An oath is the strongest possible confirmation of the truthfulness of a statement about what has transpired (“assertive oaths”) or a promise about one’s future actions (“promissory oaths”). In Scripture, oaths nearly always invoke (at least implicitly) divine witness (Gen. 31:50; Jer. 42:5) to the veracity of a statement as well as divine retribution (1 Sam. 3:17; 14:44) should the statement prove false or the promise empty. Rabbinic literature and biblical scholars often distinguish between oaths and vows, but there is considerable overlap in practice. Both forms include promises about future actions, but oaths also include statements about present or past situations.
Oaths and vows are evident throughout the OT and play a variety of roles. Many OT figures swear oaths, including Abraham (Gen. 21:22-34), Jacob (Gen. 25:33; 28:20), Joseph (Gen. 50:5), Hannah (1 Sam. 1:11), David (1 Sam. 20:17), Ezra (Ezra 10:5), and Nehemiah (Neh. 13:25). Vows are found at times of distress (Gen. 28:20-22) and as expressions of thanksgiving (Ps. 116:16-18). Oath formulations include “As the Lord lives” (Ruth 3:13; 1 Sam. 19:6; 1 Kgs. 1:29; Jer. 4:2; Hos. 4:15) and “the Lord shall be between me and you” (1 Sam. 20:42). People swore by God’s name (Neh. 13:25), by God’s faithfulness (Isa. 65:16), and by the Lord (Gen. 24:23; 2 Sam. 19:7; 1 Kgs. 2:42). The practice of swearing by other gods came under attack by the prophets (Jer. 12:16; Amos 8:14; Zeph. 1:5).
It is difficult to overstate the importance of oaths in the OT. To swear by God’s name can be a sign of faithful attachment to God (Deut. 6:13; 10:20; Isa. 48:1; Jer. 12:16). Swearing truthfully and faithfully is associated with God’s blessing (Ps. 24:4; Isa. 65:16). Oaths were legally and morally binding, even if offered foolishly or rashly (Num. 30:2; Deut. 23:21-23; Eccl. 5:4-5; cf. Judg. 11:29-40). An oath by the accused could settle a dispute for which there were no witnesses (Exod. 22:11). By contrast, there is strong condemnation of false oaths offered in legal, business, and civil affairs (Lev. 6:3; 19:12; Jer. 5:2; 7:9; Mal. 3:5). In situations of crisis or mistrust, swearing indicated that the parties would honor their promises and refrain from harming each other (Josh. 2:12; Judg. 15:12; 1 Sam. 24:21).
Interestingly, God is depicted as swearing an oath to David (Pss. 89:3; 132:11). God swears by his eternal life (Deut. 32:40), holiness (Ps. 89:35; Amos 4:2), person (Isa. 45:23; Amos 6:8), and power (Isa. 62:8). In a cultural context where oaths play such a prominent role, God’s swearing likely adds to the listener’s confidence in God’s intentions and promises, quite apart from the oaths adding to the truthfulness or reliability of God’s words (cf. Heb. 6:13-18).
The difficulty for Christian ethics appears with Matt. 5:33-37, the fourth “antithesis” in the Sermon on the Mount. Robert Guelich contends that we see both “assertive” (v. 33a) and “promissory” (v. 33b) oaths in view when the text begins with the familiar OT concerns that “you shall not swear falsely” but rather “carry out the vows you have made to the Lord” (cf. Lev. 19:12; Num. 30:2; Deut. 23:21-23; Ps. 50:14). The difficulty is that rather than underline the importance of honoring oaths, Jesus prohibits any type of swearing (Matt. 5:34), specifically rejecting several types of oath formulas popular in that day—swearing by heaven, earth, Jerusalem, or one’s head (vv. 34-36)—and demanding instead a straightforward yes or no (v. 37).
What are we to make of this passage? James 5:12 offers a similar “no oath” statement: “Above all, my beloved, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your ‘Yes’ be yes and your ‘No’ be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation.” In the early church, Matt. 5:33-37 usually was interpreted as literally prohibiting all oaths, as seen in Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and John Chrysostom. However, this position of “no oaths” became increasingly problematic as the church was accepted by and then directly connected with the state. Augustine developed a theological apology for oaths, noting that Paul gave thoughtful application of oaths, and that the oath was useful to both state and neighbor. This has remained the basic position of the Catholic Church. The Reformers and later Protestant Christianity typically have affirmed oath-taking, especially when ordered by the state, but also in situations where God’s honor or neighbor well-being are at stake. Martin Luther rejected an individual’s initiating an oath but taught that the state’s command to swear must be obeyed. Arguments in favor of oath-taking, both Catholic and Protestant, are also often tied to the sinful nature of society and the unreliability of ordinary speech.
While most of the church accommodated oath-taking, an alternative position is seen in the rejection of swearing in the Middle Ages by the Cathari and Waldensians, later by the Hussites and Bohemian Brethren, and then especially by the Anabaptists. Most Anabaptist leaders and groups entirely rejected oath-taking. Article 7 of the Schleitheim Confession concerns Christ’s abolishing all swearing for his followers. Because oath-taking often was seen as essential to the state’s survival, the Anabaptist refusal to swear often met a harsh response from Catholic Church authorities, the Reformers, and state rulers alike. It is among the reasons that many early Anabaptists were imprisoned, tortured, and executed. Indeed, on the basis of their refusal to swear, Mennonites were denied civil and voting rights in some countries up until the first decades of the nineteenth century. Quakers too rejected the oath and often were imprisoned due to their refusal to swear loyalty oaths. Mennonites, Hutterites, Amish, and Quakers still abstain from the oath, instead offering a simple affirmation that they will tell the truth or do their duty.
The arguments by these groups against oathtaking are of several types. First, the refusal to take an oath often is seen as a matter of straightforward obedience to Christ’s command. Second, oath-taking runs against true reverence for God: we should not endeavor to control or manipulate God into guaranteeing our speech. Third, since human beings are finite and sin-prone, it is presumptuous to assert such confidence in our ability to be truthful that we invoke God as witness and call upon God’s judgment. The contingencies of human existence are such that we may not be able to carry out the content of an oath, no matter how well intended. Fourth, oath-taking undermines our confidence in everyday speech by teaching us that we are required to be truthful only in certain limited situations. Fifth, if we are honest in our daily dealings and speech, then the oath is unnecessary, but if we cannot be counted on to speak truthfully in such matters, then there is no reason to trust the veracity of the oath taker. Interestingly, secular humanists, atheists, and agnostics now add a different argument: they should not be required to invoke a divine witness whose existence they doubt or deny. Such swearing goes against their conscience and implicitly involves them in what they believe to be a lie.
Additional biblical interpretation sheds limited light here. Most commentators do not believe that Jesus abolished oath-taking. They point to Matt. 23:16-22, where Jesus does not explicitly reject oath-taking but instead attacks a corrupt oath-taking system in which swearing by symbols for God’s name were claimed to be nonbinding. Commentators also point to Paul’s taking of various oaths and vows (2 Cor. 1:23; Gal. 1:20; Phil. 1:8) and to Heb. 6:13-20, where the practice is cited without criticism. Other commentators argue that Matt. 5:34-36 shows that Jesus prohibited “promissory” oaths, not “assertive” oaths. However, some commentators, such as Ulrich Luz, contend that the history of interpretation of Matt. 5:33-37 is one of efforts to evade its demand, and that the “nonconformists,” such as Anabaptists and Quakers, come closest to the text. Luz also contends that vv. 34-36 show that Jesus was particularly concerned with the sanctification of God’s name; that is, both truth-telling and God’s holiness are in view.
What most commentators agree on is that in requiring of us a simple yes or no, Jesus is calling us to straightforward and truthful speech at all times. Many commentators also agree that the broader setting of the Sermon on the Mount is more focused on what kind of people and practices are consistent with the inbreaking reign of God than with a new set of legal restrictions. Thus, Glen Stassen and David Gushee are at least partially correct when they contend that the central issue is less about whether we should swear oaths in court than how we become truthful people.
See also Promise and Promise-Keeping; Speech Ethics; Vows
Bibliography
Guelich, R. The Sermon on the Mount: Foundation for Understanding. Word, 1982; Luz, U. Matthew 1—7: A Continental Commentary. Trans. W Linns. Fortress, 1992; Stas-sen, G., and D. Gushee. Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context. InterVarsity, 2003.
Joseph J. Kotva Jr.
Two things about the book of Obadiah stand out. First, a book comprising only twenty-one verses has generated significant scholarly literature over the years. Second, part of the reason for the interest in the book, notwithstanding its anti-Edom polemic, may be the incorporation of some key prophetic themes within a span of twenty-one verses. The prophet touches on some familiar themes/ motifs such as the day of Yahweh (v. 15), judgment against foreign nations (vv. 15-16), Zion theology (vv. 17, 21), retributive justice of God (v. 15), promise of repossessing the land (vv. 19-20), and the ultimate rule of Yahweh (v. 21). There are also echoes of prophecies from Joel (2:32) in verse 17 and Jeremiah (49:7-22) in verses 1-11. The imagery of the cup of wrath found in Jer. 49:12 also
appears in verse 16. The relationship of Obadiah to other oracles against Edom found in Amos 1:11 and Jer. 49:7-22, among others, deserves closer scrutiny. Suggestions for the historical stimulus for the book have ranged from the preexilic conflict as reflected in 2 Kgs. 8:20-22 to a late postexilic context contemporaneous with Malachi or Joel. The most likely scenario seems to point in the direction of the catastrophe of 587 BCE.
Obadiah can be divided into two parts. Verses 1-15 describe judgment against Edom for its attitude and action toward Judah. Verses 16-21 take on a more general tone in that they are addressed to the “nations” about the impending judgment coupled with the promise of restoration for Judah. Three aspects of the Edomites’ role draw the prophet’s ire. First, although the Edomites did not initiate the action, they simply stood by and watched as the enemies carried out their assault against Judah (v. 11a). The ethical challenge of Obadiah here is this: we may not be guilty of inflicting oppression and violence, but have we chosen simply to watch as violence and oppression continue? Second, after being bystanders, the Edomites became participants in the act (vv. 11b, 13c, 14). Finally, to add insult to injury, they gloated over the misfortune of Judah (vv. 12a, 13b [cf. Ezek 35:10-15]).
From an ethical perspective, it is hard to condone or justify the xenophobic outlook presented in the book. But this must be put into perspective in light of Obadiah’s emphasis on the sovereignty of God over not just Judah but over all nations. God’s sovereignty manifests itself in the form of God’s justice. God will not let evil go unpunished. As the focus shifts from Edom (v. 1) to the nations (v. 15), the message becomes broader to include all forces counter to God’s purposes. Obadiah’s word of hope to the victims is that in the end evil will be punished.
See also Judgment; Justice, Retributive; Old Testament Ethics
Bibliography
Barton, J. Joel and Obadiah. OTL. Westminster John Knox, 2001; Ben Zvi, E. A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Obadiah. BZAW 242. De Gruyter, 1996; Mason, R. Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Joel. OTG. JSOT Press, 1994; Raabe, P. Obadiah. AB 24D. Doubleday, 1996.
D. N. Premnath
Obedience See Divine Command Theories of Ethics
In the field of ethics, the concept “obligation” is foundational. Since ethics is the art or science of investigating, enhancing, and furthering the most morally justifiable human behavior, the question “What is it that I or we ought to do?” is fundamental in ethics. The term ought is, in this respect, equivalent to obligation. If we are to act upon some sort of notion of rightness as to our actions or attempt to achieve some sort of goodness in our human acts and not to act simply upon instinct, then we are obliged to attempt to discern better human action(s) and subsequently to act upon those discoveries. Indeed, in terms of comparative ethics, few systems of morality adjudge human action as being merely the expression of human preferences generating no consequences whatsoever and avoiding all ties of responsibility.
Human biology, reproduction, and nurturance are themselves grounded in the notion of obligation. Female humans feed babies by means of their mammary glands. Some would say they ought to, or they are obliged to, by human anatomy. This is, of course, an instrumental understanding of the word ought rather than a moral one, but it is useful in illustrating that despite the cynicism of the modern world, our very createdness suggests some specific courses of human action.
Moving beyond this simple biological illustration, one that might even be accounted for as instinctive and therefore not even consensual, the world of obligation looms before us uncharted and limitless. Human interactions, both interactions among individuals and between individuals and social groups, suggest an endless stream of responses. Accordingly, it is difficult to determine precisely what it is that anyone is obliged to do, yet all groups have an understanding of obligation and engage in the reciprocities that it demands.
Here one may turn toward human capacities to ground moral claims. Jurgen Habermas has determined that humans are basically communicative creatures, and that language is structured to enable its speakers and users to understand each other and, more important, to understand themselves.
Indeed, Habermas maintains that human consciousness is tied to the use of language and to the process of understanding and being understood.
Thus, human existence is an experience of relationship and mutuality. Again, in a large world, the character, shape, and functioning of those relationships and mutuality take on endless forms. Nonetheless, this is perhaps a beginning point for understanding the term obligation.
If we are to be human, we are obliged both to understand ourselves and others and to have them understand us. Understanding is a process of discerning meaning, and meaning is again tied to the ongoing process of individual and corporate human behavior as acted out over time. We act and speak in order to express ourselves and to elicit preferable responses. We are born into an already created world, and all of our initial actions are responses to the prior actions of our nurtur-ers and the world in which they and we live. All of our knowledge is, accordingly, socially given. In short, human action, whether intentional or nonintentional, is essentially responsive.
In regard to a theological understanding of obligation, H. Richard Niebuhr characterizes human action as response. For him, humanity is Homo dialogicus (Niebuhr 56). Human response is most important not between human individuals and groups, or between groups and other groups, but between humanity and God. Niebuhr sees that God is the divine initiator, the creator of all relationships with humanity. It is God who acts, directs, and gives meaning. We are to find our meaning in relationship with God.
The apostle Paul echoes this same sentiment in Rom. 14:7-9: “We do not live to ourselves, and we do not die to ourselves. If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord; so then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ dies and lives again, so that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.” For the Christian, then, as previously mentioned, in a primitive survival sense, obligation comes, in part, out of our humanity, but even this obligation can be overridden by our obligations to God. Christ’s action of dying for us, for our redemption, obligates us to Christ and to God and to the divine mission. It is here that we are obliged and find our deepest meaning in this world and the next.
Further, it is this divine obligation that challenges and qualifies all the other relationships, relationships to other people and to human institutions, principalities, and powers. Robert Jewett points out that in the writings of Paul the understanding of divine obligation superseded and undermined the Roman notions of obligation and law. It is this highest obligation to God that brings Christians, upon occasion, into conflict with all other obligating organizations. The Romans did, of course, learn to discern and to despise this notion of Christian obligation and promptly began to persecute and execute Christians. History demonstrates, however, that the Roman power and notion of obligation was, in time, subjugated to the Christian one by the blood of the martyrs and the conversion of the emperors.
Now, in a modern world, we stand in the shoes of our Christian ancestors. Numerous organizations and causes call to us to respond and sometimes claim that humans are obliged to act in a variety of ways. Frequently, we do so because we must. Even Jesus admonished us, “Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s” (Mark 12:17). Yet all of these demands are relativized and modified by the prior and ultimate action and demands of God. Thus, for example, some pacifists withhold a portion of their taxes so as to fulfill a divine obligation to God to avoid furthering national wars.
Finally, then, one way of understanding ethics in general and Christian ethics in particular is to examine and analyze how we are to balance, constrain, and fulfill our obligations to others in ways that harmonize, recognize, and fulfill our prior, superior obligations to God. Since obligations change constantly, and we are never relieved of our obligations to God, Christian ethics is an ongoing, never-ending struggle as well as a way of life. We are obligated to engage in the process of discerning our ultimate obligations and then to fulfill these obligations.
See also Collective Responsibility; Deontological Theories of Ethics; Neighbor, Neighbor Love; Responsibility; Rights
Bibliography
Allen, J. Love and Conflict: A Covenantal Model of Christian Ethics. Abingdon, 1984; Dworkin, R. Taking Rights Seriously. Harvard University Press, 1978; Elazar, D. Covenant and Polity in Biblical Israel: Biblical Foundations and Jewish Expressions. Transaction Publishers, 1995; Glennon, F., G. Hauk, and D. Trimiew, eds. Living Responsibly in Community: Essays in Honor of E. Clinton Gardner. University Press of America, 1997; Habermas, J. The Theory of Communicative Action. Trans. T. McCarthy. Beacon Press, 1987; Jewett, R. “Response: Exegetical Support from Romans and Other Letters.” Pages 58—71 in Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation; Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl, ed. R. Horsley. Continuum, 2000; MacIntyre, A. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. University of Notre Dame Press, 1981; Niebuhr, H. R. The Responsible Self: An Essay in Christian Moral
Philosophy. Harper & Row, 1963; Sandel, M. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, 1998; Walzer, M. Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality. Basic Books, 1983.
Darryl Trimiew
The word obscenity refers to behaviors, images, or descriptions that offend accepted cultural norms. In the Western tradition of political liberalism and democracy, obscenity usually emerges as an issue of free speech. Since maximizing individual freedom is central in modern Western societies, access to pornography, images of graphic violence, and other questionable, provocative, or obscene behavior are often legally protected.
The Bible has a different ethical focus, which is faithfulness to God rather than maximizing individual freedom. In the NT, freedom in Christ means both liberation from oppression (cf. Luke 4:16-19; Isa. 61:1-2) and freedom from sinful desires and habits. This means that freedom is more than the exercise of individual choice or the unimpeded expression of desire. True freedom comes through conversion of desire away from sin toward obedience to God. Thus, the Bible prohibits certain desires and behaviors while encouraging others. For example, Eph. 5:3-4 says, “Fornication and impurity of any kind, or greed, must not even be mentioned among you. . . . Entirely out of place is obscene [aischrotes], silly, and vulgar talk.” Similarly, Colossians exhorts believers to “die” to unrighteous desires: “You have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. . . . Consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry” (Col. 3:3, 5 NASB).
The association of immoral desires and practices with idolatry in Colossians is interesting when read against the backdrop of Exodus, where prohibitions regarding idolatry are part of God’s emancipation of Israel from slavery in Egypt. In Exod. 20:2-3, God says to Israel, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me.” In a similar way, the “idolatry” of immoral pleasures is not fitting to God’s people because they have been set free from sin. Paul’s exhortation “to consider yourselves dead to sin” (Rom. 6:11; cf. Col. 3:3, 5) is part of a larger refrain about new life in Christ, which challenges Christians to move beyond mere religious rules to a genuine conversion of their desires. Thus, the author implores the readers, “Why do you submit to regulations, ‘Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch’? All these regulations refer to things that perish with use; they are simply human commands and teachings. These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-imposed piety, humility, and severe treatment of the body, but they are of no value in checking self-indulgence [plesmonen tes sarkos]” (Col. 2:20-23).
Early Christians such as Justin Martyr argued for the superiority of Christianity over paganism by contrasting the righteousness and holiness of the Christian God with obscenities committed by pagan deities. Whereas pagan gods committed profane acts of lust and “in their loves with men did such things as it is shameful even to mention,” Justin described the God of Christian worship as “impassible” and “never goaded by lust” (1 Apol. 25). Justin condemns raising children for prostitution, self-mutilation for the purposes of sodomy, and selling one’s own child or wife as a sex slave, which he describes as part of pagan ritual (1 Apol. 27). He asks how pagan gods who exhibit the same destructive passions and obscene desires as wicked humans can be worthy of worship. Similarly, Augustine observes how pagan ritual coincided with violent gladiator fights and lurid theatrical shows that were celebrated in the name of one or more gods. He argues that although “the gods themselves sternly commanded, indeed almost extorted, the production of such shows,” the Romans should never have “worshipped gods whom they thought of as wishing to have theatrical obscenities devoted to their honor” (Civ. 2.8, 13).
The charge of obscenity was a two-way street, however, and Christians had to defend and explain themselves. The Christian practice of worshiping a crucified criminal and ritually eating of his body and drinking of his blood was offensive to Romans. In Roman society, crucifixion was reserved for slaves and the most despised of the empire. Explaining Christian practices became the task of Christian apologists such as Tertullian, who defended the Eucharist by saying, “Our feast explains itself by its name. The Greeks call it agape. . . . With the good things of the feast we benefit the needy. . . . It permits no vileness of immodesty. The participants, before reclining, taste first of prayer to God” (Apol. 39). For converts to Christianity, seeing the cross as the peaceful sign of God’s reign required considerable faith. Becoming Christian meant rejecting certain cultural norms of Roman society while learning to see the previously “obscene” as the revelation of God.
See also Desire; Freedom; Sin
Chanon R. Ross
The Meaning of “Old Testament Ethics”
There are two fundamental ways to understand the phrase “Old Testament ethics.” One is to focus on the descriptive task of identifying what might have been the moral beliefs and behavior of the people of God as a whole, or of various groups within Israel, at any one historical period or across OT times. From this perspective, the study of OT ethics consists of those efforts to reconstruct the ethics of ancient Israel by certain textual methods and through historical, sociological, anthropological, and comparative studies. The emphasis is on the multiplicity of ethical perspectives within the text and on the social settings, theological sources (such as covenant, the law, wisdom), and ideologies of those who may have produced this material. There is disagreement over whether a largely coherent ethical framework undergirds the OT’s various appreciations of moral matters, and scholars have offered different hypotheses regarding the possible development of Israel’s ethical views.
The second way to understand the phrase “Old Testament ethics” is to focus on the normative task of discerning what the OT can contribute to moral life today as part of Christian Scripture. The NT certainly invites such considerations (note, e.g., 1 Cor. 10:11; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; Heb. 11). The goal is to bring the OT to bear on the modern world. While the research interests of descriptive approaches may be utilized (if and how this is done will depend on the individual author), the purpose is to offer ways in which the text can demonstrate its contemporary relevance to believing communities and to the world. The OT is embraced in some measure as a trustworthy guide and a foundational authority for the practice of the Christian faith. The significance of its authority, however, is a topic of debate.
The Authority of the Old Testament Historically, the authority of the OT was assumed by the Christian church. There were occasional exceptions to this consensus, the most famous being the stance of Marcion of Sinope (c. 85-160 CE), who rejected the entire OT and those sections of the NT that he thought reflected Jewish influence. In contrast, the generalized confidence in the OT’s authority was grounded in the conviction that it was the word of God. In spite of theological disagreements about its teaching and how it should be interpreted, the consensus was that the OT was divine revelation and thus indispensable and supremely relevant to believers, the church, and the greater society. Those of more conservative persuasions continue to articulate the inspiration of the OT in similar ways.
Recently, some have reformulated the concept of the authority of the Bible (and of the OT). Instead of the traditional view of the OT’s authority as being an ontological quality—that is, a property inherent in the text—biblical authority is explained as a functional reality. From this perspective, the Bible is taken as a unique collection of witnesses to the presence and work of God that the church authorizes as the primary resource for its moral life. Faith communities recognize its enduring value in shaping Christian character and conduct. An ontological stance may accept this view as complementary to its own, but many see it as an alternative to those classic conceptions. The concern is that this different focus on the concept of biblical authority can open the way for more significant input from sources other than the Bible, such as philosophy and the social sciences. It also allows for weighing what parts of the Bible may no longer manifest the redeeming designs of God and need not be accepted as binding.
There also are those who are strongly suspicious of the ethical authority of the OT. Its positions on ethical dilemmas are said to be dated and overly constrained by the worldview and mores of its cultural settings. This historical argument can be accompanied by a range of ideological critiques, which include disparaging the OT as politically nationalistic, hopelessly misogynistic, ethnically exclusive, problematic in its portrayal of the violence of its characters and of God, and insensitive to the plight of the disabled, animals, and the created order (Rodd; O’Brien). These perceptions reflect a hermeneutics of suspicion that often reads “against the grain” of textual meaning to question the unspoken agendas and embedded prejudices that lie hidden beneath the surface.
These kinds of doubts have generated several types of responses. One has been to revisit the OT and to begin to recover or rehabilitate pertinent ethical voices within the text that have been ignored (e.g., women’s stories, the impulses toward peace). Another outcome has been to reinterpret texts that have been misunderstood and thus misused in ethical discourse to support harmful positions, whether consciously or not (e.g., gender issues, racial apartheid, the disregard of ecology). A third result has been to reassess problematic passages and concepts within the scope of the larger canon, where they can find development or complementary perspectives. We will return to this point below. All of these efforts ascribe authority to the OT and value its ethical lessons in whole or in part.
The most extreme option is to reject the OT’s teachings and, in some cases, the God who is revealed therein. The goal of various scholars is to resist vigorously what it presents about life and the deity. Those who accept the OT as Scripture cannot endorse this overly critical judgment. This does not mean that none of the negative observations has any merit. A thoughtful position on the authority of the OT must be able to respond to legitimate concerns about its ethical content with the necessary complexity and erudition. These challenges have spurred reflection on the nature and role of language (especially of metaphor), the history of interpretive practices, and the complexity of the theological world of the OT—all of which have led to richer and more nuanced conceptions of its authority as Scripture.
Another key topic related to the authority of the OT is the characterization of its relationship to the NT within the Christian canon. This is fundamental to articulating how the OT can and should speak to the church as Scripture. These theological and hermeneutical issues have occupied theologians for two millennia. Some of the more important questions are these: What kind of continuity exists between the people of God of each Testament, and is it of such a degree that the OT moral demands have abiding value (the Israel-church question within Christian theological systems)? How is OT law to be understood as an ethical resource in light of the coming of Jesus, the implications of the cross for salvation and life, and the inauguration of the kingdom of God (the “third use of the law” debate and the law/ gospel tension)? Can the OT be used as a discrete and separate ethical resource with direct application to contemporary moral discourse, or must its teaching and insights be run through a NT or Christian theological grid? Is there development of ethical perspectives as one moves from the OT into the NT? If so, does that mean that NT teaching qualifies, complements, and/or supersedes the OT perspective on a given subject? Does the NT itself offer any guidelines for the appropriation of the OT, and if so, should they have normative status? A full-orbed biblical ethics will incorporate decisions on these and other foundational matters into its methodological framework.
Approaches to Old Testament Ethics If the OT is accepted as a suitable ethical resource, then it is incumbent to sort out the way(s) it is utilized for the moral life of faith communities today. Approaches to appropriating the text can be divided into three broad categories. These categories are not mutually exclusive classifications, and some approaches do not fit neatly into a single grouping, but this taxonomy can serve as a heuristic tool for sorting out the use of the OT for ethics. Because of the biblical focus of this volume, this survey emphasizes contemporary formulations by biblical scholars instead of those of theologians, both past and present, whose appropriation of the Bible for ethics has been quite sophisticated (e.g., Augustine, Luther, Barth, Bon-hoeffer, O’Donovan).
Focusing on what is “behind the text.” To say that certain approaches concentrate on what is “behind the text” means that they are less interested in what appears in the final, or canonical, form of the OT and more interested in uncovering background matters pertinent to the ethics of ancient Israel. These can be of two kinds, both of which essentially are efforts at reconstruction. Some investigate the historical and culture setting, others the hypothetical editorial history of the text.
Studies that locate the ethics of the OT within the moral world of its day compare its moral worldview and demands with those of surrounding cultures (Weinfeld). This has been done especially in regard to OT law, in particular legislation related to slavery, the poor, and issues concerning women (e.g., marriage, sexuality, and inheritance). Depending on the topic at hand, the OT is perceived as mirroring the limitations of its time or as humanizing the treatment of the vulnerable and eliminating the privileging of certain social hierarchies before the law. Positive assessments of the OT vis-a-vis the ancient Near East point to the enduring significance of the underlying principles of its ethics.
Another comparative approach, which moves beyond these synchronic juxtapositions and evaluations, suggests the possibility of an engagement with the “natural morality,” or commonly accepted mores, of Israel’s context (Rogerson). The ethical commitments of the people of God would have had points of both agreement and disagreement with these widely shared values. At the same time, Israel’s ethics were grounded in its particular “imperatives of redemption”—that is, those demands based on God’s unique gracious acts on their behalf, like the exodus (e.g., Exod. 22:21 [22:22 MT]; 23:9). These imperatives, in turn, found concrete expression in Israel’s laws through “structures of grace,” those social and economic measures intended to incarnate that redemption in their society; that is, there would have been overlap with surrounding cultures as well as distinctiveness in the ethical values and arrangements of Israel. For the church, the cross of Christ is the redemptive act that makes claims on how Christians are to act toward others and configure their lives. The concomitant structures of grace on behalf of the needy within faith communities obviously will look different in the twenty-first century than they did millennia ago in ancient Israel. The “natural morality” model can encourage Christians to work with those of other persuasions, who hold similar moral commitments, to seek to pass legislation and establish social structures and organizations in modern society that might approximate God’s ideals. In other words, the OT law in many ways is largely context-specific; it is not to be imitated, although the processes of engagement with the broader context can be instructive. The peculiar ethics of the people of God in any time and place can connect at some level in constructive ways with the broader world, even as it follows its own narrative.
Other studies try to better comprehend the socioeconomic situation and dynamics of ancient Israel within which the ethics recorded in the OT functioned. The social sciences have been a primary tool to analyze the text and archaeological evidence and propose explanatory models. Several of the more prominent include the theories of rent capitalism and the tributary mode of production, both of which are based on the claim that the monarchy triggered the rise of latifundia (landed estates controlled by economic and political elites). A recent suggestion is that Israel essentially functioned as a peasant economy, even as its political structure changed. Society functioned according to kinship and patronage, with their culturally accepted mutual expectations and obligations between the various social strata. Even though that world of patronage is quite different from most contemporary societies, what is constant across the OT and what carries over the centuries is the divine demand for justice. This moral value will be worked out differently than it was in ancient times, but it remains the calling of the people of God (Houston).
A second kind of “behind the text” research concentrates on ascertaining the stages of the literary production of the OT. These critical textual efforts can be combined with sociological work on the plausible sociohistorical contexts of the authors and tradents of each step in that process. The OT, it is claimed, is an anthology of the ethical agendas of multiple social forces from different time periods as well as of competing points of view from the same settings. The implications that are drawn from these textual and historical reconstructions vary. Some believe that the original textual layers represent a higher ethical commitment to the vulnerable, which was neutralized to some degree by the later additions (Gottwald). Others find a different lesson in the incongruities and possible contradictions: awareness of this mixture of views makes it impossible to assign a consistent ethical point of view to the text. Its very complexity is a witness to the struggles of the moral discourse within Israel. The pluralism of the OT’s ethics fits nicely with the ethos of postmodern culture (Pleins).
At least three comments are in order. First, these efforts at historical, social, and textual reconstruction can be of great value, but sometimes the intricacy of the argumentation and the level of scholarship required to comprehend the given model can make this work inaccessible to the broader Christian public. Their possible contribution to the ethical thinking of the church is diminished, if not negated. Second, the viability of these hypotheses is heavily dependent on the success of the particular reconstruction proposed, which is only as convincing as the quality of the data and their interpretation or the suitability of the applied social theory and the skill with which it is used. New developments and discoveries can impact what may have once been confident conclusions. Third, background studies need not serve the kinds of reconstruction programs cited here. Some provide information about sociocultural, economic, and political contexts to final form or canonical approaches, which use this material to provide a realistic historical backdrop to their work instead of a detailed critical reconstruction of the world of Israel or of the OT text.
Systems approaches. Several types of approaches fall under this rubric. One is to privilege a part of the OT. It is not uncommon to hear, for instance, of a “prophetic voice” in reference to a powerful reformer such as Martin Luther King Jr., or of a “prophetic church” or movement, also in connection with social issues. These people and organizations are identified with the posture of the prophetic literature, its denunciation of the oppression of the vulnerable, and the scathing critique of the powerful. Most often appeal is made to the eighth-century BCE prophets Isaiah, Micah, and Amos.
Historically, prominence has been given to the law (especially the Ten Commandments). This has been true especially in the Reformed tradition and is in part a legacy of John Calvin’s Geneva and his Institutes of the Christian Religion. Emphasis on the law regularly is combined with the notion of the “cultural mandate,” based on Gen. 1:26-28, that champions bringing all aspects of human life under the sovereign rule of God and his Christ. Examples that follow this trend include Oliver Cromwell’s commonwealth in Britain and the Puritan experiment of the seventeenth century, and Abraham Kuyper’s “sphere sovereignty” construct in the Netherlands in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and his theological heirs who share a transformationalist view of Christian culture. A strain within Reformed circles that achieved some notoriety in the 1980s was a movement called “theonomy,” which sought to apply OT law and its penalties to secular society (Bahnsen). This stress on the law as the substratum of OT ethical teaching also finds expression of a different sort in the work of Walter Kaiser. Grounded in exegesis of the Hebrew text and not in dogmatic theology, Kaiser believes that universal ethical principles can be extracted from individual laws through the “ladder of abstraction” and then applied today.
Christopher Wright also accentuates the law through a paradigm approach. A paradigm, on this view, is a transcendent set of beliefs and values that are the basis of a worldview and the organization of society. Wright postulates that there are three components of the OT’s paradigm for ethics, and that these can be expressed in triangular fashion. The three angles are the theological (God), the social (Israel), and the economic (the land). This arrangement explains Israel’s ethical lens for arranging and evaluating its socioeconomic life, but it can also be projected paradig-matically to encompass humanity and creation, typologically to NT parallels within the church, and eschatologically to the promise of a redeemed world at the end of time. The premier example of his method is the Jubilee (Lev. 25), which finds its echoes, respectively, in sinful humanity’s life in rebellion against God in a fallen creation, in the generous sharing within the Christian community, and eventually in the restoration of all things in the new heavens and earth.
This approach makes several helpful contributions. First, Wright takes seriously the tangible realities dealt with by OT legislation, as well as the details of the laws themselves—their rationale and pragmatic impact. Those laws express God’s lasting ethical demands in a way appropriate to that ancient society. Those demands necessarily would take a different shape in the legislation and socioeconomic structures suitable to other circumstances and eras. The law was a concrete paradigm that could not be duplicated, even as it was instructive to non-Israelite peoples (Deut. 4:5-8). Second, the paradigm concept and the interconnected triangles demonstrate a continuity of God’s moral will across time. Third, Wright’s proposal considers how the NT takes up and develops OT material. Thus, he is able to offer a comprehensive ethics that encompasses all of Scripture.
Literary and canonical approaches. These studies pay special attention to the final form, or canonical shape, of the OT. They often appeal to literary theory to probe the power of texts—that is, how texts impact the moral imagination of readers. Good literature, when engaged properly, can shape ethical views through plot, the depiction of scenes, the portrayal of characters, and by stirring emotions. Readers witness, and can vicariously enter into, the ethical decision-making taking place within a text and at some level participate in its motivations, struggles, and consequences. Literature also can attune readers to the darker side of reality within their own lives and societies, as well as present a world of possibilities for change. It can become a training ground, in other words, in ethical discernment and the nurturing of the virtues. Although these studies may employ research on backgrounds, the primary concern is the text itself.
The fact that the OT is both literature and Scripture adds immeasurable weight to this potentially powerful process of reading. Because it is literature with divine authority, reading of this text carries greater urgency. That Scripture is the text of a community adds further impetus to a virtue ethics orientation, because ideally the Christian church should provide the context for the requisite ethical growth and the presence of exemplars, who would echo and reinforce that reading. Literary approaches have been used with much profit in OT narratives (Perry) and the prophets (Brueggemann)—indeed, in the breadth of OT genres (Brown; Carroll R. and Lapsley).
Interest in the canon and its significance for theological interpretation and ethics has increased in the last few decades. The issues concerning the canon are many and diverse (Bartholomew et al.), but there are several ramifications for ethics that deserve mention. To begin with, the multiple ethical voices within the canon can be handled in several ways within moral discourse. Some trace trajectories in ethical views across the Scripture from the OT to the NT and see changes from restrictive formulations to more life-affirming possibilities.
This tack has been applied to various topics, such as the institution of slavery, the role of women, and war (Swartley). The breadth and diversity of the canon also provide a comprehensive appreciation of moral issues. For instance, there are several dimensions of the OT’s awareness and treatment of the problems of poverty: the law demonstrates the need for legislation related to debt, the provision of food, and fairness in legal proceedings; narratives depict the painful plight of the needy; the wisdom literature points out that some of the poor have only themselves to blame, while at the same time declaring their worth before God and encouraging the wise person to be charitable; the prophets rail against systemic injustice that perpetuates poverty and proclaim the hope of a future of plenty when poverty will be no more. Each slice of the canon contributes to a fuller ethical perspective, which would be diminished by concentrating on only one or a few of the pieces.
Second, emphasis on the canon reconnects ethics with Christian communities. This is a pragmatic observation in that this is the only text that the vast majority of Christians will ever read or know for moral discourse. A canonical focus has ecclesiastical importance as well. It places ethics within the long history of interpretation of the Scripture for ethics, and that history becomes a resource of ethical reflection. It also allows for ethics to be linked, as it was very emphatically in the OT, with liturgy, because the centrality of moral thinking within the canon can be incorporated into the worship of the church. Finally, a canonical approach to ethics will benefit greatly from its relationship to the resurgence of theological interpretation of Scripture. These creative studies are recovering readings of Scripture that have much to teach the church, discovering new insights from which OT ethics has much to gain.
Conclusion
The field of OT ethics is as fascinating as it is complex. Debates concerning its moral authority and about how best to appropriate it for ethics will continue, even as they have for centuries. The fact that these discussions persist is proof of the OT’s enduring value for ethics.
See also New Testament Ethics Bibliography
Bahnsen, G. Theonomy in Christian Ethics. Rev. ed. P&R, 1984; Bartholomew, C., et al. Canon and Biblical Interpretation. SHS 7. Zondervan, 2006; Barton, J. Understanding Old Testament Ethics. Westminster John Knox, 2003; Birch, B. Let Justice Roll Down: The Old
Testament, Ethics, and Christian Life. Westminster John Knox, 1991; Brown, W Character and Scripture: Moral Formation, Community, and Biblical Interpretation. Eerd-mans, 2002; Brueggemann, W. The Prophetic Imagination. 2nd ed. Fortress, 2001; Carroll R., M. D., and J. Lapsley, eds. Character Ethics and the Old Testament: Moral Dimensions of Scripture. Westminster John Knox, 2007; Gottwald, N. “Theological Education as a Theory-Praxis Loop: Situating the Book of Joshua in a Cultural, Social Ethical, and Theological Matrix.” Pages 107—18 in The Bible in Ethics: The Second Sheffield Colloquium, ed. J. Rogerson, M. Davies, and M. D. Carroll R. JSOT-Sup 207. Sheffield Academic Press, 1995; Houston, W. Contending for Justice: Ideologies and Theologies of Social Justice in the Old Testament. LHBOTS 428. T&T Clark, 2006; Kaiser, W., Jr. Toward Old Testament Ethics. Zondervan, 1983; O’Brien, J. Challenging Prophetic Metaphor: Theology and Ideology in the Prophets. Westminster John Knox, 2008; Perry, R. Old Testament Story and Christian Ethics: The Rape of Dinah as a Case Study. PBM. Paternoster, 2004; Pleins, J. The Social Visions of the Hebrew Bible: A Theological Introduction. Westminster John Knox, 2001; Rodd, C. Glimpses of a Strange Land: Studies in Old Testament Ethics. OTS. T&T Clark, 2001; Rogerson, J. Theory and Practice in Old Testament Ethics. Ed. M. D. Carroll R. JSOTSup 405. T&T Clark, 2004; Swartley, W. Slavery, Sabbath, War, and Women: Case Issues in Biblical Interpretation. Herald Press, 1983; Wein-feld, M. Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East. Fortress, 1995; Wright, C. Old Testament Ethics for the People of God. InterVarsity, 2004.
M. Daniel Carroll R. (Rodas)
A sin of omission is the failure to do what one has the obligation, opportunity, and ability to do on behalf of another. “Anyone, then, who knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, commits sin” (Jas. 4:17).
Biblical Considerations
Many biblical moral commands are framed negatively in terms of what one must not do—for example, murder, adultery, theft (Exod. 20:13-15). Sometimes morality is wrongly reduced to such “sins of commission.”
However, within the Decalogue itself two commands are framed positively: “Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy” (Exod. 20:8) and “Honor your father and mother” (Exod. 20:12). The behaviors required by such commands are not explicit; they have a certain open-ended quality to them.
Scripture certainly contains hundreds of negative commands specifying banned behavior. However, Scripture is most notable for its sweeping, positive injunctions, perhaps best summarized in the commands to love God and love neighbor (Deut. 6:5-8; Lev. 19:18; Matt. 22:34-40 pars.).
A moral vision built around positive, inexhaustible commands invariably creates space for the
category of sins of omission, understood as the failure to live out the obligations of love of God and neighbor in various dimensions of life.
Sins of omission are suggested strongly in passages such as the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), where the Samaritan’s active service to the wounded stranger is contrasted sharply with the omissions of the priest and Levite. The judgment scene in Matt. 25:31-46, involving the sheep and the goats, rather terrifyingly conditions admission to the eternal kingdom on acts of service to “the least of these” and therefore to Jesus. Those on the wrong side of such judgments are condemned simply for their failures to act.
Jesus’ woes to the scribes and Pharisees include condemnation for focusing on minutiae rather than “the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith” (Matt. 23:23). This serves as a reminder that ethics at its most profound involves weighing the relative significance of various paths of action in cases where no option is “wrong,” but some are more significant than others.
Being faced with inexhaustible commands before which we fall short can create moral despair, but Scripture instead instructs believers toward humility, repentance, and recommitment (see Matt. 7:1-5). Continual challenges are created by practical questions related to how stringently such commands must be interpreted amid the realistic limits and countervailing obligations that we all face.
Contemporary Applications
Studies of Christian behavior toward Jews during the Holocaust raised the issue of sins of omission quite acutely. Millions of Jews went to their deaths in part because their Christian neighbors did nothing to help them. This is the problem of the “bystander.”
The issue surfaces in contemporary bioethics around end-of-life care, with questions related to when it is appropriate not to intervene to save or lengthen a life, and whether there is a morally significant distinction between hastening death and letting death come.
See also Accountability; Love, Love Command; Sin Bibliography
Barnett, V. Bystanders: Conscience and Complicity during the Holocaust. Praeger, 2000.
David P. Gushee
In the biblical narrative, “oppression” carries a twofold meaning. First, it denotes a situation in which persons are subjected against their will to hardships placed on them by others and/or are made to live under deplorable conditions simply because they are considered inferior and/or marginal based on norms established by those in control of society Second, spiritual oppression, though often ignored by Western thinkers, is also part of the biblical narrative. Spiritual oppression refers to “spiritual warfare” in which God and demonic forces battle for dominion and control of the human mind and body When one is being attacked by the forces of “spiritual wickedness” (see 2 Cor. 10:3-5; Eph. 6:12), such state is described as spiritual oppression. God reacts to both situations of oppression in a similar fashion, taking a proactive approach promoting the necessary changes to overcome oppression.
When it comes to social and political oppression of groups or particular individuals, God intervenes by sending prophets and messengers to call leaders to correct their ways by protecting those of lowly and marginal status and by promoting social equality. Although the statements against oppression are clear, there is no consensus about how one overcomes oppression. Ethicists and Bible scholars alike have offered a wide range of interpretations, from passive forms of pacifism to full military intervention justified by just-war theory. The common denominator in these approaches is God’s call for action to promote comprehensive reform, which includes the transformation of individual oppressors, the reorganization of social structures to protect the vulnerable, and the creation of a new system that strives to offer restoration to the oppressed and attempts to prevent situations of oppression in the future. Again, even when there is disagreement about how to bring oppression to an end, the biblical narrative indicates that oppression must be addressed at all levels of society. In our complex global society oppression is not a simple “rich versus poor” dynamic; rather, it is present in a global web of social, ethnic, and racial connections as well as political and financial interests that make the task of identifying the oppressor and oppressed quite difficult. Nevertheless, the divine mandate is clear and encompasses all aspects of society, which under our circumstances requires a constant and careful examination of all factors, social structures, and social institutions that keep some members of society from enjoying all the privileges and full participation in the decision-making process. And it is precisely these notions that constitute the norm in defining oppression; that is, any social structures, individuals, and/or institutions that prevent groups or individuals from fully participating in the life of society should be considered as oppressive, and something must be done in response to God’s call to correct the situation.
As for spiritual oppression, a common response is to try to deal with these matters separately from the social and political aspects explained above; however, such a dichotomy does not seem to be supported by biblical references. In fact, the classic text commonly used to exemplify oppression is the narrative of Israel’s exodus from Egypt, and to read this narrative only from a sociopolitical perspective would be a mistake, as much as it would be to read it as simply being about pure spiritual liberation. The reality of oppression encompasses the social and personal aspects of the person, the spiritual and corporate realities of societies and institutions. Furthermore, in looking at the life and ministry of Jesus, we see that the distinctions between the physical (personal/private) and the corporate (social/political) do not exist. In the Gospels, Jesus has the power to overcome physical oppression by healing and feeding individuals who are sick and hungry, while at the same time he challenges religious leaders to change their ways by being inclusive and extending God’s grace to all and not just to some. The kingdom of God as proclaimed by Jesus is comprehensive, including individual, social, spiritual, and physical aspects (Luke 4:16-20), and offers liberation from all forms of oppression. For this reason, oppression must be addressed from a perspective that is both systemic and individual. Oppression finds its root cause in sinful human tendencies that often result in individual and corporate oppression, both of which God rejects, calling for comprehensive reformation of both the individual and society.
See also Institution(s); Liberation; Liberationist Ethics; Powers and Principalities
Bibliography
Gutierrez, G. Las Casas: In Search of the Poor of Jesus Christ. Orbis, 1993; LeFevre, P., and W. Schroeder, eds. Pastoral Care and Liberation Praxis: Studies in Personal and Social Transformation. Exploration Press, 1986; Sobrino, J. No Salvation Outside the Poor: Prophetic-Utopian Essays. Orbis, 2008.
Hugo Magallanes
A key theme in the biblical drama is God’s passionate concern for those who are vulnerable to exploitation or neglect, and the many references to orphans highlight this attentiveness. Orphans’ welfare therefore provides a centering concern for any ethics claiming to be biblical. Whether or how the welfare of orphans and similar groups informs discussions of ethics and policy provides an important measure of how Scripture-shaped our moral imaginations actually are. Rather than providing an ideological or political agenda, concern for the vulnerable centers our ethics and demands that we attend to their needs just as God, our Parent, attends to us all (Matt. 6:26-33).
Biblical Commands concerning Orphans
The OT contains numerous references to orphans and God’s insistence that they be protected (Deut. 10:17-19; Exod. 22:22-24; Pss. 10:14, 18; 68:5; 146:9; Hos. 14:3; Zech. 7:10). Like the widows with whom they are often grouped, they lacked male advocates in a patriarchal society and thus were exposed to multiple levels of legal, emotional, economic, and social deprivation. The pattern here follows many others in Scripture: divine interest in this group’s welfare means that those who follow Yahweh must enact that concern or else incur God’s wrath (Exod. 22:22-24; Isa. 1:23-24). Genuine faith focuses on the powerless and tends them as their own. If a people wishes to please God and pursue his favor, they must embody this as expressed in the commands of Deut. 24:17-22.
Understood within the larger context, this text expresses a moral sentiment that links God, the vulnerable, and the larger community. These interconnections typify the seamlessness in Scripture between God’s character and our ethics, God’s command and our welfare. Discerning specific rules for behavior—“You shall not deprive a resident alien or an orphan of justice. . . . When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, do not glean what is left; it shall be for the alien, the orphan, and the widow” (Deut. 24:17, 21)—is often considered the central concern of ethics. Yet rather than merely floating abstractly as principles or guidelines for morality, scriptural commands find their sensibility within the larger story of salvation. Right telling of this narrative in word and in deed requires clear and accurate understanding of the actors, both God and humankind.
Yahweh acts consistently as compassionate redeemer, the deliverer and upholder of the forgotten (Deut. 24:18). As Yahweh acted to rescue Israel and redeem them, God’s people respond in kind, imitative of divine character. It is not simply Yahweh’s past actions but rather a constant covenantal relationship of dependence on this God who makes care for the powerless a win-win situation for everyone. Embodying Yahweh’s deliverance and protection of the unsheltered, Israel glorifies God by revealing this goodness to others and trusting that such loving-kindness favors those who obey these commands. God sustains not only the obviously exposed such as the widow and orphan; in truth, all humankind rests on divine provision. In this way, care of the vulnerable provides opportunities not for philanthropy from on high, but rather for recollection of our humble status before Yahweh and for openness to further blessings and gifts (Deut. 14:29).
In the NT, there are few references to orphans. Instead, the language for enacting the care for the weak shifts to that of children as representative of the “least of these” (Mark 9:36; 10:13-15; Luke 9:48), as they often were invisible or exploited within the larger culture. The interconnectedness of God’s blessings and embodied compassion remains consistent, for those who receive children are honored as those who unexpectedly welcome Christ himself (Mark 9:35-37). Indeed, the OT description of true faithfulness as imitative of God’s character continues in the NT. As the Letter of James forcefully states, “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world” (1:27).
Church Tradition
While concern about orphans could be understood as largely symbolic of God’s interest in the marginalized, Christians have recognized this as a literal call to the parentless that has been exemplified in various ages, from care of children in Byzantium to the orphanages of George Muller in Victorian England. Current interest in foster care and adoption often includes “social orphans” who lack functional families and the security that these provide. The present global crises of millions of children due to neglect, warfare, disease (particularly the AIDS pandemic), food instability, and political and economic corruption remind us of the timelessness of ancient witnesses’ warnings that these “least” still cry out to God and God’s people for justice. Orphans also remain emblematic of those easily exploited as laborers in agriculture, domestic service, or the sex trade and others who are exposed to violence, abandonment, or various forms of mistreatment.
Welcoming Orphans as Gifts
Sometimes attention to orphans fosters an attitude of arrogance or pity. However, Scripture commands us to share with the orphan out of the gifts that come from God’s hand; doing so tames fears that foster greed and self-indulgence. But such solidarity also recalls our mutual fragility as mere creatures who utterly depend on the graciousness of God. In this sense, doing justice for orphans never reinforces societal hierarchy or exclusive community, but rather disrupts them. As in ancient Israel, orphans offer an opportunity to remember and enact God’s redemptive action by opening our table to name them as “family” and thus make them a focus of our ethical concern.
See also Aliens, Immigration, and Refugees; Children; Family; Foster Care; Justice; Reproductive Technologies; Widows
Bibliography
Brueggemann, W. “Vulnerable Children, Divine Passion, and Human Obligation.” Pages 399—422 in The Child in Christian Thought, ed. M. Bunge. Eerdmans, 2001; Foster, G., C. Levine, and J. Williamson, eds. A Generation at Risk: The Global Impact of HIV/AIDS on Orphans and Vulnerable Children. Cambridge University Press, 2005; Gundry-Volf, J. “The Least and the Greatest: Children in the New Testament.” Pages 29—60 in The Child in the Bible, ed. M. Bunge. Eerdmans, 2008; Herzog, K. Children and Our Global Future: Theological and Social Challenges. Pilgrim Press, 2005; Miller, T. The Orphans of Byzantium: Child Welfare in the Christian Empire. Catholic University Press, 2003; UNICEF. “The State of the World’s Children 2006: Excluded and Invisible.” http://www.unicef.org /sowc06/pdfs/sowc06%5Ffullreport.pdf; Vogt, P. “Social Justice and the Vision of Deuteronomy.” JETS 51 (2008): 35-44.
Erin Dufault-Hunter
The Orthodox Church
The Orthodox Church is the second-largest Christian communion in the world today, comprising approximately 225 million to 300 million adherents to the faith. While Orthodox Christians can be found throughout the world, areas in which the Orthodox Church is the primary religious community are Belarus, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Georgia, Greece, Romania, Russia, Serbia, and Ukraine. The Orthodox Church is organized into a family of autocephalous (i.e., self-governing) ecclesial bodies, which include the churches of Constantinople (Istanbul), Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Cyprus, Greece, Poland, the Czech lands and Slovakia, Albania, and America.
The Orthodox Church professes itself to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, locating its origins in the life and work of Jesus Christ and his apostles and continuing to the present day. For Orthodox Christians, the unity of the church is located not within an office or a sacred text but instead in a common faith that unites people of different languages, ethnicities, and generations. This common faith is believed to be the pure revelation of Jesus Christ, which is possessed by the church as a fruit of the Spirit of Truth. This deposit is given expression principally through sources such as the Holy Scripture, the first seven ecumenical councils, the canons of the church, the writings of the saints, the hymnology and prayers of the church, and the holy icons.
While the Orthodox Church and those who follow the Roman Catholic faith hold a common history of the first millennium, the division between the East and West was a gradual process that culminated in the year 1054 with what is commonly referred to as the Great Schism. Important historical markers in the life of the Orthodox Church since 1054 include the fall of the Byzantine Empire to the Muslim Ottoman Empire in 1453, Greek independence in 1821 from the Muslim Ottoman Empire, the rise of communism in Eastern Europe resulting in the martyrdom of millions of Orthodox Christians in the twentieth century, and the millennial anniversary of the conversion of the Slavs in 1988. Important figures in the history of the Orthodox Church include Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, Maximus the Confessor, Symeon the New Theologian, Gregory Palamas, and Nikodemus of the Holy Mountain. More contemporary figures living in the twentieth century include Silouan the Athonite, Nikolai Velimirovich, and Justin Popovich.
One particularly important contemporary point with respect to the Orthodox Church is that Orthodox ethics, in general, stands relatively independent of the theological movements of the Western Christian tradition, including Scholasticism, the Protestant Reformation, and the Enlightenment. Consequently, the Orthodox Church represents to Western Christianity an alternative approach to understanding the relationship between Scripture and ethics.
Deification and Ethics
One of the most distinctive aspects of the Orthodox Church is its approach to ethics. Ethics is supported not by the strength of reason but through the pursuit of deification. Orthodox Christians understand deification as the soterio-logical process by which Christians undergo an ethical and anthropological transformation of the whole person, becoming all that God is by grace. As such, ethics is rooted in a personal God who is wholly transcendent and yet is disclosed to the human person through personal transformation within the liturgical and ascetical life of the church. Important here is that the liturgical and ascetical life of the church does not simply contribute to an understanding of ethics but rather forms the basis by which ethics is undertaken. Consequently, ethics is primarily the fruit of an unmediated experience of God in pursuit of deification.
Consequently, knowledge of God and knowledge of the ethical life are arrived at through a nondiscursive, noetic knowledge within the context of the transformation of the human person. For Orthodox Christianity, the nous is understood as the faculty of the soul that governs the person and mediates the person’s relationship with God. The nous can also be described as the eye of the soul. Thus, an ethicist is one who through prayer, fasting, almsgiving, keeping vigil, prostrations, love of neighbor, and love of God undergoes purification and engages in a participatory knowledge of God through God’s uncreated energies. It is through turning to God in repentance with an open heart that ethical knowledge is derived. At the same time, the importance of intellectual rigor is not to be denied in its ability to assist in the pursuit of deification or to provide clarity in ethical understanding. However, intellectual rigor can never form the foundation of arriving at ethical knowledge.
Orthodox Ethics
At the heart of ethical living is the pursuit of deification. The phrase “God became human so that humans may become gods [by grace]”—stated in various forms by important theologians including Irenaeus of Lyon, Athanasius the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Maximus the Confessor, and Gregory Palamas—provides the framework within the Orthodox tradition for understanding the ethical life. From the beginning of creation, a pilgrimage of growth and transformation for Adam and Eve was initiated within the divine economy. The first created humans were called to engage this process of growth and transformation in paradise in an ascent to God, yet they failed. Despite God’s ongoing effort to call back creation, a stronger remedy was required, which was the Word of God taking on human nature, human experience, and, ultimately, human death and making them life-giving.
Through God’s own assumption and deification of our human nature, human experience, and death in Christ, the principle upon which humanity returns to God is established. Further, this work of Christ as the new beginning and the second Adam, fulfilling the work of the first Adam, sets in place the basis by which Orthodox ethics is understood. Through the putting on of Christ in baptism, persons are integrated back into the path of deification offered through the life and work of Christ. The ethical life, then, is characterized by the cultivation of the grace given at baptism in pursuit of deification through the liturgical and ascetical life of the church. Stated differently, the ethical life is the personal appropriation of the work of Christ. The Orthodox ethical life, consequently, is aimed at holiness through right worship and right belief within the liturgical and ascetical life of the church.
Within this context, rules, goals, and virtues are reframed within the liturgical and ascetical life of the church. The ethical life is measured with respect to one’s proximity to God. Virtues are understood as the uncreated energies of God in which the fruit is deification. The virtues are the result of a synergistic relationship between the human person and God and demonstrate the health of the soul. Vice, conversely, is sickness of the soul and reveals a person’s spiritual distance from God. Rules, including the commandments and canons, are boundaries between life in the Spirit and spiritual death. The goal is always deification. The result is that the exemplars of Orthodox ethics are those who have made progress in the pursuit of deification through the liturgical and ascetical life of the church and that which is ethical leads to an encounter with the Truth, who is the triune God revealed in Jesus Christ.
Scripture and Tradition
This understanding of ethics relocates the Orthodox Church’s understanding of Scripture within the soteriological framework of deification. Consequently, sacred tradition, here, is not restricted to the teachings and practices that are passed down over time in the life of the church. Sacred tradition, in the Orthodox understanding, is more fully and properly understood as the continued union and indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the church. Sacred tradition, then, at its core possesses the deifying life of Christ that gives birth to the revelatory and deifying experience of the saints. This experience of the saints, in turn, is given expression through Scripture, ecumenical councils, canons, writings of the saints, the hymnology and prayers of the church, and holy icons.
Scripture, then, possesses in it this revelatory and deifying experience of the saints from which it is borne out and points toward. For this reason, Orthodox Christians view Scripture as a whole, unified by the same life-giving Spirit with the highest ethic revealed in Jesus Christ. Further, Scripture is the product of a synergistic relationship between the working of the Holy Spirit and the author of the text in which the text maintains the personal character of the author in light of his experience of God and his historical circumstances. This understanding also points to the fact that the Scripture itself is not the revelatory and deifying experience; rather, it witnesses to the revelatory and deifying experience of the evangelists in which all Christians are called to participate. Thus, while the scriptural text witnesses to the divine truth, it also possesses the limitations of finite reality as part of the created world. Such an approach has several important implications.
First, Scripture is iconic in that it always points beyond itself to the divine Truth—the triune God revealed in Jesus Christ. Scripture, then, fundamentally exists within a soteriological context. In John 20:30-31 the evangelist writes, “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.” Second, the Scripture arises out of the life of the church and stands in service of the church. To separate Scripture and the church would be a grave error. This point is particularly clear in the way in which the Orthodox Church has historically located its use of Scripture within the context of the liturgical worship of the church. As such, Scripture does not contain the whole of divine revelation, which can only be possessed by the church—that is, the body of Christ.
Consequently, third, it is only in the church through the living sacred tradition of the church that the Scripture can be properly understood. Because Scripture is born out of the deifying experience of the church, it is through the pursuit and acquisition of this same deifying experience that the mysteries of Scripture can be penetrated and understood. This truth is often referred to as acquiring the “mind of Christ” or the “mind of the Fathers” as a prerequisite for proper interpretation. On this point, Athanasius writes, “But for the searching and right understanding of the Scriptures there is need of a good life and a pure soul, and for Christian virtue to guide the mind to grasp, so far as human nature can, the truth concerning God the Word. One cannot possibly understand the teaching of the saints unless one has a pure mind and is trying to imitate their life” (Inc. 57).
Scripture in Ethics
Scripture and ethics have as their common basis, then, an experience of God in the pursuit of deification within the liturgical and ascetical life of the church. To remove Scripture or ethics from this soteriological framework would be to distort their foundations, their proper understanding, and their proper relationship to each other. Consequently, Orthodox ethics and Scripture are born out of a participatory knowledge of God and point Orthodox Christians toward this participatory knowledge of God in pursuit of deification.
Within this context, Orthodox ethicists view Holy Scripture as a primary resource within the sacred tradition of the church for understanding how one should pursue the ethical life in light of an Orthodox ethicist’s own pursuit of deification. Here, the continuity of the life of the church is maintained in which that same Holy Spirit that guided the authors of Scripture is opening the heart of the Orthodox ethicist in turning to understand the Scripture and its ethical implications for Christian living.
At the same time, Orthodox ethicists do not use Scripture as an autonomous resource that is capable of standing outside of sacred tradition. Scripture is always interpreted within the context of the sacred tradition of the church. Consequently, in interpreting Scripture, the hermeneutical principle applied to Scripture is the living sacred tradition of the church. Scripture is read and understood within the pursuit of deification in one’s own Christian life in adopting the “mind of Christ” guided by the writings, hymns, and liturgical prayers of those who have been recognized by the church as authoritative.
Such an approach, however, does not suggest that the proper way to deal with contemporary ethical problems is merely to read what a particular saint said in the fourth century about a particular biblical passage and that will resolve the ethical question in our own contemporary context. Rather, the aim in using Scripture is to enter into the same stream of sacred tradition that gave birth to these writings within their own historical context. Thus, the task is to discern what writings and interpretive methods are relevant in producing a creative and authentic response to our own historical situation within this same stream of sacred tradition. This approach also means that any ethical instruction today can never contradict the teaching of Scripture.
In light of the basic hermeneutical principle of sacred tradition, some general principles of ex-egetical method that are generally agreed upon by Orthodox ethicists include the following:
1. The life and work of Christ are the key that unlocks the meaning of all Scripture.
2. The pursuit of purity of heart through repentance and a turning to God in the life of the church is a critical precondition for an authentic interpretation of the text.
3. The aim and purpose of interpreting Scripture is always oriented toward the ethical life, which is the same as the pursuit of deification.
4. Only within the life of the church can Scripture be fully and properly interpreted, because it is within the church that a continuity of the working of the Holy Spirit can be found.
5. Methods of interpretation can vary as long as they authenticate the aim of the ethical life, which is the pursuit of deification.
6. Authority for proper interpretation ultimately rests within the apostolic tradition, which continues in the life of the church up to the present.
Given these general principles of interpretation, Orthodox ethicists make use of a wide range of biblical texts and methods. Such methods include typological, allegorical, and literal levels of interpretation that are witnessed to throughout the life of the church. Regarding the use of specific biblical critical methods such as philological criticism, literary criticism, and other forms of biblical criticism, generally speaking, Orthodox ethicists are open to using these methods, recognizing that these are simply tools for understanding the text that can be appropriated within an Orthodox framework.
Orthodox ethicists have much work to do today in responding to the many and diverse challenges presented in the world, ranging from new technologies to growing complex economic and ecological questions, to the ever-deepening discussions in the medical community. Scripture continues to play an important role in understanding how to respond to these contemporary challenges. The challenge for Orthodox ethicists is to properly discern within the living out of the liturgical and ascetical life of the church precisely how to manifest this same
divine Spirit that has been manifested in every
generation with the continued aim of the restoration and healing of the entire world.
Bibliography
Behr, J. “Scripture, the Gospel, and Orthodoxy.” SVTQ 43, nos. 3—4 (1999): 223—48; Breck, J. Scripture in Tradition: The Bible and Its Interpretation in the Orthodox Church. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001; Engelhard, H., Jr. The Foundations of Christian Bioethics. Swets & Zeitlinger, 2000; Florovsky, G. Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View. Vol. 1 of The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky. Nordland, 1972; Ford, M. “Seeing, but Not Perceiving: Crisis and Context in Biblical Studies.” SVTQ 35, nos. 2—3 (1991): 107—25; Keselopoulos, A. Man and the Environment: A Study of St. Symeon the New Theologian. Trans. E. Theokritoff. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001; idem. Passion and Virtues according to St. Gregory Pala-mas. St. Tikhon’s Seminary Press, 2004; Mantzarides, G. The Deification of Man. Trans. L. Sherrard. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984; Nellas, P. Deification in Christ: Orthodox Perspectives on the Nature of the Human Person.
Trans. N. Russell. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997; Styli-anopoulos, T. The New Testament: An Orthodox Perspective. Vol. 1 of Scripture, Tradition, and Hermeneutics. Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1997; idem, ed. Sacred Text and Interpretation: Perspectives in Orthodox Biblical Studies. Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2006; Ware, T. The Orthodox Church. Penguin Books, 1993.
Mark A. Tarpley