Conclusion: Methods of Scriptural Reasoning

As I mentioned before, this conclusion will focus mainly on the methods used in resolving the troubles one has with texts in Scriptural Reasoning.  In the above essays, four of the main methods for reasoning are:

• Deep examination of the text on its own terms,
• Reasoning through the text using related canonized texts,
• Use of main Biblical themes to explain the text, and
• Use of outside sources as a “bridge”

These methods are all used to create truthful reasonings about the meaning of the examined scripture.

Of these four methods, the most tangible is the first.  Taking the text on its own terms is the most basic way to confront scripture.  For one example, I turn to Ben Parziale’s essay.^[1]  In it he looks at Exodus 7:1 where God declares that He will make Moses a god to Pharaoh.  God’s decision here may initially seem odd because it seems to go against God’s very purpose mentioned in Exodus 7:5, “The Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD.”  However, through further examination, Parziale shows that because Pharaoh simply cannot believe that God is the LORD of all, Moses must become this god to Pharaoh.  That truth is displayed through the very words that Pharaoh says to Moses.  Similarly, throughout Daniel Crane’s essay,^[2] Crane uses the Hebrew of scripture to explain inherent troubles in the text, as do alll of the authors in this journal.

Next, reasoning through the text using related canonized texts is another basic method.  Daniel Harris uses alternative verses like Genesis 12:3 and Romans 9:17 to reason through his issues with the text.^[3]  Parziale also employs this method frequently in his use of the Book of John.^[4]  Again, all of the authors use the reasoning method, but because it is basic and easily observed, it is not necessary to point out all of the cases.

Now I am going to address some of the more complicated methods of Scriptural Reasoning.  Using Biblical themes to explain the text is something that all of our authors do in a similar way.  They all use the covenant in some form or another to justify God’s use of the 10 plagues.  Daniel Crane starts by discussing the potential covenant between God and the people of Egypt.^[5]  While Egypt ultimately rejects God’s offer of a covenant, it does explain why God would perform certain actions so that Egypt may know that He is the LORD.  Next, Daniel Harris uses the covenant between God and Pharaoh to justify God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart.^[6]  Again, ultimately Pharaoh’s response is a rejection of God’s terms in the first plagues, and, as a result, Pharaoh is punished.  In Jessica Kirzner’s article, she also uses covenantal themes to justify the plagues.^[7]  In this case, she focuses on the covenant between God and Israel.  In the end, it becomes apparent that God’s purpose for the plagues may have been to instill thankfulness in the Israelites for generations to come.  Lastly, Ben Parziale focuses on the covenant in terms of the relationship between God and the world.^[8]  The essay focuses on the plagues as yet another platform to portray the new covenant made in Jesus.  The plagues as a sign and as wonder made by Moses further strengthen the prophecy that Jesus is the new Moses, as he too performed signs and wonders.  This inherently strengthens the meaning of Jesus’ death as the new covenant between God and the world.  So, clearly covenantal themes play a large role in justifying God’s actions.

The last main method used in these essays is the use of outside sources as a “bridge” to the present.  This is a completely necessary method because it resolves one of the main reasons that students have trouble with texts.  This reason, mentioned in the introduction, is that people bring their personal “baggage” to the text.  The difference in cultural backgrounds and historical time between the writers of Exodus and the authors of these essays naturally make the texts troubling to many modern readers.  As a result, I believe that the above essays use outside sources to “bridge” the gap.

Allow me to explain.  Daniel Crane uses Rashi as well as other rabbinical writings to supplement his reading.^[9]  While the authors of these sources do not fully bridge the temporal and cultural gaps between the modern reader and the text, the Rashi closes that gap by thousands of years.  The result is that Crane must interpret the outside sources in his own light, and he develops a true meaning of the scripture that is relevant to him today.  This is also showed in the other essays.  Daniel Harris uses Rashi, Nahmanides, Maimonides, and Origen to “bridge” his gap, but again he reads them with a critical eye, and as a result comes up with another true meaning of the text for him.^[10]  Jessica Kirzner also uses Rashi as a bridge to her understanding of the text.^[11]  Lastly, Ben Parziale finds a more modern commentator in Matthew Henry.^[12]

This method of reasoning is used by all of the authors, and clearly serves a valuable purpose.  However, the care with which they all use these sources should be noted.  They all use a closely analytical approach to the reading of outside sources.  Again, because the sources do not apply directly to the problem that these authors face with the text due to their own backgrounds, they cannot simply accept these “bridges” as fact; rather, they must examine their meanings.

So what have we learned from these essays?  First, we learned two main sources for the need of Scriptural Reasoning: the personal and the religious.  Second, we have seen the four methods of Scriptural Reasoning used in action.  These methods solve many of the problems that arise out of Scriptural Reasoning.  Then, we can see the commonality of the methods across religious boundaries.  The fact that the covenantal theme was largely used to justify God’s seeming injustices is only one example.

Lastly, and most importantly, we can see the repair work of Scriptural Reasoning in action.  It is important in today’s society that Jews, Christians, and Muslims learn to not only understand each other’s differences, but also to respect the other through common study of scripture.  From this, we can learn the proper ways of dealing with troubling scriptures.  This allows us to better justify our own religions in light of current injustices and facilitate the survival of these traditions.

^[2] Crane, Daniel. The Wickedness of Egypt: Spiritual Slavery in the Land of Pharaoh.  (Above Essay).  (pp. 7-21).

^[3] Harris, Daniel.  Pharaoh’s Hardened Heart: Vengeance and Redemption in the Story of Exodus. (Above Essay). (pp. 22-31).

^[4] Parziale, Ben.  Moses, a god to Pharaoh. (Above Essay). (pp. 44-51).

^[5] Crane, Daniel. The Wickedness of Egypt: Spiritual Slavery in the Land of Pharaoh.  (Above Essay).  (pp. 7-21).

^[6] Harris, Daniel.  Pharaoh’s Hardened Heart: Vengeance and Redemption in the Story of Exodus. (Above Essay). (pp. 22-31).

^[7] Kirzner, Jessica.  Unity in Thankfulness: The Establishment of Israelite Peoplehood.  (Above Essay). (pp. 32-43).

^[8] Parziale, Ben.  Moses, a god to Pharaoh. (Above Essay). (pp. 44-51).

^[9] Crane, Daniel. The Wickedness of Egypt: Spiritual Slavery in the Land of Pharaoh.  (Above Essay).  (pp. 7-21).

^[10] Harris, Daniel.  Pharaoh’s Hardened Heart: Vengeance and Redemption in the Story of Exodus. (Above Essay). (pp. 22-31).

^[11] Kirzner, Jessica.  Unity in Thankfulness: The Establishment of Israelite Peoplehood.  (Above Essay). (pp. 32-43).

^[12] Parziale, Ben.  Moses, a god to Pharaoh. (Above Essay). (pp. 44-51).

© 2007, Society for Scriptural Reasoning