In comments, Lorna brought up the notion of “prescriptive vs descriptive.” This is in response to the concept and not to anything Lorna said or implied. Nothing in this reflects, positively or negatively, on Lorna. However, it is an important concept, so I thought I’d discuss it.
In brief, “descriptive” describes “what is” and “prescriptive” describes “what ought to be.” Done, right? I’m afraid it’s not that simple.
Noah Webster wrote his 1828 dictionary primarily as prescriptive. He intended to promote moral clarity, national identity, and proper usage. He hoped to standardize the language so we would all use the same words to mean the same things. He included moral components and theological components. Today, of course, there is hardly a dictionary in existence that aims or claims to be “prescriptive.” They intend to be descriptive. “This is the word and these are the ways we use them. That might change tomorrow.”
The question of “prescriptive vs descriptive” is very present in Scripture. By nature, the Bible describes a lot of stuff. The question is, how much is prescribed and how much is just a description?
Some of that is easy. “Cain killed Abel. It’s in the Bible, so we should kill our brothers.” Nonsense and it’s not hard to see. “Gideon threw out that fleece to test God, so we should, also.” Even if we’re not talking about a literal fleece, lots of Christians think it’s a good idea, but God says not to test Him (Matt 4:7; Luke 4:12). So the fact that God condescended to respond to Gideon’s test doesn’t mean it was prescriptive. It just means He did it in that instance. Divorce was practiced in the Old Testament, so it’s okay, right? No, Jesus said, “What God has joined together, let no man separate” and the Pharisees said, “Moses said it was okay,” to which Jesus replied, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so” (Matt 19:3-8). Descriptive vs prescriptive. The description of the structures and activities of the early church (Acts 2:42-47) are regarded by most as descriptive rather than prescriptive. So some of it is easy to see.
Some of it isn’t. There are those, for instance, that argue the reverse, at least to a large extent. They argue that most of Scripture is descriptive, from the obvious to the less obvious. We know, for instance, that God prescribed laws regarding sacrifices and customs that are no longer in effect today. “Descriptive.” But these types of people carry it to its next conclusion. All of the commands in Scripture should be interpreted as made to those who received the command and not all of us. So, for instance, when God commanded Adam and Eve to “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (Gen 1:28), He intended them to do it, not us. That mission is accomplished and we don’t have to. The same line of thinking is in the New Testament when Jesus commanded His disciples—His apostles—to preach the gospel to all the world (Matt 28:18-20; Mark 16:15; Acts 1:8). But Paul said the gospel had been preached “to all creation” (Col 1:23), so that mission was complete. Therefore, we don’t have to do it anymore.
Most of us, of course, don’t fall on that extreme. However, most of us understand that there are elements of the Bible that are descriptive and some that are prescriptive and we need to figure out which is which. Pentecostals, for instance, argue that the “tongues of fire” event in Acts 2 is prescriptive. We should all speak in tongues and have this “second baptism” kind of event. Is that true? I think the rest of Scripture clearly denies that. When Paul described homosexual behavior as sin in 1 Corinthians 6, was that prescriptive or descriptive? Was he referring to something specific in Corinth or a general concept? I think Scripture plainly teaches the latter.
This goes on and on. It is a real dynamic—this “prescriptive vs descriptive.” It does exist in Scripture in both forms. There really are descriptions of events that do not prescribe our life choices. There are also commands that universally prescribe what is right and wrong. I am not trying to answer the specific questions around this concept here. I’m simply pointing out that it is a real concept and a real dilemma. The best way to answer it is to know the Word of God, because almost all of those questions are addressed in the Word. The better we know God’s Word—the more acquainted and intimate we are with it—the easier it becomes to divide between prescription and description. And we don’t want to say, “Well, God commanded Israel to go kill the Amalekites (1 Sam 15:1-3), so we ought to go kill infidels, too.” Definitely a bad interpretation of the concept.
I am glad that you wrote about this concept, which strikes me as a fundamental consideration in sound Bible interpretation. As you point out, neglecting this concept can lead to some questionable practices and even much error in one’s doctrine. I wholeheartedly concur that knowledge of the entire Word of God helps clear up the majority of such misinterpretations; Scripture interprets Scripture. Exercising discernment is crucial, too (and of course, possessing the Holy Spirit to begin with--i.e. being born again--is necessary to understand truth). I would say that a basic knowledge of general, social, and church history is beneficial, as well, in order to be aware of cultural factors that have influenced beliefs and practices over time. (I find that handbooks and articles along the lines of “how people lived in biblical times” are helpful aides towards understanding the Bible narratives in a proper setting and context.)
ReplyDeleteOn a personal note, I must say that I didn’t realize how instinctively I apply this principle when considering theological topics and exercising a biblical faith and practice until our recent discussions about biblical marriage (and perhaps in past conversations about morality and “how to do church”). If and whenever I come across at Winging It (and elsewhere) as a quibbler, I hope that it’s due to practicing this principle!
P.S. Interesting reference to Webster’s dictionary; I did not know about his approach vs. the current practice. Commonplace and current word usage and meaning is certainly germane, but of course that morphs over time; still, as part of ever-changing social history, it can serve as a helpful picture in time.
I wanted to make a joke about the Amalekites, but I'll refrain.
ReplyDeleteThis seems to be one of those concepts that are simple to understand and is only difficult to apply because of our sin corrupted minds. As an example, we want to divorce our spouse so we look for ways to make divorce acceptable. Scripture is quite clear on God's position on divorce, but we really really want one, so we interpret described events as prescribed instructions. In the opposite, God is often accused of commanding slavery. But regulating slavery is not the same as commanding it. There is a prescription in how slaves should be treated, and a description of how life was handled at the time.
It occurred to me that in addition to sorting out descriptive vs. prescriptive, there is even a division that can be made within each of those categories. Descriptive passages might be viewed as either describing commendable behavior to emulate or perhaps despicable behavior to eschew (much could be neutral, of course). Prescriptive passages might present irrevocable, universal instructions or those applicable only for a particular time or group (such as ancient Israel) but not binding for, say, the Church. Cause for yet further discernment.
ReplyDelete