This topic came up in another thread, one that I found highly controversial, based both on personal conviction and experience; including here on this forum, as it turns out. In the process, a good question was asked, "What is midrash?"
I concluded that the answer didn't fit directly in that context at that time, but certainly does when it comes to the challenges that face this site. In fact, they are the same challenges that have faced 'the True Faith' since about Genesis chapter three, and certainly since before Acts chapter 15.
"Midrash" is a Hebrew word that, like deja vu, rendevous, and so many others, comes directly from another language, but been transplanted because the original use is so apropos. Thus, it has an English semi-equivalent, but, for reasons I'll attempt to outline, the original word still has an aspect, or application, that is unique to it.
So, 'midrash,' as an internet search will suggest, is based on the root verb 'darash', rendered as 'to seek,' or enquire, and is sometimes equated to "exegesis," and, in at least one definition, designates an exegesis which "goes more deeply" than even a mere literal sense, but attempts "to penetrate into the spirit of Scripture."
More to the point, though, I will suggest, it implies a STYLE of study of Scripture: sincere seeking, often interactive, and which sometimes might appear almost even combative, in that it tends to question assumptions and "pat" dogma.
Midrash can be simply recorded teachings, or even articles or letters. Those might include studies by (since the term originates from Hebrew) famous 'sages,' such as Rashi, or "the Rambam," aka Maimonides. Arguably the best example most Christians would be more familiar with are the letters from Paul, or Shaul, who was obviously very familiar with the style.
Bible studies may often be referred to as 'midrash,' and those who enjoy the process may even see taking adversarial positions, or "playing devil's advocate" as a great technique for learning, or teaching. In other words, letting "iron sharpen iron." (Prov. 27:17) And that whole verse pretty well describes it.
In that good midrash is often "free-ranging," and can involve connecting a "lot of dots" throughout Scripture, it's also a big part of my expressed concern, in "another thread," about what can be lost when 'moderation' in search of harmony, or staunching even argument, may stifle not only honest questions in the process, but the heart of midrash itself.
With that in mind, I will strive to offer a bit of 'Midrash [Jethro] Yitro-style' on some of the latest controversy at BF. Recall that Yitro (Exodus chapter 18) sees that Moses is literally burning himself out, and tells his son-in-law bluntly that, "what you are doing is 'lo tov' [not good]." But he offers constructive criticism, along with some good advice, and suggests Moses check out his recommendation (of what is now often called "delegation of authority") with YHVH.
My midrashic suggestion begins with a personal anecdote.
A number of years ago, I began what became a valuable, long-term association with a radio network that many here know. [I will not use the name directly in this article, although the reason will become obvious.]
At the point where I was asked to consider doing, first one, then later several additional shows, the subject of Biblical polygyny came up, because all concerned were aware not only that I had more than one wife, but so did others involved with the ministry. The concern, however, "similar, yet very different," from that recently re-expressed by BF, was that newcomers, only beginning to study ALL of the Word, as actually Written, would turn away from the rest of the information being provided, because of the 'stigma' associated with patriarchy and all that it includes.
The "mirror image" parallels of this situation immediately struck me when I considered the most recent "Statement of Focus for Biblical Families." But for the anti-parallels, the objections were virtually identical.
I discussed the situation frankly with network management (and ownership) and made my position clear. Again, in this case, there was no disagreement over EITHER principle, or what Scripture clearly stated. But the concern was how to best 'serve the core mission,' and avoid what are, inevitably, divisive topics in the Bible. At least until it's "time for meat."
I made it clear that I had not, and would not, hide my interest, convictions, or understanding about everything the Word says about marriage. And the solution I suggested, and which has evidently worked quite well for over a decade at this point, was ultimately simple and straightforward:
I add one other observation at this point that seems relevant to the recommendation: There is a 'catch-22' that most here should be aware of. A common refrain when "certain discussions" (not even limited to the obvious) come up is, "we've heard all these arguments before." They could even be numbered. (Indeed, I note that when it comes to the specific arguments and objections to plural marriage - they HAVE been. More than once.)
Furthermore, a number of people - on both sides of the "pro- and anti-" debate - and here I note, again, that I reject the "pro-Torah," or "Hebrew Roots vs Gentiles" generalizations* - see the solution to a rancorous division described in Acts 15 as suggestive. But not 'directive' - because the same disagreement exists over what it means, and even the context.
I leave that interpretation to the reader, but will suggest that if BF were to 'officially' even partially endorse the v. 21 'teaching' context of that story, many of the related concerns would be circumvented. (I can't help but note that, starting within about three centuries later, the general prohibition on such teachings, often at pain of death, made the lesson moot.)
So, a suggestion that was made to me, by the station management, was to consider a "hierarchy" of shows. Some were specifically Scripture-related, or "round-tables," while one of the first was for a daily news show, from an "explicitly Scripture-based world-view." The initial concept there was simply a news show, not based on ad revenue or PC 'talking points' (or, now, something worse) but just a selection of news for any given day, that would reflect a "Bible-oriented perspective." I still contend that "unbiased news" is a pipe dream, more specifically simply a lie, since it's not possible to even SELECT news items without a selection bias, just for starters.
But it is not only news, but an introduction to a worldview.
Other shows, such as "Come out of her, My people," directly address issues, such as "law," (Constitutional, common law, public, and 'private') to demonstrate the connection between Scripture and current events.
The point is that new listeners could choose how they wanted to explore the network, and the undeniable "mission focus" of any ministry or organization whose very name already tells you what they are about.
Let 'em learn gradually, and at their own pace, as they are ready. A ministry can, and should, have a central focus, without obscuring the rest of Scripture in the process. That's what most who seek Truth are also seeking to 'come out' of.
And let them decide for themselves when they want to try some meat. Or midrash.
------------------------------------------------
* Again, albeit oversimplified for brevity: The Hebrew/Biblical word 'torah' has multiple meanings. Capitalization helps, since "Torah" usually means 'THOSE Five Books," with the misnomer that I have come to detest, 'the LAW.' 'His teaching and instruction' is longer to type, but undeniably clearer in meaning. But 'torah', translated by the KJV as "law" over 200 times, does not even have that word in first position in many concordances; "instruction," is along with a 'body of teaching' [including prophetic]. If we all simply agreed that it was His teaching that we were discussing, while the arguments may not evaporate, the acrimony about WHAT is being discussed, and what our common goal is, probably would.
Many on BF, on 'either side,' understand the concept of "first use." In this case, that's Genesis 26:5, concerning Abraham, who obeyed My voice, kept My charge, My commandments [mitzvot] My statutes [chuqat] AND My torah [instruction]." Which really makes the definition pretty clear. And it's LONG before Moses wrote anything down.
Appendix:
https://biblicalfamilies.org/forum/threads/hit-me-with-your-best-shot.9426/ (posted September, 2009)
I concluded that the answer didn't fit directly in that context at that time, but certainly does when it comes to the challenges that face this site. In fact, they are the same challenges that have faced 'the True Faith' since about Genesis chapter three, and certainly since before Acts chapter 15.
"Midrash" is a Hebrew word that, like deja vu, rendevous, and so many others, comes directly from another language, but been transplanted because the original use is so apropos. Thus, it has an English semi-equivalent, but, for reasons I'll attempt to outline, the original word still has an aspect, or application, that is unique to it.
So, 'midrash,' as an internet search will suggest, is based on the root verb 'darash', rendered as 'to seek,' or enquire, and is sometimes equated to "exegesis," and, in at least one definition, designates an exegesis which "goes more deeply" than even a mere literal sense, but attempts "to penetrate into the spirit of Scripture."
More to the point, though, I will suggest, it implies a STYLE of study of Scripture: sincere seeking, often interactive, and which sometimes might appear almost even combative, in that it tends to question assumptions and "pat" dogma.
Midrash can be simply recorded teachings, or even articles or letters. Those might include studies by (since the term originates from Hebrew) famous 'sages,' such as Rashi, or "the Rambam," aka Maimonides. Arguably the best example most Christians would be more familiar with are the letters from Paul, or Shaul, who was obviously very familiar with the style.
Bible studies may often be referred to as 'midrash,' and those who enjoy the process may even see taking adversarial positions, or "playing devil's advocate" as a great technique for learning, or teaching. In other words, letting "iron sharpen iron." (Prov. 27:17) And that whole verse pretty well describes it.
In that good midrash is often "free-ranging," and can involve connecting a "lot of dots" throughout Scripture, it's also a big part of my expressed concern, in "another thread," about what can be lost when 'moderation' in search of harmony, or staunching even argument, may stifle not only honest questions in the process, but the heart of midrash itself.
With that in mind, I will strive to offer a bit of 'Midrash [Jethro] Yitro-style' on some of the latest controversy at BF. Recall that Yitro (Exodus chapter 18) sees that Moses is literally burning himself out, and tells his son-in-law bluntly that, "what you are doing is 'lo tov' [not good]." But he offers constructive criticism, along with some good advice, and suggests Moses check out his recommendation (of what is now often called "delegation of authority") with YHVH.
My midrashic suggestion begins with a personal anecdote.
A number of years ago, I began what became a valuable, long-term association with a radio network that many here know. [I will not use the name directly in this article, although the reason will become obvious.]
At the point where I was asked to consider doing, first one, then later several additional shows, the subject of Biblical polygyny came up, because all concerned were aware not only that I had more than one wife, but so did others involved with the ministry. The concern, however, "similar, yet very different," from that recently re-expressed by BF, was that newcomers, only beginning to study ALL of the Word, as actually Written, would turn away from the rest of the information being provided, because of the 'stigma' associated with patriarchy and all that it includes.
The "mirror image" parallels of this situation immediately struck me when I considered the most recent "Statement of Focus for Biblical Families." But for the anti-parallels, the objections were virtually identical.
I discussed the situation frankly with network management (and ownership) and made my position clear. Again, in this case, there was no disagreement over EITHER principle, or what Scripture clearly stated. But the concern was how to best 'serve the core mission,' and avoid what are, inevitably, divisive topics in the Bible. At least until it's "time for meat."
I made it clear that I had not, and would not, hide my interest, convictions, or understanding about everything the Word says about marriage. And the solution I suggested, and which has evidently worked quite well for over a decade at this point, was ultimately simple and straightforward:
- I would neither advertise, not hide, my interest and conviction concerning patriarchy in general, or specific aspects.
- I would answer any questions (whether "on-air," or via fora or written correspondence, including interviews) honestly and completely. There would be no self-censorship.
- In those shows where there is a specific focus on specific aspects of Scripture, we will go where Scripture leads, completely, and also without self-censorship. For example, the "Torah Teachers' Round Table," which I have moderated for quite a few years now, regularly examines entire Books of the Bible, in some depth, and generally sequentially. When we did Jeremiah, and most recently Ezekiel, I do not hold back about the implications of what I consider 'the obvious'. Discussions are frank, and complete. And, so far, there has been virtually zero negative feedback; people expect honest discussion. (Of course, people who listen are always free to "change the dial.")
I add one other observation at this point that seems relevant to the recommendation: There is a 'catch-22' that most here should be aware of. A common refrain when "certain discussions" (not even limited to the obvious) come up is, "we've heard all these arguments before." They could even be numbered. (Indeed, I note that when it comes to the specific arguments and objections to plural marriage - they HAVE been. More than once.)
Furthermore, a number of people - on both sides of the "pro- and anti-" debate - and here I note, again, that I reject the "pro-Torah," or "Hebrew Roots vs Gentiles" generalizations* - see the solution to a rancorous division described in Acts 15 as suggestive. But not 'directive' - because the same disagreement exists over what it means, and even the context.
I leave that interpretation to the reader, but will suggest that if BF were to 'officially' even partially endorse the v. 21 'teaching' context of that story, many of the related concerns would be circumvented. (I can't help but note that, starting within about three centuries later, the general prohibition on such teachings, often at pain of death, made the lesson moot.)
So, a suggestion that was made to me, by the station management, was to consider a "hierarchy" of shows. Some were specifically Scripture-related, or "round-tables," while one of the first was for a daily news show, from an "explicitly Scripture-based world-view." The initial concept there was simply a news show, not based on ad revenue or PC 'talking points' (or, now, something worse) but just a selection of news for any given day, that would reflect a "Bible-oriented perspective." I still contend that "unbiased news" is a pipe dream, more specifically simply a lie, since it's not possible to even SELECT news items without a selection bias, just for starters.
But it is not only news, but an introduction to a worldview.
Other shows, such as "Come out of her, My people," directly address issues, such as "law," (Constitutional, common law, public, and 'private') to demonstrate the connection between Scripture and current events.
The point is that new listeners could choose how they wanted to explore the network, and the undeniable "mission focus" of any ministry or organization whose very name already tells you what they are about.
Let 'em learn gradually, and at their own pace, as they are ready. A ministry can, and should, have a central focus, without obscuring the rest of Scripture in the process. That's what most who seek Truth are also seeking to 'come out' of.
And let them decide for themselves when they want to try some meat. Or midrash.
------------------------------------------------
* Again, albeit oversimplified for brevity: The Hebrew/Biblical word 'torah' has multiple meanings. Capitalization helps, since "Torah" usually means 'THOSE Five Books," with the misnomer that I have come to detest, 'the LAW.' 'His teaching and instruction' is longer to type, but undeniably clearer in meaning. But 'torah', translated by the KJV as "law" over 200 times, does not even have that word in first position in many concordances; "instruction," is along with a 'body of teaching' [including prophetic]. If we all simply agreed that it was His teaching that we were discussing, while the arguments may not evaporate, the acrimony about WHAT is being discussed, and what our common goal is, probably would.
Many on BF, on 'either side,' understand the concept of "first use." In this case, that's Genesis 26:5, concerning Abraham, who obeyed My voice, kept My charge, My commandments [mitzvot] My statutes [chuqat] AND My torah [instruction]." Which really makes the definition pretty clear. And it's LONG before Moses wrote anything down.
Appendix:
https://biblicalfamilies.org/forum/threads/hit-me-with-your-best-shot.9426/ (posted September, 2009)
Last edited:
