The Difficulty of Ex 24: Childs’ Proposal

Ex 24 is anything but easy with regard to clear connection in and style of the text.  Even a quick read makes a person scratch his/her head, wondering why it is a bit choppy.  One example: not only is this section of Exodus out of chronological order, even this chapter is “dischronologized.”  It seems as if vv 3-8 interrupt the flow of vv 1-2 and 9ff.  Of course, the author(s) no doubt had a reason for this order, but that’s tough to discern.  Here’s how Childs handles the tension.

He speaks about two ways this tension has been approached.  One (the LXX and the Targums) “attempted to fill in the missing gaps in the ongoing narrative and to harmonize the difficulties.”  The weakness of this approach “lies in its failure to deal seriously enough with the given text, substituting one’s own opinion of what the text should have said.”

The second approach, found in the “recent critical commentaries,” abandoning all effort to obtain a coherent account.”  Thy point out all the discrepancies in the text and focus solely on historical reconstructions of the text.  The weakness of this approach “lies in its complete atomizing of the narrative in disregard of the final stage of the text, and its failure to realize that the whole is more than its parts.”

“What is needed (Childs’ approach) is a synthetic approach which, while recognizing the historical dimension of the text, will seek to describe as objectively as possible what the final editor actually accomplished with his narrative.  In this way the expositor does not himself go beyond the witness of the text (something which both above approaches do).  He is also able to offer some value judgments on how successfully the last literary stamping has dealt with the older material of the tradition which was reworked into a new form.”

I agree with Childs here; neither the first nor the second approach is laudable.  Possibly people in the “conservative” camp would fall into the first group, the “liberals” would fall into the latter (to generalize terribly!).  There’s a better way, however, as Childs notes.

I do have a question with Childs’ final sentence there.  I could be reading it incorrectly, but it seems to me as if Childs stumbles a bit.  Notice how he said the reader offers “value judgments” on how the final editor  reworked the old material into a new form.  I believe that we should say that the editor was successful in reworking the older material into new form, because he did it! The judgment should be on us: how successful we are in seeing how he reworked the older material into new form.

Again, just some thoughts.  I could be wrong.  If “value judgments” means “humble guesses,” then I don’t have a problem with it.  Also, I’m not sure how we can know the “older material of the tradition.”  Let me know if you have some ideas!  I could use them!

Quotes from page 503 of Childs’ commentary on Exodus (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1974).

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Theological Reflection in the Context of the Canon (Childs)

How does a student of Scripture relate the witness of Scripture to extra-biblical evidence?  In other words, how do you deal with a “tension” between an OT historical text and archaeological findings?

Childs has a nice section in Exodus (p. 299-302) where he wrestles with this question.  Below are a few of his statements.  I’m not going to comment on it much, because I’m still digesting it myself.

First, Childs says there are two basic approaches to this question, neither of which he likes.  The first way is the “supernaturalistic” viewpoint, which controls and corrects extra-biblical evidence.  Childs says this position wants to use extra-biblical evidence, but ultimately doesn’t let the evidence speak for itself.   The second way is that of rationalism, which “represents the opposite extreme.”  “It seeks to determine the truth of the biblical testimony on the basis of critical evaluation according to rational criteria, based on past human experience.”  This position eliminates the basic theological issues of the Scripture by scientifically and rationalistically explaining away everything in Scripture. (Side: later Childs says one example of rationalizing an OT story is explaining the water from the rock in Ex 17 as a parallel to modern examples of water breaking through the crust of rock in the desert.)

Childs: “In my judgment, a correct understanding of biblical theology in the context of the canon allows one to break out of this old impasse.  First of all, the theological concept of canon is a confession.”  The canon “serves a unique function in the relation between God and his people…. In other words, scripture is not simply one means among several others of testifying to a unique self-disclosure of God in Jesus Christ.  To take the concept of the canon seriously is to assign to scripture a normative role and to refuse to submit the truth of its testimony to criteria of human reason.”

Now Childs gives a however:  “However, the canon lays no claim to universal knowledge…”    “The integrity of the canon is maintained without calling into question legitimate areas in which the judgment of human reason is appropriate.”  I once heard an OT scholar say that extra-biblical evidence can be an occasion for reinterpretation, but not the grounds for it.  I think this is sort of what Childs is saying, if I “get” him here.

He closes this section like this: “The biblical exegete is forced to hear testimony from inside and outside the community of faith because he lives in both worlds (earlier he said that ‘both worlds’ speak the same language, share the same thought-patterns, and share similar experiences of daily life).  He dare not destroy the canonical witness by forcing it into the mold of the ‘old age,’ nor dare he construct out of the canonical witness a world of myth safely relegated to the distant past.  Rather, he confesses his participation in the community of faith by ’searching the scriptures.’  He seeks to share the bread of life with the church through the testimony of scripture.  He remains open in anticipation to those moments when the Spirit of God resolves the tension and bridges the gap between faith and history.”

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Childs on the Difficulties of Texts (esp. Exodus 11-12)

Exodus 11-12 – the famous Passover text (including the exodus proper and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, or Matstsoth) – has some difficulties that have to do with chronology and timing.  If you read through it, it is tough to get a firm chronology of when the things are instituted and when they are actually celebrated (see 12.28, 39, and 50 for example).   I don’t have the time to sum up all the difficulties, but in short, the text is pretty tough.  It’s so tough that Sarna writes, “Without doubt, the chapter is a composite of several strands of tradition” (Exodus, p. 53).

Childs is good here.  After he discusses some of the difficulties, he writes this.

There are some broader implications for understanding the passover pericope which arise from our literary analysis of the final form of the present text.  If an expositor takes seriously the final redaction, he can recognize an important biblical testimony to the relationship between word and event in the redactor’s manner of linking commands to narrative material.  The Biblical writer brackets the exodus event with a preceding and succeeding interpretation.  He does not see the exodus as an ‘act of God’ distinct from the ‘word of God’ which explains it.  In theological terms, the relation between act and interpretation, or event and word, is one which cannot be separated.  The biblical writer does not conceive of the event as primary or ‘objective’ from which an inferential, subjective deduction of its meaning is drawn.  The event is never uninterpreted.  Conversely, a theological interpretation which sees the subjective appropriation – whether described cultically or existentially – as the primary event from which an event may be reconstructed, is again introducing a theological scheme which has no warrant in the theology of the redactor.

Of course, this doesn’t wipe away all the difficulties, but it is a good reminder as we encounter this and other hard spots in the OT.  We’re not usually going to have bare, objective, uninterpreted “brute facts” in texts; rather, they are acts which are interpreted in the text, or by the text.  G. Vos said it this way: “Word and act always accompany each other…without God’s acts the words would be empty, without his words the acts would be blind” (“The Idea of Biblical Theology as a Science and as a Theological Discipline”).

The longer quote above was taken from page 204 of Brevard Childs, Exodus (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004).

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Childs on Exodus 6

Brevard Childs has a great “theological reflection” on Exodus 6 – the ’sermon’ Yahweh gave to doubting and mutinous Moses.

Perhaps the greatest theological significance of Ex. 6 in the context of the canon is the tremendous theocentric emphasis of the Biblical author’s understanding of the exodus.  Although the shape of a call narrative is still present in ch. 6, interest in the manner of God’s appearing or the human reactions to a theophany have receded to a vanishing point.  Rather, the whole focus falls on God revealing himself in a majestic act of self-identification: I am Yahweh.  Although there is a history of revelation which includes a past and future, the theocentric focus on God’s initiative in making himself known tends to encompass all the various times into the one great act of disclosure.  To know God’s name is to know his purpose for all mankind from the beginning to the end.  Ezekiel pursues the same line of thought even more consistently when he sees all of God’s intervention into human history arising from this concern for his name (20.9).  In his testimony that nothing in human history shares the glory which belongs alone to God, the writer reduces Pharaoh to a pawn on God’s great chess-board, and Israel, far from being viewed as a partner in the plan of God, is judged for consistent disobedience and allegiance to the idols of Egypt (Ezek. 20.8).

Childs ends the section rightly in the NT, explaining how John’s understanding of Israel’s history “centered in the great act of self-revelation in Jesus Christ.”  Read the above quote again (and again!), with Christ in mind.

Brevard Childs, The Book of Exodus (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 119-120.

Exodus 4.24-26: The Bloody “Bridegroom”

Though the brief and “bloody” episode of the circumcision that Zipporah performed is tucked away in the OT, there have been scores of articles and essays written on it.  It would be too tedious to list them all here, but for the record the ones I found helpful were written (in various commentaries and journals) by William Propp “That Bloody Bridegroom,” Ronald Allen “The ‘Bloody Bridegroom’ in Exodus 4:24-26,” Bernard Robinson “Zipporah to the Rescue: A Contextual Study of Exodus IV 24-6,” Julian Morgenstern “The ‘Bloody Husband’ (?) (Exod. 4:24-26) Once Again,” and commentaries by Brevard Childs, Peter Enns, Nahum Sarna, Terrence Fretheim, John Calvin, and a few others.  One should also consult Wellhausen’s etiological description, as well as important Jewish commentaries.

We  note from the outset that the Hebrew text is anything but crystal clear:  On whose “feet” does Zipporah wipe (nagah) the bloody foreskin?  Does ‘feet’ (regel) mean legs, feet, or private parts here?  Which son does Zipporah circumcise?  Who is the ‘bridegroom’ (hatan) of blood?  What does ‘bridegroom’ (hatan) mean here – relative, in-law, or wife’s father?  Who let whom go?  Certainly there are more questions that are not so easy to answer; the LXX is only somewhat helpful on this passage.

Here are a few things from the passage that can be stated with relative certainty: 1) Yahweh is angry with Moses and put him in a death grip.  2) Zipporah circumcised her son.  3) Zipporah’s bloody actions rescued Moses from death.

Here are two major OT episodes that parallel this passage grammatically and theologically: 1) Look back – Gen 32.24-30 – Jacob wrestling with the man/angel.  In the Moses episode and in the Jacob episode, there was a struggle (someone held someone), both struggles happened during a return journey, both involve a “touching” (nagah), both involve resistance to God’s call, both are followed by a favorable meeting with and kiss from a brother (Esau, Aaron).  You’ll find more parallels as well, making the connection quite tight.

2) Look forward – the Passover.  Both the Moses episode and the Passover involve the anger of Yahweh against sin, cutting, a son(s), blood, smearing (nagah) blood, and death being avoided by the shedding of blood.  Again, you’ll find more parallels, making the connection even more striking.

As Enns and Childs both note, circumcision here is quite important, also making the reader recall Gen 17, where the penalty for being uncircumcised was to be “cut off” from the covenant community.  Perhaps Yahweh is angry with Moses for unbelief and disobedience (cf. Ex 3.1-4.17, esp. 4.14), perhaps he is angry with Moses for not circumcising his son (possibly Gershom).  Perhaps both.  Either way, Yahweh was angry with Moses for sin, there was a cutting and a blood-shedding; the wiping of the bloody foreskin on (possibly) Moses may symbolize a cutting off in the stead of Moses.  Again, this has Passover written all over it.  Ultimately then, though maybe indirectly, it points to the first Passover. Then it brings us through the first Passover to the last, the final shedding of blood for sin in the “cutting” of the Lamb, the Son of God, the Messiah.

One more interesting interpretation – another plausible one, perhaps even complementary – is how Moses represents Israel.  Moses really pre-lives Israel’s journey, from a birth-deliverance through water to Mount Sinai in the wilderness, to this episode of Yahweh being angry with a recalcitrant child.  More specifically, in Fretheim’s terms, “Just as Moses was saved by the blood of his firstborn, so Israel would be saved by the blood of the Egyptian firstborn” (Exodus, p. 80).  In Isaiah’s terms, “I give Egypt as your ransom (kofer)” (43.3).  As still one more interesting side note, a few verses before this episode, Yahweh calls Israel his firstborn and declares that he will cut off Egypt’s firstborn to save his.  Yahweh’s sermon before this instance of the bloody briedgroom should help contextually interpret it.

This is just one tiny step forward in discussing this difficult text while noting and summarizing the scholarly positions.  Again, see the above named authors for more detailed information.  My presuppositions are akin to Enns’: the fact that Christ has risen from the dead profoundly affects our interpretation of the OT (Exodus, 26).  In other words, there are glimmers, shadows, types, symbols, events, prophecies, hints, and arrows in the OT that bring us to the cross, empty tomb, and session of the Messiah.  In Jesus’ own terms, Moses wrote about me.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Childs on *Commentating*

Phrases like this make me want to read Brevard Childs’ entire commentary on Exodus straight through (taken from the preface and introduction to his OTL commentary on Exodus):

“The purpose of this commentary is unabashedly theological.  Its concern is to understand the Exodus as scripture of the church.  The exegesis arises as a theological discipline within the context of the canon and is directed toward the community of faith which lives by its confession of Jesus Christ.”

“Yet the author is aware that serious theological understanding of the text is dependent on a rigorous and careful study of the whole range of problems within the Bible which includes text and source criticism, syntax and grammar, history and geography.  Nor can the hearing of the text by the Christian church be divorced from that other community of faith which lives from the same Bible, and from the countless other stances outside of any commitment to faith or tradition.”

“The aim of this commentary is to seek to interpret the book of Exodus as canonical scripture within the theological discipline of the Christian church.  As scripture its authoritative role within the life of the community is assumed, but how this authority functions must be continually explored.”

“This author does not share the hermeneutical position of those who suggest that biblical criticism is an objective, descriptive enterprise, controlled solely by scientific criticism, to which the Christian can at best add a few homiletical reflections for piety’s sake.”

I can’t wait to read more!  I’m sure many readers of this blog know exactly what Childs is talking about in that last sentence – as if commentaries are scientific endeavors (objective) which are divorced from faith and life (subjective).  Any commentaries come to mind?

Stay tuned for more Childs….

Brevard Childs, The Book of Exodus, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004).

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Childs on Biblical Interpretation

Here’s a great blurb from B. Childs on biblical interpretation (specifically, OT interpretation). After discussing a few methods and examples of OT commentaries, Childs sets forth his emphasis on theological interpretation.

“We are arguing that the genuine theological task can be carried on successfully only when it begins from within an explicit framework of faith. Only from this starting point can there be carried on the exegetical task which has as its goal the penetration of the theological dimension of the Old Testament. Approaches which start from a neutral ground never can do full justice to the theological substance because there is no way to build a bridge from the neutral, descriptive content to the theological reality. It is simply a presumption of historicism to assume that tools which function adequately in one area can claim the right of priority in the theological task as well.”

Later, Childs writes, “The exegete interprets the single text in light of the whole Old Testament witness and, vice versa, he understands the whole of the Old Testament in light of the single text. The circle of exegesis moves from the specific to the general and back again, and in the process one seeks for increased illumination. The exegetical circle is destroyed either if the analysis proceeds only in one direction and arrives at the general by summarizing the specific or, the reverse, if one moves only from the direction of the general and finds its illustration in the specific.”

Taken from Childs’ article, “Interpretation in Faith: The Theological Responsibility of an Old Testament Commentary” Interpretation 18, (1964), 432-439.

shane lems

sunnyside wa