Exegetical Nightmares
And says YHWH, “A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping, Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children because they are no more.” Jeremiah 31:15 NASB
Weeping – Now read Matthew 2:18. It reads almost the same, doesn’t it? But there are some changes, and the changes are real problems.[1] We get the general idea pretty quickly, but the details are significantly altered. As if that weren’t enough, Matthew seems to completely ignore the context of Jeremiah’s prophecy. Jeremiah describes Rachel’s grief after her lifetime, weeping over her descendents who will go into captivity. But Matthew alters the context so that it is present tense. Furthermore, Jeremiah’s statement is about the captivity, not about death (as in Matthew). R. T. France observes, “This is one of Matthew’s most elusive OT quotations, and few claim with any confidence to have fathomed just what he intended, . . .”[2] Of course, none of these exegetical nightmares prevent Christians from claiming the prophetic authority of Matthew’s citation of Jeremiah. Matthew certainly intended to use this Old Testament reference as a proof of Yeshua’s role. But it does raise a very thorny question: if Matthew is able to play fast and loose with the words and the context, what does this imply about our concept of Scriptural inspiration?
A careful reading of Matthew’s use of the Old Testament reveals that he often alters the quotations in order to meet his needs. So, this isn’t an isolated example. In fact, similar problems occur throughout the New Testament. Almost every author alters Old Testament references. But we still claim that these men were “inspired” and that the text they wrote is “without error.” How is that possible when they make such obvious changes? We might get away with claiming that the changes were also “inspired,” but that implies that God said something to the prophets and then changed what He said when He assisted Matthew or Mark or John or Paul. It’s not too terrible when the quotation is about some human meditation, but it’s pretty difficult when it is a quotation of God’s own words. What we notice is that none of this seems to bother the authors of the New Testament. They still consider the Tanakh the inviolable Word of God. They just don’t have any problem fiddling with it.
Might I suggest (gently) that the issue is not with Matthew, Mark, John or Paul. The problem is on our side. We have formulated a doctrine of inerrancy and inspiration that does not match the actual use by the authors we claim are inspired. Our doctrine doesn’t come from Scripture (in spite of 2 Timothy 3:16). It comes from another source – the Greek concept of perfection. The Greek idea of perfection is “exactly correct.” That’s the way we treat plagiarism today. This Greek ideal is embedded in our thinking and it affects our treatment of Scripture. Our doctrines attempt to force-fit a Hebrew view into a Greek box, but as Matthew demonstrates, it just doesn’t work. Without causing any more headaches, perhaps it’s time to recognize that how we read the Scriptures is also part of our worldview. It’s not just what the text says. It’s the framework we use to even consider the text. This is an exegetical earthquake. The ground we have been standing on is shifting under us. It’s time to ask: Were we relying on a doctrine about the Bible, or were we relying on the Bible itself?
Topical Index: inerrancy, inspiration, Matthew 2:18, Jeremiah 31:15
[1] Here is a list of all the changes: Matthew uses the first four words from the LXX, omits the first of the three verbs for “crying,” changes the form of the next two, adds the adjective “great,” changes the verb form of “weeping,” restores the MT first instance of “for her children,” deletes the second use of the same phrase and uses a different Greek verb for “comforted.”
[2] R.T. France, Matthew (NICNT), p. 88.
Thanks Skip for pointing out that the problem is not with Matthew nor Yeshua who also quoted the OT with some “alterations” as Matthew did. I strongly believe that the Doctrine of Inerrancy is not simply doctrinal or dogmatic belief influenced by the Greek but a Biblical Truth. As much as I agree that the Greek mentality influenced Scriptures, the influence was not all negative, just as we believe that West- English speaking nations influenced the Scriptures, both negatively and positively.
Concerning the Inspiration of Scriptures, I don’t agree with Docetism or Arianism, but I believe in both Verbal and Plenary Inspiration. Unless you have other ways of explaining the write-up above and still retain the orthodox belief on the Inerrancy of the whole Scriptures; creating an open door for people to embark on negative criticism of the Bible will serve the cause of Christ nothing but will empower the enemies of Christ who believe that the Bible is full of errors and must not be trusted in all matter of morality, faith and salvation. It is this relativist approach to the teachings of the Bible that is whittling the faith of many. To them the Bible is nothing but another book by some wise and clever men.
This issue of Inerrancy is a thorny issue. But as believers, we either believe the whole Bible is True ..( That I mean the autographa) or the Bible is not True and filled with errors ( Textual and translational errors are possible, but “Inspirational Errors” is a proposition difficult to swallow because it is logically impossible). Believing the later will be catastrophic because I don’t want to build my life and faith on some thing that is filled with errors, no matter how minute the errors or who caused them.
I hope Skip will come up with other write-ups to explain this in details because this can destroy the faith of many if not addressed carefully and properly.
I wish other readers will share their view on this topic.
Thanks.
Thank you for your comment and obvious concern. I do hold that Scripture, including the Ketuvim Netzarim (the writings of the Apostles – the New Testament) is God’s Word, the final source of faith and practice for believers. I do not believe that linguistic relativism assists us in understanding the Word of God. On both theological and philosophical grounds, relativism is one step away from nihilism, moral and epistemological bankruptcy. I strongly suggest you download my lecture on Hermeneutics (which you can find here for a full discussion of the loss of epistemological certainty in the Greek model.)
With that said, I think it is simply impossible to deny that the authors of the NT do not treat the OT according to our current understanding of inerrancy. Since these men represent perfect case studies of the proper understanding of the truth of Scripture, our doctrinal position must include a rational explanation of their behavior. If it does not, we are reduced to fideism or solipsism. I take those alternatives to be unacceptable. Therefore, I am required to understand inerrancy from the perspective of authors who demonstrate considerable latitude with the text.
I believe the answer is found in the radical difference between the Hebrew and the Greek views of truth (which I have commented on in the past). The Greek view is modeled after a mathematical reduction, aimed at absolute certainty and promotes “without error” as if it meant “correctly calculated.” This idea is at least as old at Parmenides (who, by the way, is the source of our current doctrine of omniscience via Augustine). It stands in opposition to the Hebrew concept of relational fidelity. Obviously, Greek inerrancy demands perfect transmission with exactitude, but the Hebrew view demands absolutely reliability without the same requirement of perfect transmission. This is, in fact, the way Matthew handles the text. It is certainly God’s Word. It is utterly reliable for relationship with Him. But it does not require perfect (exact) transmission.
I frankly see no other way to handle with very difficult issue.
But maybe you do.
Quote: “Thank you for your comment and obvious concern. I do hold that Scripture, including the Ketuvim Netzarim (the writings of the Apostles – the New Testament) is God’s Word, the final source of faith and practice for believers.”
A logical analysis (found here: http://www.netzarim.co.il (that is the only legitimate Netzarim)) of all extant source documents and archeology proves that the historical Ribi Yehosuha ha-Mashiakh (the Messiah) from Nazareth and his talmidim (apprentice-students), called the Netzarim, taught and lived Torah all of their lives; and that Netzarim and Christianity were always antithetical.
That logical analysis proves that Netzarim didn’t regard NT as the Word of the Creator. Nor was it regarded as the writings of the Netzarim.
Anders Branderud
“I hope Skip will come up with other write-ups to explain this in details because this can destroy the faith of many if not addressed carefully and properly.”
Hi Godwin,
Those who would fall away over this are probably not truly born from above. What the people of the Kingdom may experience in the early stages of exposure to the harsh realities of exegetical/hermeneutical error are shock, denial, possibly degrees of anger, feelings of hopelessness, and others associated with the process of grief. Kingdom citizens, however, will thrive in times like these because His Word tells us that Jesus came to give us an abundant life, rivers of LIVING water, complete joy, peace, and ALL THINGS if we would follow Him. As we grow in the knowledge of who He was, is, and forever will be (which does NOT CHANGE, by the way), we learn how to follow Him. This stands in stark contrast to the masses who the world sees as the Church.
The intent here is not to cast aspersions upon the true Church, however, for one to think the general population of the institutional church today is following Jesus and the Word as it is currently being preached/taught, well let’s get real here: How is that working? If I may tell you, as a 20+ year long “member” of an institutional organization identifying itself as a church but was NOT doing the works of Jesus as identified in His Word, the gap was huge! I left, not only that group, but the entire denomination with every intention of finding people that care more for Jesus than they do their pet doctrine and half hearted living for Him. Was every one there half hearted? NO, some precious people are still there and for a variety of reason only the Lord knows, they will probably stay there until they or that institution dies. But, the dwindling population of leaders there are either not saved or not interested in learning and obeying, unless it is some pie in the sky theory and misapplication of the Word, AND quite anti-anything resembling Jewish in nature. Hmmmm, I had to eventually ask, how can THIS be? I could no longer, with peace of mind, continue the stained-glass masquerade, dressing up so nicely on the outside and parched for the living water of the Word. The pastor was/is a great speaker, quite different from the status quo, and I think eventually he will come to terms with his own inner conflict if he doesn’t settle for being a pulpiteer. Of course, this is just my story and it may not reflect the majority of people here, but if you have done any research on this, you cannot ignore the mass exodus from the institution itself. Many in the pulpit will chalk this up to the “falling away”, to continue to justify this season of fruit harvesting, however, I will submit, I am looking for the city who Builder and Maker is God, and not an allegiance to a building or group who call themselves a church yet are not interested in doing the work of The Church.
Thank you for being here with us. Questioning is Good for the soul! Shalom.
I was in the kitchen yesterday with the TV on and the Glenn Beck show was airing at that time. I did not pay much attention to his rant until he began speaking about the blunder Pres. Obama made when he openly criticized the recent Supreme Court decision concerning Corporate donations to presidential elections. Beck’s point was that Pres. should have known better, not just as a constitutional lawyer but also a professor, than to make that statement using the time frame he did with regard to the US Constitution, however, he (Pres.) was not able to catch it since law schools today focus almost entirely upon case law as opposed to the ORIGIN of Constitutional law. So instead of going to the source (Constitution) as the starting point, they look at the legal arguments and the judgments over history to make their ideas/arguments/concepts fit just so they can WIN. Immediately I thought about the similarity of the Christian view of Scripture. It would appear there has been a chasm created by “an exegetical earthquake”? I think you are hitting the mark here, Brother Skip.
Getting clearer now Skip! Thanks Mary for that analogy. Thanks Skip for pointing out the error of Exactitude Of Transmission. Only Fundamentalist promote this docetic view. No good student of the Bible will promote this when the evidences against it are all over the Bible. We have to come to the agreement that What Scripture says, G-d says. Quotations and references may not be exact (From OT to NT), but the Truth must be the same. I strongly believe in Inspiration and Inerrancy of the whole Scriptures.
I don’t think anyone in touch with the Tanakh at the level of torah-obedience would have any qualms with “inspiration.” The question is about the truth-value of a doctrine like inerrancy, even applied to the non-extant originals. The issue is simple: no New Testament author treats the Scriptures (the Tanakh) as if inerrancy applies to the correctness of transmission. If they did, it would be impossible for them to alter the texts to fit their needs. This does NOT mean they they believe the Tanakh is filled with error. The rabbis held the even the LETTERS of the Tanakh were inspired by God – not just the words. This is why replacing one word in Scripture with another word of the same or similar meaning is forbidden, and considered a grave theological error. So, if this is the position they hold with regard to the actual letters of the Tanakh, how is it possible for Matthew (as an example) to alter words, tense, voice and syntax and still say, “As it is written.” The answer has to be because Matthew does not share the restrictive epistemology of Greek mathematical perfection.
That leaves us with just one question: If the apostles don’t share our view of “inerrancy,” whose view is correct?
“This does NOT mean they they do not believe the Tanakh is filled with error.”
Hi Skip,
Are you saying they believe the Tanakh is filled with error?
Sorry TYPO. I corrected it.
The rabbis held the even the LETTERS of the Tanakh were inspired by God – not just the words. This is why replacing one word in Scripture with another word of the same or similar meaning is forbidden, and considered a grave theological error.
“So, if this is the position they hold with regard to the actual letters of the Tanakh, how is it possible for Matthew (as an example) to alter words, tense, voice and syntax and still say, “As it is written.” The answer has to be because Matthew does not share the restrictive epistemology of Greek mathematical perfection.”
Hi Skip,
Far be it from me to question your logic, because your logic is a whole lot stronger and sounder than mine.
But I’ve read the statements above a number of times now and they seem extremely counter intuitive to me.
Am I to conclude that Matthew was a tax collector and did not think like a Rabbi? Maybe.
But to play fast and loose with the transmission of THE sacred text certainly seems shocking to me, to say the least.
I have always assumed/thought, maybe incorrectly, that Matthew’s story originated many, many years before someone else wrote it down; before someone else documented it.
And the job that they did was not up to Rabbinical standards of Quality Assurance.
my 2 cents 🙂
Let me elaborate. Matthew might not have been a rabbi, but he certainly held the same view of Scripture. He quotes Yeshua to the same effect (not an iota or the crown of a letter will pass away). So, even the letters are precisely and exactly what God wanted. First premise. Second premise. Matthew makes significant and continual changes in the text of the OT in order to fit his argument. Conclusion: Matthew does not treat inerrancy the same way that we do.
Question: who is more likely to have understood the use of the Tanakh in the time of Yeshua, Matthew or nineteenth century textual critics? Answer: Matthew! So, how did we get this idea that inerrancy means “calculated perfection.” Well, it obviously didn’t come from Matthew (or any of the rest of them – even Yeshua changes the text). Conclusion: our view of inerrancy, which is NOT as strong as the Hebrew of the “letters,” is out of alignment with the actual practice of the NT authors – and with Yeshua Himself. Who do you suppose is misunderstanding the process?
Why are we so convinced that our view is the correct view? Because we have embraced an epistemology based in Greek metaphysics and mathematics, a view not shared by the Hebrew worldview. This leads to the conclusion that our view of inerrancy is not biblically based. It might (as a possibility) still be correct, but you can’t find evidence for it in Scripture. So, where does that leave us? Are we dogmatists, or biblical followers?
Matthew doesn’t play fast and loose with the text from his perspective. If we are going to understand him, should we read him according to his view or ours?
I agree. The concept of Hebrew “block logic” comes to mind, which basically says that “God is smarter than we are and is perfectly capable of saying more than one thing from any given passage of scripture”. The assumption is, of course, that scripture will never contradict itself (any perceived contradiction therefore being ascribed to our lack of understanding of the words and the cultural, temporal and linguistic context in which they were written).
What Matthew was doing here was clearly a standard Jewish “Midrash” – teaching from the text without necessarily quoting the text directly.
For those reading this that are not familiar with the four levels of scripture interpretation used by the rabbis, they are:
Pashat: the literal or plain reading of the text
Remez: the “hint” or allegorical level – something that is hinted at but not explicitly stated.
Drash: the “teaching from the text” or practical application; extracting the principles and applying them to another situation or story
Sod: the “mystery” level – a teaching that is “hidden” in the text through the use of scribal marks, gematria (numeric values of letters or words), deliberately mis-spelled or “defectively spelled” words, letters drawn larger, smaller or “broken” etc.
Paul alluded to this in his letter to the Corinthians when he said, “behold I show you a mystery”. There are many examples in the Hebrew OT of these “jots and tittles” that are there in the Hebrew text and almost all of them point to teachings about our Messiah.
It is my view that Matthew, Yeshua and Sha’ul (Paul) all used these commonly understood and commonly used techniques when teaching from and interpreting texts from the Tanakh, hence the apparent “misquotes” which we in our western, Greek mindset interpret as either inadvertent mistakes or deliberate “messing with the text” rather than what they actually are – Jewish teachers doing “midrash” with their students.
“He’s a walking contradiction, partly truth and partly fiction”
Hi Skip,
Got to run, but one quick question.
Couldn’t one argue that Matthew 2.6 is not what Matthew said; that he did not write it.
Thanks
Mik
In fact, I believe that in the Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew (some 32 have now been found, the oldest from around the 9th century if I remember correctly), the whole of the first 2 chapters are missing.
I think it was Papias who told us that “Matthew wrote his gospel in the Hebrew tongue, and each one translated it as he was able”. If in fact the first two chapters were missing from the original, were they added by a Greek redactor some time later?
I don’t know the correct answer to this; just throwing it out there as a possibility…
Good point. The consensus of modern scholarship, directed primarily by German higher criticism, discounts this idea. But the reason given is circular. Note the following:
As quoted by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. 3.39, Papias states: “Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.” In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, Irenaeus says: “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church.” We know that Irenaeus had read Papias, and it is most likely that Irenaeus was guided by the statement he found there. That statement in Papias itself is considered to be unfounded because the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and relied largely upon Mark, not the author’s first-hand experience.
SO, the reason Matthew wasn’t written in Hebrew is because it was written in Greek. WOW! That’s illuminating, isn’t it? And how do we know it was written in Greek? Because scholars who lived 1800 years after Papias tell us so. Isn’t that comforting?
LOL :-). Somehow I think Papias (who I believe was a disciple of John, of gospel fame) probably knew what he was talking about. It is a great pity that none of his writings appear to have survived, except in quotes by other “church fathers”. I believe that he’s also quoted by Origen and others, besides Irenaeus? Or maybe my recollection is faulty…
Hi Rodney,
Just trying to get the story straight on Papius.
Apparently, Papius wrote the following about the origins of the Gospels:
***”Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was NOT, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For MARK neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him.”***
Apparently, according to Papius, Mark did not have “first hand” information about Jesus, just “hearsay” evidence from Peter.
Papius goes on to say that MARK:
***accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings.***
Apparently, Peter was providing ad hoc information to MARK, rather than coherentt naratives. But Papius assures us that MARK has credibility:
***Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.***
Apparently, there are no ficticious statements in MARK and that’s good to hear, because Matthew probably used MARK’s “oracles in the Hebrew language” as the foundation for his own gospel. As Papius states:
***”Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.”***
On a personal level, I find the gospels of Matthew and Mark very inspiring, but the information we get from Papius leaves a lot to be desired IMO.
Apparently, Eusebius did not have a very high regard for Papius either:
***”Eusebius held Papias in low esteem, perhaps because of his work’s influence in perpetuating, through Irenaeus and others, belief in a millennial reign of Christ upon earth, that would soon usher in a new Golden Age. Eusebius calls Papias “a man of small mental capacity”[2] who mistook the figurative language of apostolic traditions.”
The historical references help, but be aware that you incorporated the commonly held German critical assumption that Mark preceded Matthew (Q theory). That may not be the case. Matthew may be the first gospel.
of “inerrancy”
Hi Skip,
Thanks. The Q theory is the only one I’m familiar with, and the other day was my first encounter with inerrancy.
I’ll look into it before making any more bold statements about it 🙂
Sure, you could argue that, but on what basis? Is the argument simply to avoid the difficulty? Then why not argue that someone else wrote all the difficult passages? Who becomes the arbiter of the truth? The reader?
The reading that I have done that argue for inerancy seem to state that the inerance resides in the original manuscripts, we are not available and not likely to be. Therefore, the whole debate aboout inerrency seems wasted energy. I have no problem with inspired. The Scriptures are indeed inspired.
The argument that the autographs were inerrant but not so with the copies is a “red herring.” Scholarship establishes without much doubt that we can reconstruct the originals even if we don’t have the “original” document. In fact, there is more evidence for the textual accuracy of the Bible than any other ancient book by a factor of at least 100. So, handling the difficulties by suggesting that they don’t show up in the “original” is specious. If Matthew changes the text of the OT, then he changes it – and finding his original document will not alter that.
The issue stems from the definition of perfection resident in the doctrine of inerrancy. It is a philosophical problem, not a textual one. Think deeper!
Bravo. The biblical authors, unlike the academy, were not beholden to the historical-critical method. Nor were the interpreters for the first 1500 years of the church. Nor were the rabbinic communities. Nor are Christian communities in the east today. Nor is the American evangelical church, for that matter. It’s the height of intellectual and spiritual arrogance to to make the hermenuetic of the biblical authors and the inspiration of God conform to our modern, western preferences. Interpretation is always informed by culture, but that does not excuse us from doing the hard work of sifting through the text together and asking not only what it means, but also what it DOES in and through the interpretive community.
The timeless question, however, still remains: “What constitutes a valid interpretation/living out of the text?”
“biblical authors, unlike the academy, were not beholden to the historical-critical method”
Hi Darryl,
I agree that authors of fiction or of non-fictional narratives should not be beholden to the historical-critical method.
But the historical-critical method comes in handy when communities want an objective set of principles that can be used to interpret the different levels of text.
Without an agreed upon set of conventions, interpretation can become very subjective; for example I could argue that Jesus was a spaceman, based on my dream.
But at the university, in a humanities course on the Jews and Greeks, I would probably not be able to find much evidence to support my thesis that would be considered valid by the professors.
When I was at the academy, the humanities dept happened to be run by Rabbinical and Protestant professors of history or literature or philosophy who typically knew several languages.
The historical-critical method was pretty much taken for granted, but they were open to new ideas.
The historical-critical method is the mainstay of most Western biblical exegesis (although with considerable variation in application depending on one’s theological persuasion). It has been thoroughly installed in our thinking since the Germans took over leading the charge away from allegory. However, as we have discussed on several occasions, rabbinic interpretation of the text, common to first century authors like Paul, does not employ this form of exegetical analysis. Therefore, while we may find it very useful (and use it on a continuous basis), it is not much help when it comes to the thorny issues of how the writers of our New Testament handled their Bible – the Tanakh. To understand how they did exegesis we have to look at the principles they used – and it wasn’t historical-critical analysis.
Just to follow up on my point regarding the historical-critical method, in my view there are really two opposing types of methodologies.
The other type is in a sense anti-historicist or formalist in its approach to the interpretation of texts and focuses on technical forms and language rather than the historical “subtext.”
I did not mean to imply that all the professors in the humanities department endorsed the historicist school of thought in their own research.
Avrum Stroll, the head of the Humanities Department at the time, was an expert on philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein, a more formalistic modern philosopher.
I tend to prefer a “dialectical” approach which attempts to employ both “opposing” methodologies, when interpreting a text.
Guess I’m sort of “old school” 19th century historicist (Hegel/Marx, it’s the economy stupid) who prefers the modern philosophies of Sartre (modern) and Derrida (post-modern).
As Ismael pointed out to me some time ago, the contemporaryBiblical scholar, Daniel Mott acknowleged his “debt” to the post-modern philosophy of Mr Derrida.
“Paul, does not employ this form of exegetical analysis. Therefore, while we may find it very useful (and use it on a continuous basis), it is not much help when it comes to the thorny issues of how the writers of our New Testament handled their Bible – the Tanakh.
Hi Skip,
Good point, the historical analysis and interpretatiion is necessary but not sufficient.
When it comes to the act of actually reading a text, I like what the conservative critic, E. D. Hirsch, has to say.
From Wiki:
His books Validity in Interpretation (1967) and The Aims of Interpretation (1976) argue that the author’s intention must be the ultimate determiner of meaning and against many new critical and postmodernist claims to the contrary.
Hirsch proposed the distinction between “meaning” (as intended by the author) and “significance” (as perceived by a reader or critic).
“the whole debate aboout inerrency seems wasted energy. I have no problem with inspired. The Scriptures are indeed inspired.”
My sentiments exactly.
Thanks,
Mike
Dear family of G-d. I will start by saying (and concluding) I love each of you more and more with each passing day and will join hand in hand with you as we are walking with Yeshua and toward our final heavenly Zion. Oh, how sweet to walk in this pilgrim way- leaning on the everlasting arms. I love you each with the love that has been given unto me. Grace to you and peace from G-d our Father.
Our Bible is such a treasure. ( I hope this statement is on your “short-list” for understatement of the year). Think about it. (yes.. “selah”).
We each have two parents. I have a mother and a father and so do you. It is the way we all have come into this world, through mom and dad. Spiritually, we also have two parents. (stay with me here..). Our two ‘parents’ are.. the word of G-d and the Ruach Hakodesh (the holy Breath).
One is “incomplete” without the other. Mom without dad is not a mom and the same goes for daddy too, he is without offspring and will not be a “father” until his “union” with momma. Yes, this is ‘truth’ is “relational.”
John 11.35 holds the distinction of being the shortest verse in the Bible. Yes, “Jesus wept.” Now, if Jesus is G-d, (and by this time I sincerely hope you “believe” this is true), -who is this weeping? and why did He weep? Mr. Phd, Mr. Theologue, Mr. So-so-and-so,..(and you too, dear sisters- “who” is this weeping? and why?
I want to remind everyone who reads these words of this.. – The very first words of the Tempter back yonder in the Garden were these: “Hath G-d said?”. A very small and simple, yet brilliant twist. To go from these words: “G-d hath said” to these words: “Hath G-d said. Evil genius at work. To every so slightly and cunningly, “twist” the words of G-d. And what an interesting “coincedence” we find here that the word “iniquity” and the word “twisted” are the same word. “Well, I’ll be.” How ’bout that? “Ain’t that just somethin?”
Are you paying attention? How well do you “hear” the word(s) of the LORD. And not only to “heed” (listen intently- or “focused attention”/kavannah), but also, (to “kick it up a notch,”),to “hearken” – to listen with the intent to obey- ready to do the will (good pleasure) of our LORD.
Superbowl Sunday is coming up soon. You can see the word “hearken” as the players huddle around the quarterback “listening intently with the purpose to obey and “execute” each play.
The quality of our”hearing” will determine the quality of our life. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word(s) of the LORD. (Romans 10.17) Yes, “faith” is a relational verb. It is not only “knowing” what G-d wants, it in the doing of His will, that causes the smile of His face to fall on us.
Are there parts of the Bible I don’t understand? Are there mysteries still unsolved and depths yet to explore? (If I may borrow a word- “oy!”) Well.. Carl, (that’s me) where do you stand today?
This is the best I can come up with. (A man’s got to know his limitations..lol!!)- This dear friends and family is it: “Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.” Little ones to Him belong, they (I) am weak, but He is strong.”
Yes… Jesus loves me. (Now, today, in this very pregnant moment..) Selah.
Our two ‘parents’ are.. the word of G-d and the Ruach Hakodesh (the holy Breath).
Hi Carl,
I like your point above, but when I start thinking about things, “contradiction” comes into play.
“Hey, there is some thing over there. It is my father.”
My father is a thing, but God is not a thing.
Breath is made of something too.
But God is not.
Point well made. Earthly comparison are at BEST analogies. Aquinas pointed out long ago that the only true application of human language to God is the via negativa. And that, of course, leaves us without any positive knowledge. So, we must rely on partial understanding through human analogy. God comes clothed in human grab or we would not understand him at all. “If a lion could speak, we would not understand him.” Wittgenstein.
a very pitful metaphor indeed, comparing my father to my Father, but still in the grand scheme of things it (still) “takes two to tango.” There is an Iniator (Him) and a responder (me). He speaks, we respond. He gives, we take. We speak, He listens. Brother Michael.. it’s a beautiful thing!
p.s. (we’re not talkin’ bout’ things here!!)- lol!!
Isn’t He beautiful? (I’ve never seen Him) Isn’t He wonderful? (I’ve never met Him). lol!!- I’m in love with Someone I’ve never met!! lol!! -Glory!
“a very pitful metaphor indeed”
Well I think it is a good metaphor and use it all the time.
OK…there is much said here, but can you help me discern the Scripture…I have struggled with the the verses in Jeremiah and in Matthew and would like to go deeper…help!
Jer 31:15 Thus says the LORD, “A voice is heard in Ramah, Lamentation {and} bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; She refuses to be comforted for her children, Because they are no more.”
Mat 2:18 “A VOICE WAS HEARD IN RAMAH, WEEPING AND GREAT MOURNING, RACHEL WEEPING FOR HER CHILDREN; AND SHE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED, BECAUSE THEY WERE NO MORE.”
Hi Kelly,
Jeremiah said: A voice was heard at Ramah, Rachel was weeping over her sons, because they were no more. (Jer. 31:15). Rachel had so desired children that she considered herself dead without them. (Gen. 30:1)
Jeremiah said that she was figuratively weeping because of the loss of the people killed or taken in captivity. And since she was the mother of Benjamin, it would fit because those in Ramah were Benjaminites.
Matthew quotes Jeremiah 31:15, claiming that it was a prophecy of King Herod’s alleged slaughter of the children in and around Bethlehem after the birth of Jesus. But this verse refers to the Babylonian captivity, as is clear by reading the next two verses (16 and 17), and, thus, has nothing to do with Herod’s massacre.
The issue we were discussing was why Matthew would play “fast and loose” with the Scripture and Skip’s point was that in Matthew’s mind he was not playing fast and loose, because his “mindset” was not “Greek,” he was a Jew, and “fidelity to the text” did mean “mathematical perfection.”
The fact that Matthew was a tax collector and not a Rabbi might help explain why he misquotes Scripture, but misquoting scripture would definitely make it hard for me to believe Matthew had any concern for “inerrancy.”
BTW the Oxford Companion to the Bible, edited by Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, has a good explanation of inspiration and “inerrancy.”
did not mean “mathematical perfection
Matthew does not “misquote” Scripture. That is a Greek perspective on the issue, as if word for word accuracy is demanded when using Scripture. Matthew operates on a Hebrew definition of truth – faithful reliability. In this case, Matthew faithfully conveys the trustworthy reliability of the Jeremiah text as it is interpreted concerning Yeshua. For Matthew, Jeremiah’s second level of meaning applies to Yeshua’s birth and Matthew demonstrates this application by faithfully communicating the meaning he sees in the Jeremiah text. We think this is “mis-quoting.” But obviously, Matthew doesn’t think so. So, if Matthew sees the Jeremiah passage as the word of God, right down the the letters, then what kind of ‘Inerrancy” does Matthew really espouse?
I don’t know if this helps: a Rabbi we were listening to on TorahMedia the other day said that a problem with Christianity is that it believes that the whole of Scripture has to be established as ‘inerrant’ simply because Christianity has no choice but to establish, interpret and teach only from within Scripture itself. If Christianity drops ‘Sola Scriptura’ as a foundation, then it is not only possible to say that Matthew is bringing a midrash – but that it could even be ‘a teaching based on a teaching based on a teaching’.
The Rabbi said, “If Christians insist on Sola Scriptura then {Matthew} is misquoting the original source text. However, if they accept that G_d has instructed His sages to handle and apply His Word… so they may instruct us… for each situation, then that’s a whole new ball game; and they better start keeping Torah!” He commented on the ‘missing’ and ‘superfluous’ letters within the Torah scroll, and the different ways that the letters are written that can change the whole context of a word depending on the situation prevalent when the scroll is being read, and on the folly of anyone thinking that they can look at an English translation/version and say definitively, “This is the all-time true translation from the original for this verse.” It is, after all a Living Word.
Please tell me how I can learn more about this rabbi’s comments. He is on to something important.
Hi Skip
Indeed! We felt it was important when we heard it. You’ll have to give us a day or two to check back and confirm who it was and the title of the message. We listen to hours of teaching over the weekends and need to look back at the playlist (which is on a different computer to this one). I do know that it was ‘anti-missionary teaching’ (but not the usual angry rant)… we were seeking Truth on a certain principle by looking at the arguments against it being Truth! We’ll get back to you…
Hi Ian and Tara,
For me, your comments on inerrancy certainly have the “ring of truth”.
Thanks for sharing!