What is Right? Part 3: Toward a Basic Biblical Ethic

Individuals who have grown up in or who have adopted and become educated in a religious environment likely find a natural connection between their faith and their ethics. Indeed, the person of faith likely draws primarily upon their faith as a life guide for their ethical thinking. In the context of our history as a country, religious faith, namely, Christianity or more generally the Judeo-Christian tradition, has been woven into the moral and ethical fabric since the founding of our nation. As noted previously, a religious ethic espouses honesty, respect, faithfulness, benevolence, and many other values that are in our national moral fabric. Further, in the historical development of our country, reform movements have frequently been motivated and energized by people of faith. The history of equal rights and civil rights addressed in the articles of this blog have focused on the work of religiously motivated activists. (Note 1) At the same time, adherents of Christianity and leaders of Christian churches and denominations have also stood against reform and supported many forms of discrimination, violence, and oppression.

In examining the relationship between religious ethics (in this case, Christian or biblical ethics) and our legal system, it is necessary to drill down into a more specific expression of a Christian ethic. (Note 2) There are many who would see this discussion as unnecessary, perhaps along the lines of ... "all we have to do is follow the Bible" or a similar affirmation. But it is not at all that simple. The Bible is filled with moral and religious prescriptions that people of faith do not follow. The Old Testament contains plenteous examples of warfare based activity or religious based judicial norms and punishments that are no longer applicable, as well as tons of instructions in the cult of religion that we disregard (e.g. the structure of worship, rules of ritual purity, how to offer sacrifices, etc.), and likewise the New Testament contains a lot of culturally specific teaching that we try to understand in context but certainly do not attempt to maintain today. You will notice that I am not giving specific examples here, but anyone with a reasonable familiarity with the Bible (the same would apply to other historical religious texts) can come up with their own examples. The New Testament writer Paul, for example, taught that men should have short hair and women should have long hair, and that women should keep their hair covered, and in another context, that women should actually remain entirely silent in the church meeting.

We attempt to understand these bizarre teachings in the light of the time and cultural situation in which they were written, but most people (with significant exceptions, I must admit) would not attempt to bring these principles into the 21st century, although a lot of culturally or historically specific Scriptural teachings have been carried all the way into the 20th century and even to the present day. The point being, given that there is no straightforward way to apply the ethical import of Scripture that was assembled over several millennia and is at times internally inconsistent, we need an interpretive heuristic through which to understand and apply sacred Scripture to contemporary life. Stated differently, we have to have a canon within the canon. All of the Scripture is not equally authoritative. I can only assume that this principle would apply to all historical religious texts that ancient in their origin.

There is pervasive denial within orthodox Christian theological circles of the concept of a canon within a canon. I would hold, however, that this position is not only untenable in practice but is mostly upheld by a philosophical assumption (or fear, rather) that if you give up on the principle of the equal authority of all Scripture, you end up on a slippery slope that has no end, with the result that anything goes and every person becomes their own authority. I do not find this argument compelling on any level, certainly not on the basis of a logic such as "we can't believe X because if we do, Y will happen." In practice, one has to have a means of interpreting the sacred text in the light of those teachings and principles that one holds to be most fundamental and authoritative. From a perspective of epistemology, this need is inescapable. One simply cannot claim to give equal weight to all of their sacred text. As such, the heuristic is either made explicit and therefore open to rational debate, otherwise, it is arbitrary and subject to personal preference.

My interpretive method or heuristic is as follows: I understand my faith, and correspondingly, I interpret the Bible, through the life and teachings of Jesus, first and foremost, and alongside that, recognition of the wide if not universal applicability of a few key ethical / theological principles of the Old Testament, as described below. (I would argue, by virtue of frequency of use, that these are among the most important Old Testament principles.) The Hebrew / Jewish Scripture exhibits a wealth and depth of spiritual and ethical insight that is arguably without equal. There is a theological and ethical consistency that runs throughout the Torah and the Writings (or Wisdom) and the Prophets, and these principles form a foundation that Jesus stood upon and lived within.

With reference to the ethic of Jesus, I refer you to the article Confession of Faith, posted May 23, 2019. Jesus affirmed the most important ethical principle, cited in the New Testament book of Matthew, chapter 22, as:
“'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

With reference to the Old Testament, I offer the following affirmation, with the background linguistic study included below.

Ethical judgement is to discern a situation or action as follows: A person shall act toward others in justice, in relations characterized by faithfulness, motivated and informed by lovingkindness.

In simple translation, I would express as ...
Just - as within my power, to do right toward the other and toward God.
Faithful - to be true to the other and to God.
Loving - to love God and be generous and merciful to the other.

These three words or word families are found extensively throughout the Jewish / Hebrew Scripture. In what follows I provide linguistic resources that may be useful in further study.

tsadaq
To be righteous, to be justified, to be just (tsadaq) used 40 times in the Hebrew Scripture / Old Testament.
Gen 38:26, Job 4:17, 9:15, 13:18, Ps 82:3
Righteousness or justice. (tsedaqah or tsedeq) 276 times.
Genesis 15:6, Lev 19:15, Is 51:1,5
Just, righteous (tsaddiq), 206 times. Genesis 20:4

mishpat
Judgement, rights, hearing a case and rendering a proper verdict. (mishpat). 420 times.
Gen 18:19, Exodus 21:31, 23:6, Deut 16:18,17:9, Job 8:3, Ps 33:5, 89:14 Is 30:18

emunah
Faithfulness, truth, certainty. (Emunah) 49 times, mostly in Psalms
Deut 32:4, Ps 33:4, 119:86
True (emeth) Adjective of enumah. Psalm 89:14

chesed (See post Mercy / Love / Lovingkindness from February 21, 2012)
*lovingkindness, mercy (chesed)
I believe that this is the most important single word in the Old Testament as a description of God's character and nature, God's intended society, and what God expects of his/her followers. It occurs 240 times in the OT and is rendered in several different ways by the various translations. It is translated so many ways because it is not possible to capture all that this word means with a single English word.
KJV usually uses "mercy" or "mercies"
NAS usually uses "lovingkindness"
NIV usually uses "love"
RSV usually uses "steadfast love"
"Grace," "favor," "kindnesses" and faithfulnesses" are also found.

The word indicates love, combined with loyalty and mercy. It combines obligation with generosity. In many important cases, it applies to the relationship between God and God's people in the context of covenant.

These key concepts hold deep meaning in the Old Testament. Further, they are not simple and are often translated in different ways in different translations according to context. A demonstration of the typical ways that some of the above words are translated in three major Christian Bible translations is shown below in three verses which exhibit several of the words together.

Psalm 89:14 KJV Justice (tsedeq) and judgment (mishpat) are the habitation of thy throne: mercy (chesed) and truth (emeth) shall go before thee.
Psalm 89:14 NAS Righteousness (tsedeq) and justice (mishpat) are the foundation of Thy throne; Lovingkindness (chesed) and truth (emeth) go before Thee.
Psalm 89:14 NIV Righteousness (tsedeq) and justice (mishpat) are the foundation of your throne; love (chesed) and faithfulness (emeth) go before you.

Isaiah 16:5 KJV And in mercy (chesed) shall the throne be established: and he shall sit upon it in truth (emeth) in the tabernacle of David, judging, and seeking judgment (mishpat), and hasting righteousness (tsedeq).
Isaiah 16:5 NAS A throne will even be established in lovingkindness (chesed), and a judge will sit on it in faithfulness (emeth) in the tent of David; moreover, he will seek justice (mishpat) and be prompt in righteousness (tsedeq).
Isaiah 16:5 NIV In love (chesed) a throne will be established; in faithfulness (emeth) a man will sit on it - one from the house of David - one who in judging seeks justice (mishpat) and speeds the cause of righteousness (tsedeq).

Hosea 2:19b-20a KJV I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness (tsedeqah), and in judgment (mishpat), and in lovingkindness (chesed), and in mercies (racham). I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness (emunah) ...
Hosea 2:19b-20a NAS I will betroth you to Me in righteousness (tsedeqah) and in justice (mishpat), in lovingkindness (chesed) and in compassion (racham), and I will betroth you to me in faithfulness (emunah)...
Hosea 2:19b-20a NIV I will betroth you in righteousness (tsedeqah) and justice (mishpat), in love
(chesed) and compassion (racham). I will betroth you in faithfulness (emunah) ...

Endnotes:

(1) Some of the religiously motivated reformers represented in these articles include: William Lloyd Garrison, Sarah and Angelina Grimke, Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, Theodore Dwight Weld, John Brown, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, John Lewis, Jimmy Lee Jackson, James Reeb.

(2) My purpose in exploring a Biblical ethic is not based on the role of Christianity in our nation's history, although that is acknowledged, but on the fact that Christianity is the faith that I embrace, and on my desire to understand and also explain the relevance and significance of Christianity for contemporary ethical and legal issues. I hold a strong conviction that Christianity holds promise of significant positive contribution in understanding and addressing the challenges that we face. My target audience includes those within the faith who struggle with a reconciliation of a Christian ethic with contemporary issues, as well as those outside of the faith who may not recognize the possibilities of the relevance of God and faith to their understanding of the world.