This fifth installment in my response to a former student will discuss the second context that good biblical interpretation must take into account.  In addition to the cultural context that produced scripture, a given passage of scripture must be understood in terms of is literary context beginning with its immediate surroundings and extending to the entirety of Scripture. The failure to do so will certainly result in misinterpretation or the absolutization of a given text over against other texts in Scripture and contrary to the tenor of Scripture as a whole. Often this sort of privileging one text over others betrays inconsistency, incoherence, and bias on the part of the interpreter. In other words, observance of the literary context of scripture requires criteria applicable across Scripture that take seriously all Scripture as authoritative without rigidity.

A few examples should demonstrate the importance of this principle. The first installment of this series has already discussed the case of Job’s friends, whose speeches addressed to Job sound orthodox and pious, except that in the context of the whole book of Job, they stand under God’s negative evaluation expressed at the end of the book (Job 42:5). Yes, often we have to read to the end if we want to understand the message of a biblical book.  Memory verses can mislead.

The case of Ezra’s decree that Jewish men in post-exilic Judah must divorce their foreign wives and disown any (entirely innocent!) children that resulted from the union illustrates the need for setting a given text in the context of the whole Bible. Two issues intertwine here: divorce and particularism. Upon returning to Yehud (Judah) with the mandate of the Persian King Artaxerxes to regulate religious affairs there (Ezr 7:25-26), Ezra, whose priestly pedigree traced all the way back to Aaron (7:1-5) discovered that some among the populace had “not separated themselves from the people of the lands with their abomination,” but had intermarried with “Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians, and Amorites” (9:1-2, RSV). The discovery prompted Ezra to offer a lengthy prayer of confession (9:3-15), in which he alluded to Deut 7:1-5. The Deuteronomy text prohibits Israelites from intermarrying with a list of peoples closely aligned with the list in Ezr 9:1-2 suggesting that the motivating factor for Ezra was adherence to Deuteronomy.

Several factors argue against claiming Ezra’s decision as a precedent with respect to divorce, and certainly not to mass divorce. There is reason to question whether Ezra’s efforts to honor Deut 7:1-5 may not have violated Deut 24:1.  To be sure, Deuteronomy permits a man to divorce his wife “if … she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her….” In the rabbinical debate over the precise connotations of “indecency,” the school of Shammai and the school of Hillel held contrasting positions. Shammai argued that “A man may not divorce his wife unless he has found her guilty of sexual misconduct…,” while Hillel maintained that “(He may dismiss her) even if she has merely spoiled his meal….” (Sifre, Piska 269). Nothing in the Ezra case suggests that the wives divorced were guilty of sexual misconduct. Nothing suggests that the husbands involved wanted to divorce their wives for any reason, including their cooking! Of course, Christian readers of Ezra 9-10 will also want to include the New Testament as context. Probably in reference to Deuteronomy 24, Jesus prohibits a man from divorcing his wife “except on grounds of unchastity” (Matt 5:32; 19:9, RSV). Luke’s version omits the exception (16:18).  Paul warns against being “unequally yoked” (2 Cor 6:14-18), but he does not require divorce, which would contradict the teachings of Jesus.

Similarly, the particularism evident in Ezra’s abhorrence of intermarriage with non-Jews presents its own difficulties.  First, by Ezra’s day many of the peoples listed in Deuteronomy 7 and Ezra 9 no longer survived as identifiable people groups. Second, Deuteronomy expresses an interest in protecting religious purity, not ethnic identity. Third, the book of Ezra does not record that God issued a directive to Ezra that he should require 84 men (10:18-43) to turn their backs on their wives and children. Instead, Ezra himself drew an inference from scripture that may not have been entirely apt. Fourth, and most importantly, Ezra relied on a single text instead of the broader testimony of Scripture. Joshua 9 records the incorporation of the Gibeonites into the covenant people.  Tamar and Rahab were Canaanites, Ruth was a Moabite, and Bathsheba was a Hittite, yet all were in the direct lineage of David, and thus of Jesus (Matt 1:3, 5, 6). Further, Ezra failed to take into account the promise stated in Isa 56:3: “Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, ‘The Lord will surely separate me from his people.’”

Isaiah 56 figures prominently in another example of the need to put scripture in the context of scripture. Deuteronomy 23:1 explicitly prohibits eunuchs from entering “the assembly of the Lord.” Yet, in a later time, Isa 56:4-5 promises, not only foreigners (see above), but also faithful eunuchs the contrary: “For thus says the Lord: ‘To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name which shall not be cut off.’” Again, Christian interpreters of will want to put these texts in context with the New Testament.  Acts 8:26-40 records the account of Philip’s encounter with an Ethiopian eunuch – thus, both a foreigner and a eunuch – on the Jerusalem-Gaza road, whom ironically Philip found reading from the book of Isaiah. In response to the eunuch’s question, Philip explained “the good news of Jesus” and the eunuch asked immediately to be baptized. So, Philip baptized him (vv 36-38). Careful readers of the Bible do not absolutize single texts. The words of the Bible can become the Word of God when we pay wise attention to their context in “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27).