# How much can we learn from narrative in the bible?



## satz (Aug 23, 2006)

How much can we learn (in terms of God's commands) from the narratives in the bible in the absence of any specific prescriptive command backing up what we see?

To give an example, there are some christians who claim that since most people in the bible had beards and tearing of the beard was a sign of disgrace, christians ought to wear beards today. Is this sort of reasoning correct?


----------



## alwaysreforming (Aug 24, 2006)

I've wrestled (and still am) with this question a lot as well. 

...Especially as a narrative passes and then we aren't told of whether the actions were condoned, condemned, or were "neutral" in God's eyes.

.... very confusing at times...........


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 25, 2006)

Mark,

This is a very good question, and there are many others better qualified than me to answer it, but I'll try to offer some thoughts for consideration.

There are many portions of Scripture which narrate events and details without explicit commentary on the lawfulness of the subject at hand. Those events and details should be examined carefully. Nothing in the Bible is irrelevant (which is not the same thing as saying 'nothing' or 'everything' in the Old Testament is applicable today). Often we laymen read the Bible and don't at first glance see all there is to say within a given passage. Therefore, some make extrapolations about a narrative that are unwarranted. This is often the fruit of a-historical eisogesis. The Puritans were famous for mining deep for spiritual nuggets within the text having stood on the shoulders of many who came before them. They understood principles of biblical hermeneutics much better than our generation having set them forth so well in the Westminster Confession, Chap. 1:



> 6. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.a Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word;b and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.c
> 
> a. Gal 1:8-9; 2 Thes 2:2; 2 Tim 3:15-17. "¢ b. John 6:45; 1 Cor 2:9-12. "¢ c. 1 Cor 11:13-14; 14:26, 40.
> 
> ...



So there are aspects of the historical narratives that are less clear on the surface than other portions of Scripture, but all Scripture is profitable and useful, all that we need to know is given to us, and that which is less clear should be compared with that which is more clear. 

Issues, for example, like the polygamy of the Patriarchs, the life of Sampson, Ehud's attack on Eglon (Judges 3), etc., have all presented problems for those who fail to consult other portions of Scripture or the learned commentataries of those who have gone before them.

All of that said, concerning the subject of beards, it is an historical fact that the Jews and other Eastern cultures put a high premium on male beards (Matthew Poole, who did not have beard in any picture that I have seen, confirms this, as well as many other commentators, with respect to 2 Sam. 10.4-5, and various Bible dictionaries). So did the Early Church and many of the Reformers. 

See the following examples:

Adam Clarke on Isaiah 7.20: 



> The Eastern people have always held the beard in the highest veneration, and have been extremely jealous of its honour. To pluck a man's beard is an instance of the greatest indignity that can be offered. See chap. l. 6. The king of the Ammonites, to show the utmost contempt of David, "cut off half the beards of his servants, and the men were greatly ashamed; and David bade them tarry at Jericho till their beards were grown," 2 Sam. x. 4, 6. Niebuhr, Arabie, p. 275, gives a modern instance of the very same kind of insult. "The Turks," says Thevenot, "greatly esteem a man who has a fine beard; it is a very great affront to take a man by his beard, unless it be to kiss it; they swear by the beard." Voyages, i., p. 57.
> 
> D'Arvieux gives a remarkable instance of an Arab, who, having received a wound in his jaw, chose to hazard his life, rather than suffer his surgeon to take off his beard. Memoires, tom. iii., p. 214. See also Niebuhr, Arabie, p. 61.



Wikipedia:



> In the 15th century, the beard was worn long. Clergymen in 16th century England were usually clean shaven to indicate their celibacy. When a priest became convinced of the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation he would often signal this by allowing his beard to grow, showing that he rejected the tradition of the church and perhaps also its stance on clerical celibacy. The longer the beard, the more striking the statement. Sixteenth century beards were therefore suffered to grow to an amazing length (see the portraits of Bishop Gardiner and Thomas Cranmer).
> 
> Strangely, this trend was especially marked during Queen Mary's reign, a time of reaction against protestant reform (Cardinal Pole's beard is a good example). At this time the beard was very often made use of as a tooth-pick case. BrantÃ´me tells us that Admiral Coligny wore his tooth-pick in his beard. Queen Elizabeth I, succeeding Mary, is said to have disliked beards and therefore established a tax on them.
> 
> ...



Alfred Edersheim, _Sketches of Jewish Social Life_, Chap. 13:



> The beard was carefully trimmed, anointed, and perfumed. Slaves were not allowed to wear beards.



It is clearly a sign of manliness. For many men, all that is necessary to have a beard is simply to _not shave_. Yet, this is not universally true. It is, broadly speaking, normative throughout history for men to have beards rather than to take the trouble to prevent the growth of beards. And as you alluded to, there are many examples of prohibitions against shaving beards, and shame and disgrace accompanying the unwilling shaving or plucking of beards, including a Messianic prophecy: Isaiah 50.6.

Yet, what is normally true (e.g., marriage is honourable in all and is the normal duty of mankind, Gen. 2.24; 1 Cor. 7.2; 1 Timothy 4.3; Heb. 13.4; WCF 24; WLC 138-139; etc.), is not always, universally required without exception: Jesus was not married, for example, and yet was without sin. 

I view beards as a matter of Christian liberty. While I think that the general tendency of our modern society to view beards with disfavor is a sign of the effeminacy of the times, I also believe no one should judge a Christian man for not having a beard. On the individual level, that is simply a matter between him and God. I am comfortable speaking of a general perspective that beards represent manliness and yet equally comfortable affirming the liberty of men to eschew beards if that is their individual preference. 

The prohibitions against shaving beards seem to me to fall within the scope of the ceremonial law which has been done away with, because I view the context of those prohibitions as particular to the Jewish nation coming out of Egypt and near other nations which made shaving beards a superstitious custom. 

John Knox and John Calvin had impressive beards. Martin Luther was clean shaven in most pictures that you see, although I think he did have a beard at one point in the Wartburg. Looking at pictures of famous Christians one sees a wide spectrum of, ahem, chin covering styles, with a predominance of beards for most of the Christian era, but no definitive practice amongst all Christian men.

Thus, the way I see it, beards are to be commended and encouraged, and viewed as normative, but not required, not universally binding without exception, and not a matter for judging others, but a matter of Christian liberty. 

Hope these thoughts are helpful.


----------



## bradofshaw (Aug 25, 2006)

> I view beards as a matter of Christian liberty. While I think that the general tendency of our modern society to view beards with disfavor is a sign of the effeminacy of the times, I also believe no one should judge a Christian man for not having a beard. On the individual level, that is simply a matter between him and God.



Whew!! You have eased my mind, friend. It would be terrible to have such a thing on my conscious. In fact, it is very much so a matter between God and I, as in my 23 years, I have been completely unable to grow any facial hair worth scratching. But the clay will not say back to the potter... 

I hope nobody would take this as a sign of me being effeminent though. 

I wish I had a theological insight to add here, but I don't. I am interested in this discussion though. It's a good question (not so much the beard one as the exegetical one, on which the beard question may or may not hinge). 

[Edited on 8-25-2006 by bradofshaw]


----------



## satz (Aug 25, 2006)

Thanks Andrew, for sharing your thoughts.

I want to reply but am a little busy with work at the moment.

Brad, the exegetical question has been one that I have been pondering for sometime now.

Here's one example of the more extreme kind of thinking.



> And then there is this response. "œWhere does it say in the New Testament that I should have a beard"? I ask, where in the Bible is a verse that proves the existence of God? He just Is. (Gen.1:1) It doesn´t say how, when, or where, He just Is. The doctrine of God is assumed. The fool has said"¦.there is no God (Ps.14:1). It is likewise a foolish thing to say, "œthere is no beard."




http://www.elcristianismoprimitivo.com/fullgospelbeard.htm

[Edited on 8-26-2006 by satz]

[Edited on 8-26-2006 by satz]


----------

