The book Context by Josh Scott
I liked this book. I do kind of wish he included more examples, though. I think he could have possibly left out “I know the plans I have for you” and the “I can do all things through Christ”, only because these two examples are everywhere. You cannot look up online examples of reading the bible out of context, without rightfully seeing these two examples. Ha. When I teach high school students to read the bible in context, I use these two examples—they are perfect illustrations of the problem of how people read the bible out of context, and a careful reading of the verses that went before is enough to help students start seeing how the context determines the meaning. Anyhow, I was hoping for more tidy examples that pack a punch. I like that he provided the context on Sodom, revealing the sin was inhospitality, and the context of 1 Corinthians 13. I think my favorite was his wonderful section on Ruth.
The context of Ruth:
The author of Deuteronomy 23 clearly hates the Moabites and writes that no Moabite nor any of their descendants may ever enter the assembly of the Lord, and Israelites are never to seek friendship with them. Why? because of an offense—they failed to bring bread to the Israelites when they came out of Egypt. Basic message: take offense, never forget, never forgive, hate them now, teach your children to hate them, make sure you always hate them, making no exceptions. God wants you to hate—it is your moral obligation.
Later, Ezra and Nehemiah use this text for reforms, expelling all foreigners from Israel and requiring all the men to divorce women with “impure blood”.
Fascinatingly, the repugnant reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah are the context for the book of Ruth. Scholars generally agree that it was written post-exile.
The author of Ruth never misses an opportunity to emphasize the fact that Ruth was a Moabite throughout the story, lest a reader forget.
Anyhow, what is fascinating is
We have an irredeemable and evil command given in Deut 23 that only bears bad fruit if observed.
We have leaders using the command to justify xenophobia, racism, and hatred of the outsider.
Yet at the same time, we have some author who composes a story to protest against the powers that be and the mainstream opinion.
And all of these are compiled TOGETHER in what would become holy scriptures.
Biblical texts are written over almost a 1000-year period, which means some biblical authors had the advantage of hindsight. Some concepts of God and laws could be judged by their fruits. The law in Deut 23:3-6 was a bad tree and it bore very bad fruit, and it is wonderful that those working in the tradition countered it.
Reflecting on Deut 23:3-6, we see that hatred can easily move beyond those who commit the wrong, to an entire people group. We learn that we can quickly overgeneralize and, from some bad experiences, we can conclude the entire group is BAD. WE then, bizarrely, can not only hate everyone alive, but also declare contempt to ALL future generations, believing that every child born will be born guilty.
Imagine having one bad experience with someone who is Chinese, then concluding that all Chinese are bad, and that all future Chinese people will be bad. Suppose I think I am obligated to hate and never forgive all Chinese people now, but how can I make sure my descendants hate all Chinese people? Once I die, what if people forgive the Chinese—what if my people dared to love and treat one with civility, and to enter into a friendship with them? Gasp…
Lord forbid! Oh, here is an idea, I can claim that God almighty commanded us to hate ALL of them now forever and to NEVER forgive. To love God is to always hate them, forever.
If I can get people to think God commanded this, then this is my best hope for making this hatred enduring.
Interestingly, the author of Deuteronomy, who hated Moabites and wanted all his people to hate them, likely saw himself as just and righteous. Like Cain, he inverted right and wrong. Moabites did something wrong, which led him to dehumanize and devalue all Moabites, and viewing all of them as bad, he could see them all worthy of punishment and hatred—and this is simply “justice”. Now he is trying to make sure all his descendants do justice and walk in righteousness, which to him means to hate and never forgive.
What is tragic is, to make his hatred authoritative and lasting, he put it in Torah, believed to be God’s law.
So now, think of the power of tradition and authority for those who came after. Rather than thinking, is this good and godly? Things are just obeyed. If anyone questions it, just as the original author could use bad rationalizations to justify hating an entire people group forever, regardless, so anyone wanting to defend the text can do the same.
Fortunately, a lot of people ignore and overlook it, then and in the future. But the passage REMAINS there, and leaders like Ezra or Nehemiah used it to make hatred of the outsider the law of the land. A lot of people would just go along. To do otherwise would seem to undermine the text. But that is precisely what some individuals, like the author of Ruth, did.
Ruth is an individual, and the story creates sympathy for her. Jews consider David their greatest king, and connecting David with her forces people to be like “Would it be reasonable to reject, hate, and condemn David because his ancestor was a Moabite? No… It thus undermines and shows the absurdity of the prooftext that was being used as a weapon and was used for evil. Yet it provides no alternative reading of Deut 23:3-6. The toxic text remains. The verse is evil; to forever hate the Moabites is a loaded gun—a deadly weapon that is just sitting there, waiting for the wrong person to come along, after Ezra and Ruth were composed.
There are lots of deadly weapons sitting in the bible, most of them are ignored. But they are there.
In light of this, Christians need to know how to approach the bible, so no one gets hurt. Since evil texts were not cut out of the bible, it means Christians MUST be able to recognize them as bad and interpret them as illustrations of religion working as a force of evil and as a warning, lest we do the same.
Sometimes, authors straight up contradict other texts more directly, but stories like Ruth and Jonah work more like parables. Those who created these stories critically assessed the fruit of weapon texts in their own scripture, and they made up stories that illustrated just how toxic, irrational, and/or evil these notions were. Again, I love how Jews included them in the bible.
These Protest books give us a way forward, for it is clear they are respecting and working within the system more broadly, while undermining and challenging toxic parts.
We must be willing to do the same.
That means recognizing parts that are bad, and which play out in horrible ways, and result in absurd conclusions, and are dangerous and evil. Bad fruit is bad fruit regardless. Even if words are put in God’s mouth or commands supposedly come from God, if they are bad, they are bad. If it claims God does things that are bad, since God is not bad, he did not do them. We shall know an idea by its fruit. We have time on our side, we can look at how ideas have played out in history. When the fruit is bad, it indicates the idea is bad.
Now, we can also protest by crafting illustrations and stories that clearly reveal that the straightforward reading or traditional interpretation of a text is dangerous, harmful, and must be rejected.
When biblical authors do this, their stories are just put along with the main text. However, when I create a story that illustrates a really bad notion that comes from the bible, I have to try and spin some other less toxic reading from the text—for example, to show a way to read Genesis 3 that is non-Augustinian and a way to read the flood story that distances God from the violence. I can do so with these. I can also find a figurative approach for Joshua. However, passages commanding perpetual hatred of the Moabites are another matter, and 1 Samuel, which has God wanting Saul to commit genocide against a people because of a sin 400 years old. These are harder, if not impossible, to turn into something less repugnant. Interestingly, it was Duet that commanded perpetual hatred of the Amalekites, and then it is God who reminds and then punishes Saul for not being thorough in his genocide, and sends an evil spirit to torment him. Anyhow, these evils are so blatantly placed in God’s mouth and are so central to the narrative flow. There is no perfect spin job.
Instead, it is necessary to straight up say these passages are evil, placed there by evil men to justify evil. They teach us how easily we can justify evil, attribute evil to God, and use religion to justify evil. And then they show the dangers of tradition—leading good people to justify and defend evil and possibly engage in evil—all with a clean conscience—as the bible has inverted right and wrong, and gave them a way that seems “right”, but is the way of death.
We must be vigilant. We must be willing to call evil evil.