Regarding the Bible (1)
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 2 Timothy 3:16 NASB
Scripture– “I wrote that when I was stupid.” So said David Flusser when questioned by one of his students about an article he published years before. That’s how I feel today. If you ask me about something I wrote some time ago, I just might have to reply, “I wrote that when I was stupid.”
That also means I have retained the right to change my mind. And I have changed my mind about a number of fairly important things when it comes to religious ideas. So, for fear of someone a few years from now asking if I still believe what I will write today, I’ll venture forth and bravely commit to print what I believe to be the case now. In the future I might have to say, “I wrote that when I was stupid.”
First, I don’t think the Bible is a theological text. Of course, that’s usually how it is used, but the more I read it, the more I am convinced that it is really a story—a story of the interactions of men and women with God. And I don’t mean it is a story in “The Greatest Story Ever Told,” “all about your salvation,” sense. The Bible is a collection of encounters with God, set in times and cultures of the characters in the stories. They may (or may not) have application for us today, but they weren’t written as universal, timeless collections of theological truths. And the more we try to codify, analyze, organize and catalog the Bible theologically, the less we are in touch with its central concern, that is, the disconnection between us and God. The Bible is an ancient Near-Eastern collection of books. It doesn’t think like Westerners. It’s not about abstract principles and timeless rules. As far as I can tell, the Bible is a book about very human actions and reactions, failures and triumphs, despair and hope—and all the other completely common human emotions of living in this broken world. The Bible offers a unique perspective on life’s existence and invites readers to identify with this perspective. And since the Bible is about real human trauma, we recognize ourselves in its stories. It speaks to us, not in creeds and doctrines and religious acronyms but in the pathos of being human here in this world.
Second, I find most religious articulation concerning the Bible, whether Jewish or Christian, to be overly-concerned with philosophical and theological posturing, obsessively involved with proof and certainty, and, in general, of little real consequence to ordinary human living. Perhaps that’s why theological teachers rarely make good preachers. They are simply disconnected from the emotional sources that consume real life, the same sources that I believe are central to understanding biblical characters as real people, not as shills for theological insight. In other words, I believe (today) that most of the Bible is about human concerns, written perhaps with a divine perspective but nevertheless, about the distress of relationships here on this planet. If we don’t read these stories emotionally, we will miss something important, and we will typically import theological distortions in the process. What I mean is that Paul’s letters are letters, not systematic theological texts. It’s the same for John and James. The “gospels” are not missionary flannel graphs or “proof-text” collections. They are personal recollections of the teachings of the community’s accepted rabbi, Yeshua, who, by the way, is thoroughly Jewish in practice and program. The stories of Israel are not JEPD redactions of ancient tribal religious development. They are deep mythology (don’t go crazy importing your naive idea about what a “myth” is), that is, they are designed to communicate to a displaced people who they are, why they are here and what they are to do about it. The “history” books aren’t history in our sense of the word. They are intentional history, that is, modified historical events intended to serve a purpose for the audience. For example, Kings and Chronicles are designed to instill a divine sense of the Davidic monarchy for an audience that lived a long time after David rose to power.
Until we read the Bible as if we were the audience, we will automatically (and unconsciously) convert the text into statements about us, about our time and culture. We will end up treating the Bible differently than any other work of ancient literature. Now, it’s entirely possible that we should treat the Bible differently because it embodies our concept of the “word of God,” but that doesn’t mean the original audience felt the same way we do about the messages delivered to them. They also believed that God was speaking to them in the messages they heard, but what they heard was conditioned by the culture and time of the delivery. That is obvious from their recorded reactions to the message. Hindsight does not exempt us from mistaken conclusions. If we begin by trying to understand why this particular message was communicated to this particular audience in this particular time, we may avoid some of the “timeless truths” errors of Western thinking.
Set aside the theological education you have received about this book. You might not think you have a theological perspective on the Bible because you didn’t have any formal training in theology, but believe me, you have a theological point-of-view simply because you grew up in a culture that treated the Bible as God’s Word, a sacred text that could not be questioned. You inherited a theology. Now I want you to read this book from an emotional point-of-view. Read Paul’s letters as fervent pleas to first century audiences about their lack of unity, their community problems, their griefs and joys remembering that Paul’s letter is only half of the conversation. Read the Torah as an attempt to help ex-slaves regain their sense of worth and purpose. Read the history books as political stories selectively chosen for a population that needed heroes. Read the gospels as if you were trying to tell someone about your personal experiences with the Messiah. Resist the Western “news” approach to events. Stories ride the rails of emotional involvement. The storyteller animates the actual events with his felt connection. Try to hear that in these biblical passages. It’s not about what happened when. It’s about how the audience and the actors felt about what happened. Capture that! It’s all there in the text, under the surface, in the syntax and grammar. Now you have to communicate that, or at least hear it, in order to experience the pathos, the excitement, the concern, the human element in the Bible.
Feel what happens.
Topical Index: Bible, 2 Timothy 3:16
Interesting perspective, what would be the approach when reading the prophets and revelations?
Good question any answer Skip?
Excellent Skip –
Btw in para 5 first sentence did you mean ‘ until we DONT read the Bible as if we were…….??
NO, it’s correct as written. Probably should have said “the original audience”
Ok ta
Skip, I do agree also that this is an excellent perspective. Do I have your permission to share it with others? This perspective might just be a bridge to some of my friends and people I associate with. Shalom La Shana Tova.
Yes, of course. Hope it helps.
In the 60’s and 70’s a new reformation began.partly due to the holocaust and also a backlash to Luther and Calvin. From Stendahl to Sanders, Dunn,and N.T. Wright than newer like Garlington.It is called the new perspective on Paul. As with all new insights it has it’s pros and cons and has much diverse thinking even from it’s strong advocates too it.Unless you have the money and time to read such vast amount of works,I would recommend Kent Yingers book, it explains it clearly and succinctly and really is as unbiased as you will get now days on NPP.Iwill admitt Skips views on slain before the foundations of the world,and justification are too extreme for me . They are his thoughts and views but now realize why he has them. Was a reformation needed yes I think so, but as in all things it’s up to us to read an decide and maybe understand why people believe what they believe. I am more middle of the road on this, leaves room for not being totally anti NPP like John Piper or totally all in like Garlington.
What is NPP ?
New Perspective on Paul… you’ll find a Wiki article
And JEPD is the documentary hypothesis, the Yahwist (J), Elohist (E), Priestly (P), and the Deuteronomist (D). That the five books of Moses are hypothetically separate manuscripts written by these four proponents and woven together after the fact.
New perspective on Paul
Pilate asked “what is truth”? Truth stood before him in the flesh and offered a relationship: a “savor of life unto life or of death unto death”. Truth – the very coherence and embodiment of reality – invites us to stand with itself on the right side of the equation: on the connected side with reality and its Maker. Pilate did not know that you cannot reject the Maker without rejecting the rest of life. He pronounced the sentence upon himself when he pronounced it on the Son of Man; for, truth is, we are all tied to “this Man”: what we determine to do with Him will determine what will be done to us, for He carries all of our reality – the truth of us – in Himself.
What is truth? Truth; which, grouped by Yeshua with “way” (Torah, which His life patterned for us) and “life” (which His death and resurrection returned us to) is, as He said, Himself. What does the Bible reveal? Truth? Is it not Messiah – cover to cover – in all His forshadowings and manifestations on this earth to us? Does it not reveal HOW our relationship with Him ( and His with us) plays out, as exemplified in the Biblical lives of patriarchs, apostles, random odd folks, and nations?
Truth is no disembodied ideal: Truth – reality itself – IS relationship with that Messiah – either for life unto life, or for death unto death – and the template “has been written for us upon whom the ends of the earth are come”. What will we do with this Man? The truth(!) of the answer to that question will determine if we have a relationship (that would be “way”) with reality (um, that would be “life”), or not, too.
For the Greek truth is a proposition. For the Hebrews truth is a story. There is a big difference.
I’d say. All the difference between a thought and an experience. You cannot tell a story about a “proposition”!
What really gets me about the Bible, though, is that is not so much written FOR me as it is written ABOUT me: my ancestors; my beginnings; my problems, and my solutions, too. My future is in there, as well as instruction for my daily life and marching orders, too.
Personal? MY “story”? You bet!
Skip, you may be interested in a book by Richard Bauckham – Bible and Mission: Christian Witness in a Postmodern World
Another book you may want to consider: Christianity in the Making – Volume 1 – Jesus Remembered – James D. G. Dunn
The first book is small but beautiful written, and would be well worth your time spent.
The second book I would recommend you studying the first eight chapters in light of what you wrote above. I love his writing style, and his concise and engaging way of presenting information. He engages the Jesus Seminar throughout the book, and I did not plod along much in those sections.
Both are fun and stimulating reads.
Be blessed!
“The first book is small but well written, and it would be well worth your time spent. In light of what you wrote above, I would recommend you studying the first eight chapters of the second book.”
The story is about two men: Adam and Yeshua.
Many characters in between.
A classic Book about life and death.
Many choices in between.
Rugged detail and rugged terrain leads to the
concluding resurrection — which leads to real life forever.
Nothing like it ever written.
Anyone interested in transforming their lives via a living
relationship with the Author, should get a copy.
And DO what it says!
I most heartily concur with Today’s word!
I have been marinating in the book of 2 Corinthians this past week or so ….. as you do you get such a sense of the functionality of God’s word into our daily lives. Reminding me of Hebrews 4:12….. connecting the word of God with our current lives and the impact it can have on us. The pain that comes because of the two edged sword, pain and healing in this process . As the word of God goes down deep into the inner recesses of our hearts, exposing them to the light, never to condemn or shame but to heal and restore! The excellence of our God, whose ways are past finding out! The word of God as a person. In the beginning was the word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God! We are actually taking a journey into God ! How awesome is that!
Bravo Skip,
This has given me a sense of pride about being a part of our little community and building our relationship with you and others that we have met.
See you in December.
Blessings
David
I can neither agree nor disagree with TW as the topic is much too broad to say yea or nay. I would have to decide on, “story” or “history”, on a case-by-case basis.
For instance, from the immediate context, the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus was told as though it was an actual event and is to be understood literally, but the details are so incredulous, it is difficult to accept. Nevertheless, who am I to doubt a story told by Jesus Himself?
But in fact, I do believe it is a parable or some other form of literary device, e.g. myth or midrash, because the story contradicts numerous other passages of the Bible concerning the state of the dead, such as the non-existence of an immortal soul inside each one of us, that was just recently discussed here.
So the same might apply to the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ as well, but instead, as incredible as these stories sound, and even though neither of them has a precedent, I do accept them as literal. This is because, once again, these stories are confirmed as factual by numerous other passages of the New Testament and were hinted at in the Old Testament.
I suppose, even these “numerous other passages” can be argued to be non-literal, but sooner or later, as literature can never be “proved” to mean one thing or another, each of us has to come to a belief. And my current belief is to believe in my beliefs until I am persuaded otherwise.
And so, I’m listening case-by-case.
Humm got to ruminate on this I certainly can’t question much of it however it seems to be missing a link in the chain ..Consider this from Dr. Chuck Missler…”Since God has the technology to create us in the first place, He certainly has the technology to get a message to us. But how does He authenticate His message?”
http://www.khouse.org/articles/2013/1123/
“How does He authenticate His message?” Fruit! That is the litmus test Yeshua gave us to use. The “message” – that entire Book – is the front half of a conversation – a continuing conversation begun with those patriarchs and prophets and apostles, too. Our ‘response’ completes that message. If we (or anybody else) has heard it correctly, our response will be: fruit! Personally, I suspect the canon became the canon because it bore consistent fruit.
AGAIN (deja vu) we have gone this round before, and I have quoted Robert Lafoy again in response to it. But, because there are so many ways to ask it, I look forward to answering the next ‘way’ it gets asked, too! LOL!
I agree the authentication of the resultant of the recived message in one’s or another’s life is fruit. Dr Missler suggests the way God authenticates to us that his messages to us in scripture our actually from God himself and not contrived by the mind of men is God’s knowledge of the future. He is truly God and his messages to us in the bible are reliable because He is outside space and time. He un like us can see the end from the begging. This is one element of the consistency delivered in scripture. This from from the 40 different authors over two thousand years. Thus proving divine inspiration.
Mark, there is an interesting book written by Kersey Graves in 1875 (reprinted 2001) called “The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors”. He quotes Eusebius of Ceasarea (283-371 C.E.) as saying in his Church History, Book IV “The religion of Jesus Christ is neither new nor strange”. Augustine adds that the Christian religion was not “unknown in former times, but as having recently received that name”. The book’s focus is on outlining the major ‘messiahs’ of the world, such as Attis of Phrygia, Dionysus/Bachus, Horus/Osiris, Krishna, Mithra, and Zoroaster, etc., and points out that they were: born of virgins on the 25th of December, were sacrificed (crucified), and rose after three days, usually on the 25th of March, were divine sons of God, were King of kings, redeemers, sin bearers, Alpha and Omegas, regarded as lambs or rams, and their devotees celebrated a Eucharist.
If I get touchy about attempts to deconstruct the prophecies and big picture portrayals of Messiah (such as the Sanctuary design and service), it is because I can see only two differences between the false messiahs and the true. The first is that only Yeshua has been historically proven and eyewitnessed on the ground as having fulfilled all those conditions; and, second, as having met the specifications of the PROPHECIES that outlined those conditions in advance. If we knock out the prophetic (and recorded historical) pillars, he becomes merely another in a long lineup. I just hate seeing others (even inadvertently) doing the devil’s work for him. Let’s make him sweat for it!
I wonder how many more claims like these arose after Yeshua life and death was recorded…
I will DEFINITELY look at this one. Especially since the incorporation of the ideas of a God-Man into Christian Western thinking did not emerge without prior history. The Jewish Messiah does not suffer from this kind of syncretism. I wonder why? 🙂
In all fairness, please specify which “Jewish Messiah”, as there seem to be as many (or more) flavors of that than there are Christian ones?
It seems to me there are at least 100 or so prophesies fufilled by Messiah Yeshua. The triumphant entry into Jerusalem and the prophetic fufillments of the requirements for the lamb of God are staggering . Yeshua’s actions and the timing of them on that day alone could not , in my mind, be contrived by men. I just am not interested in the development of the ideas of man about God. I am interested in the revelation to mankind of God’s ideas for us.
Just a thought. Did God really inspire the historic records. The Ten Leters he wrote himself. Them Moses had to rewrite and from that day it seems that people needed written proof.
All the callings and prophetic messages he said speak not write. Moses self said these words I teach or instruct you, not wait write a scrol.
Yeshau self said teach not write…
God said he self will inscribe so why did he need to inspire record keeping…
Good question, Seeker! But He also did tell Moses to write and keep the writing in the side of the Ark of the Covenant – see Deut. 31:26 – (The tablets of stone that YHVH wrote upon were kept within that Ark. Moses did not rewrite those, however: he only cut the second set of stones for YHVH to rewrite them on).
The way I understand it, the rest of the Torah, such as Leviticus, was told to Moses by angels (Acts 7:53), and not spoken by YHVH. It is significant to me that the Hebrews themselves recognized the universal application of the Ten Commands that YHVH spoke, and differentiated them from the provisional application of that portion of the Torah which was transmitted by angels, and largely applied mostly to the Israelites (one provision) with further provisions, such as some of it being applied only to those living within the Promised Land (another provision), etc.
I think most of those angelic-spoken commands had to do with HOW to apply the Ten Commands to their circumstances specifically, the way I read them anyway, but some of them had to do with how to be that living picture of Messiah so that everybody would recognize Him when He came. They did get that part, I think; so much so that, as Skip points out, they concluded that they WERE Messiah in the collective (and some Jews, I understand, still think that way today), but I think Isaiah corrected that in chapters 49 – 53 where the general calling of Israel to be a “light to the Gentiles” (and their subsequent refusal) is contrasted with the specific description of Messiah in chapter 53, (which the NT writers picked up on as soon as they saw Him, of course). As always, if somebody has something better to help my understanding here, please jump in!
I think people did pass the oral commands down for thousands of years, like you said; until they were “forgotten” in Egypt, anyway. At that point, they had to be preserved another, less ideal way. Aren’t we glad they were written? Who is around that would have told you or me if they had not been?
That’s awesome Skip. I just read this to my wife and her comment was, “I wish Skip was starting a cult cause I’d want to join it!“
Ignorance is a condition which plagues humanity, both past and present. The sages were ignorant of our technology; we are ignorant of their wisdom. While it is important to be students of the culture of history, it is just as important to be students of our own. Scientific analysis has its benefits, but it also has its weaknesses, especially when laced with humanism and existentialism. In other words, the observer never comes to the table without some bias. Certainly, Christian and Jewish interpretation of Scripture is laced with certain theological presumptions and biases, however, that does not imply that all observations arise from bias.
It was the view of the early disciples that “all scripture [of God] is God-breathed.” In other words, while man certainly involved himself in the written message, so did God, and likely in ways that we have not even grasped. While “disconnection” is certainly a reality of human life on this planet, it is observation of the result of something else. If we become myopic about the problem, we are likely to miss the solution. Isn’t the solution connection with God, first and foremost? That theme is woven throughout every page of Scripture.
Moreover, the timelessness of Scripture as applicable to every generation is not an invention or “error” of Western thinking. It is the claim the sages and of the Word itself, “For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.” Rom. 15:4, ESV (see Dt. 29:14; 31:10-13). If the Jews of Yeshua’s day could apply the truths of Torah, why can’t we? John applied the embodiment of the Word to Yeshua, why can’t we?
Morning Daniel Mook aligning your idea with Laurita reflection. Would the sages be the same as messiah… as both are guides and pointers for their generation or kin.
Another truth I appreciate in your comment us that we must not only use the cultures of the past to form a relationship with God. I read you may be saying we must work from our own culture ect by trusting and using the wisdom of the past so that we are not trapped in what egypt offers. Technology lifestyle worship and praise but find that very personal connection.