are not to engage in the sin it describes.  However, even passages which may not seem to directly apply to us cannot be thrown away.

The Bible is composed of a variety of types of literature—from didactic passages to narratives, from poetry to parables and proverbs, etc.  We must consciously determine which type of literature we are reading as we engage a Biblical text.  Passages which are not didactic in nature will naturally be less quickly applicable to daily life.  However, we cannot declare these unimportant and discard them.

After all, how would our understanding of the long-awaited redemption be cheapened without the epic struggles of the Old Testament, the promise made to Abraham?  How would our understanding of the human condition be affected had we not the poetry of the Psalms which convey the glory of God and the joy of following Him, as well as the despair of the moments during which one feels far from Him?  How could we appreciate the fulfillment of prophecy in Christ had we not access to those prophecies?  How would we properly understand the salvation described in the epistles if we did not have an historical account of the life of Jesus?

However, above all we must note that it is not a text’s usefulness which gains it entry into the canon.  It was placed there by the fathers of old who followed careful criteria, such as, concerning the New Testament, that of a text’s apostolic authority (its link to an apostle).

We cannot uphold only that which we find to be ”central” and discard the rest.  We must properly engage the texts by classifying them into their proper genre.

Yes, there are passages which are obscure, such as Paul’s quick reference to baptism of the dead (I Cor. 15:29).  Even these passages, though, must not be discarded.  Rather, these obscure texts must be interpreted by the more explicit portions of scripture.  We still need to grapple with and attempt to understand them—but we do so by understanding them within the context of the whole Bible, not by merely kicking them out of the canon.

Sen. Obama may need to enroll in Hermeneutics 101 if he wishes to paint himself a devoted Believer.

This entry was posted on 24. March 2008 at 12:01 and is filed under Biblical Interpretation, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.

| Print