Take the 2-minute tour ×

Jesus tells us both that "you should also wash one another's feet" and "do this in remembrance of me", yet most churches practice the latter and not the former. On what ground do we choose which of these practices to follow?

In 1 Cor. 14, women are told to keep silent in the church, while in 1 Cor. 11, we see women praying and prophesying in church. How do we handle injunctions apparently clashing with descriptions?

In John 3, Jesus tells Nicodemas "Unless a man is born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." This is always universalized. The Rich Young Ruler, however, is told that unless a man gives away his wealth to the poor and takes up his cross and follows Jesus, he cannot be Jesus's disciple. Do we universalize that? Should we? On what ground?

There are injunctions that, on the face of it, seem to clash rather embarrassingly. Some adjacently, for example, "Answer not a fool according to his folly" followed in the next verse "Answer a fool according to his folly" in Proverbs 26.

In the sermon on the mount, we are told to keep your prayers short (Matthew 6:7-8); on the other hand, in Luke 18, Jesus tells a parable with the intent that we always pray and not give up.

Or questions of cultural flexibility, e.g., "Greet one another with a holy kiss". Is that universally mandated? For some of us, if we tried it, it would not be holy. JB Phillips translates this "Give a hearty handshake all around"--is that a stretch?

On the other hand, if you are ministering to a tribe in Papua New Guinea that has never seen bread or wine, do you go instead for yams and goat's milk? Or of a tribe that has never seen sheep, and you come to "behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world"; if that tribe sacrificed pigs, should it be rendered "behold the swine of God?"

How do we establish which Old Testament laws should be continued? None? All? None but those explicitly reaffirmed? All but those explicitly abrogated?

I ask these questions with little interest in the specific exegesis of each instance, but rather to draw attention to the principles we use in interpreting these texts. Specifically, then, what criteria do we employ to determine whether an apparent demand is to be applied universally or to a specific circumstance?

share|improve this question
Much of the inspiration for this question comes from this lecture: thegospelcoalition.org/resources/a/… –  Ray Oct 4 '11 at 23:03
Even though I left an answer, this question is really way too broad for this site, which is more for technical questions about hermeneutical issues. –  Lance Roberts Oct 4 '11 at 23:55
Too broad, or off-topic, @Lance? You seem to suggest both... Ray, I can't help but think you'd do better taking your examples individually and then, drawing on the answers, asking a follow-up regarding choice of approach. –  Shog9 Oct 5 '11 at 3:46
@Shog9, actually, it's both. It's a topic you can write books about, and it's not about hermeneutical issues. –  Lance Roberts Oct 5 '11 at 5:42
@Ray: and I'm saying, by extracting and perhaps contrasting the approaches used to interpret each example, you could perhaps formulate a better question. I understand your intention, but given the response I can't help but agree that you've constructed a question that is - even if approached from the perspective of this site - entirely too broad: when an answer could fill a book, you're exceeding the ability of a Q&A site to properly serve your needs. –  Shog9 Oct 5 '11 at 15:27
show 7 more comments

closed as not constructive by Lance Roberts, Soldarnal, Dori Oct 5 '11 at 5:52


2 Answers

A measure I always use is if the Bible defines it well enough to know precisely what it is saying.

So for example, when it says "Greet one another with a holy kiss", we actually have no idea exactly what they meant by that. So for us to think the modern activity we call a kiss is what they were doing is pretty far-fetched. It could mean many different things, and we wouldn't want to get that one wrong. So if there isn't enough specificity, and history (i.e. God) has hidden the details from us then we will have to only use the principles involved instead of the principles (which we would always seek to use) and the specifics.

share|improve this answer
add comment

I don't have an explicit answer to your main-title question. However, regarding your question "On what ground do we choose which of these practices to follow?" - I think we should consider the ground of "freedom in Christ".

It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. Galations 5:1

The last thing we want to do in our faith is realize that we are no longer under bondage to the Mosaic law and yet foolishly create some set of new laws that give us the false assurance that it is following these new laws that define us as followers of Christ.

Again, in terms of "On what grounds do we choose.." - I would consider/suggest Romans 14:1-23 as a guide to keep in mind while we try to discover "How does one determine whether an apparent demand in scripture is absolute or relative". Here's a small clip of Romans 14 that give a hint into my suggestion:


I know that I'm not explicitly answering your question, but I think the consideration of the scriptures I mentioned is a fundamentally good starting point that is necessary when delving into "work" related topics.

By the way, unlike others, I think this is a great question for this site.

share|improve this answer
I like it too. It may have to be broken into different questions for different communities. In Judaism, there are those who say that all must apply, but we can't practice some now (no temple, etc.) Others who discount them as being allegorical. And who knows how many which are in between. In Christianity, the interpretive framework being considered should have rules for distinguishing. Rules for the literalist may vary from the covenentalist, or dispensationalist, but there should be a verbalization for each community. –  Bob Jones Jun 9 '12 at 14:16
add comment
