Report Template - Jubilee Centre

THE POLITICAL USE OF THE BIBLE IN EARLY MODERN BRITAIN:
mould and shape Israel in certain clearly
defined directions within their own historical
and cultural context. That overall social
shape, with all its legal and institutional
structures, ethical norms, and theological
undergirding, thus becomes the model or
paradigm that Israel provides as a priesthood
for the nations. And, furthermore, it was a
paradigm intended to have a relevance and
application beyond the geographical, historical
and cultural borders of Israel itself. 363
The paradigmatic approach perceives “the particularity
of Israel” positively, and “not a hindrance to universal
application,” since a “paradigm by its very nature is a
particular, specific, concrete case that has wider
relevance or application beyond its own particularity.” 364
The principalising approach bears similar positive
sentiments towards specific ethical commands, precepts,
and proscriptions because they are assumed to contain
God’s universalisable holy and righteous character
traits; for this approach, God is the model. The
paradigmatic approach assumes wholeheartedly that
God is indeed the model of righteousness, but that the
first earthly institutionalisation of His holy and
righteous requirements is found in the life and social
structures of Israel, His model to the nations. The
principalising approach rests on discerning God’s
universalisable and equitable ethical requirements
(meaning), and their application (significance) to the
nations at large. As Kaiser states, “Old Testament ethics
are universal, embracing the same standard of
righteousness for all the nations of the earth as it does
for Israel.” As a matter of fact, “never did the biblical
writers conceive of justice, righteousness, or the good as
the special corner of the truth reserved for Israel alone.”
Indeed, long sections and even books of the
Old Testament are specifically addressed to
the nations at large such as Isaiah 13–23,
Jeremiah 45–51, Ezekiel 25–32, Daniel 2 and
7, Amos 1–2, Obadiah, Jonah, and Nahum.
At the heart of those messages, often sent by
messengers and ambassadors to the foreign
nations (e.g., Jer. 27:3; 51:61), was God’s
standard of righteousness. Accordingly, any
narrow, chauvinistic, or parochial
interpretation of Old Testament ethics that
limits its application to a single people in a
particular socio-economic setting stands in
opposition to the claims of the text. 365
The issue is not one of absolute conflicting
methodologies per se, or paradigmatic versus
principalisation, but possibly one of investigative
emphasis; upon finding principles while neglecting the
paradigms altogether. Wright asks, “Is there a difference
between the paradigmatic method I am advocating here
and the familiar idea that, since we obviously cannot
simply lift the details of Old Testament laws and apply
them in the modern context, what we have to do is
‘extract the principles’ that underlie those laws and apply
them? In one sense, there is not a huge difference.”
Why? Because the paradigmatic approach requires
investigating and articulating “the principles the
paradigm embodies and then see how they can be
reconcretised in some other context.” The main
difference, the key divide between these two
approaches, is that the ‘look-for-the-principle’ approach
on its own . . . can lead to the eventual discarding of the
specific realities of the Old Testament text, the concrete,
earthly history of Israel, the good, the bad and the ugly.”
After all, “once you have a principle in your pocket, why
keep the wrapping?” Unfortunately, as Wright notes
further, “this has been how many people have handled
the Old Testament (or rather mishandled it).” 366
It appears, as Wright notes, that God did not simply
deliver the Scriptures in the form of a “classified
collection of principles,” but rather through “the
wonderfully particular portrayal of a people through
many generations,” depicted “through their narratives,
laws, wisdom, worship and visions, their memory and
hope, their achievements and failures,” and packaged in
“an untidy and incredibly complex assortment of very
complex individuals, over multiple generations, in
different nations.” 367
Treating all this great collection of texts merely
as the expendable container for independent
universal principles we can express more
simply and tidily denies the character of the
Bible as God has given it to us, and might
even seem to render Bible reading a waste of
time. Regarding the biblical texts about Israel
as providing us with a paradigm preserves their
historical particularity and forces us to observe
all the non-reducible hard edges, all the jarring
tensions and all the awkward corners of
earthly reality within them. 368
In conclusion then, the paradigmatic method requires
we consider both forms and principles; if “we keep hold
of the total paradigm and make sure we are paying close
attention to the texts that render it to us, we can of
363
Ibid., 65.
364
Ibid.
365
Kaiser, Towards Old Testament Ethics, 11, 12.
366
Wright, Old Testament Ethics and the People of God, 70.
367
Ibid., 70-71.
368
Ibid., 71.
72