There are quite a few dynamics that go into not just reading Scripture, and not just reading all of Scripture, but reading all of Scripture well.
Many times, we in the church are guilty of reading Scripture rather lazily. What I mean is authentic Berean searching of the Scriptures and reading them on their own merits in light of their own warts is a practice we rarely engage in. Case in point: we have a slew of churches that assume the basics revolve around 6 to 8 concepts: theology proper, anthropology, soteriology, ecclesiology, pneumatology, eschatology, etc.
It causes me to wonder if maybe our assessment of the basics is not maybe in need of a little refreshing.
What if, instead of merely couching our conception of the basics as the “basics in theology”, we included a solid grasp of principles. What if we taught a principle-based approach to Scripture that translated not just theology but our interaction with life in more practical terms. I am not merely discussing the formal seminary discipline of practical theology, but being able to think, think biblically, and to think biblically through a grid of the universal, non-optional, cause-aand-effect relationships that impact us on a daily basis.
Many times the mentality of “save that sermon for Sunday, preacher,” where we separate our reading of the text of Scripture from our everyday lives, is precisely the problem. We don’t want our spiritual viewpoints to inform, address, let alone correct our secular life.
We have entered a reality, which began between 2000-2017, when it is no longer practical to separate the two.
Granted, what I have stated above is rather sweeping, more sweeping than the topic I am adressing in this post, but there is some relevance. Bear with me.
As believers/folllowers/Christians/believing Jews/[pick-your-designator]s, we have developed a habit of reading Scripture through a somewhat egocentric lens, by which we read certain actions of G-d and adjudicate those actions based on our own views of right and wrong, or we assume a paradigm of “because it is written in Scripture, it must simply have the sanction and approval of G-d”.
Reading Scripture is a little more complex than that.
In the case of the commanded genocide of the people of the land, that was specifically given because of national sin that lasted generations (the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete: Genesis 18:16). Sodom and Gomorrah was a tipping point as well.
Which brings us to an interesting illustration of principle-based, cause-and-effect-based reading: the slavery of the Egyptians in Genesis and the subsequent slavery of the Jews.
Let’s paint the context of the Egyptian slavery. Pharaoh has two dreams (Genesis 41:1, 5) that come from G-d (Genesis 41:28), Joseph interprets (Genesis 41:25-32), and Pharaoh sets Joseph up to deal with the famine (Genesis 41:37-45).
Joseph gathers grain without paying for it, then during the famine he sells grain that he did not buy from the Egyptians, and depletes the nation of resources.
Instead of paying and then selling, he takes from the Egyptians without recompensing them for their goods, and then they are forced to buy what was taken.
This is not a right way to handle the situation of dealing with the famine in a just manner. It does not reflect the principles of justice that G-d placed
Ultimately, as a result of selling grain, Joseph unrighteously enslaves the Egyptian population, enriching the ruling class of Egypt.
This is something G-d never commanded him to do in the process of warning about the famine.
Let me say it a different way to hammer the point home differently.
Scripture never says G-d approved the implications that follow the means by which Joseph dealt with the famine.
Scripture, however, does tell what happened.
This is a difference in interpreting and applying Scripture that needs to be parsed out: descriptive truth versus prescriptive truth.
We assume that just because David had multiple wives that G-d approved of that. We further think that just because G-d gave David Saul’s wives (2 Samuel 12:8), that this was G-d’s best (it wasn’t) and we think that situations in Scripture make G-d out to be a colossal hypocrite. In so doing, we forget that G-d was making the best (caring for what would otherwise be destitute women, compare the situation with Judah and his sons Er and Onan, as it pertained to Tamar in Genesis 38) of a bad situation (a harem in the nation of Israel).
We should also not forget that G-d explicitly commanded that kings not multiply three things: horses, gold, and wives (Deuteronomy 17:15-17).
Solomon is an example of what happened when the wives clause was violated.
Now, back to the Egyptian slavery, let’s consider another effect of that cause.
As a result of the enslavement of Egypt, it is possible that the effect was the slavery of the Israelites. Granted, it was already prophesied in Genesis 18, but that is beside the point. The point here is that actions always have consequences, and we will often reap what we sow.
Further, Joseph could have either given away the grain, or he could have bought what was sold. This would have not only saved the people, but it would have also protected the economy.
The principle to apply to this passage is Galatians 6:7:
Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.
It is time for us to not merely look for reasons not to follow G-d, but rather look for the connections that can effectively explain the text we are reading.
What?
Do we honestly think that He is some uncaring ogre who does not speak to us until it is too late?
Dude’s a Father. Dude calls us his sons. Dude carried Israel as a father carries his sons. Do we honestly think He does not know how to effectively father us? Consider the Father’s interactions with Jesus in the Gospels.
Does a father not take pleasure in his sons simply because they are his sons? Does the father not see the potential in a son?
Perhaps we should consider looking for the Father heart of G-d in Scripture, rather than looking for ways to turn the Father into a colossal bastard.