Being Berean
Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Acts 17:11 NIV
Examined the Scriptures – There’s a funny contradiction buried in this verse. The Bereans were orthodox. Jewish orthodox. They were meticulous about investigating any outside idea that was contrary to the teachings of the Tanach. That was the only “Bible” they had so whatever they encountered had to square with their sacred material. Interestingly enough, they found Paul’s teaching to be aligned with the Scriptures, which means, of course, that Paul was found to be orthodox. Jewish orthodox. The funny contradiction is that Christians often turn to this example to support their argument that the Bereans endorsed Paul’s Christianity. But that would have been the reason the Bereans would have rejected Paul’s teaching. If Paul were actually proclaiming a triune God, salvation through the cross, the total depravity of men, or a Messiah who was actually God Himself, they would have soundly rejected it all. What they discovered was that Paul was entirely Jewish. It is the Church that’s out of step with the Scriptures (the Tanakh), not Paul. Once again, the paradigm determines the facts.
It’s really no different today. Where we start is where we end. If you start with a converted Paul, you will end with the Paul of the Church. But then you would have to claim that the Bereans found all these doctrines in the Tanakh, and that is a real stretch. What the Bereans did was set an example of how to actually interpret the Scriptures. That example includes the examination of new information in the light of accepted convention. Some things can’t really be changed. Some things have to stick while we examine everything else. We might put it like this:
Today, this approach—namely, the qualified acceptance of the conclusions of scientific research coupled with the rejection of those conclusions that do not conform to faith-based assumptions—is increasingly popular in the field of Bible education in modern religious circles. Proponents of this approach attempt to clarify—theologically, conceptually, and philosophically—how to live a religious life based on belief in God and the observance of the commandments, without basing that belief on factual knowledge that can be refuted by science—for instance, the historical authenticity of the various parts of the Bible, the integrity and unity of each of the biblical books, the date of composition of biblical literature, and the identity of its authors.[1]
The point is simple: a building can’t stand if the foundation falls apart. A lot can be changed in the building as long as the foundation is firm. So the real question is about the integrity of the foundation. For Jews that must include the absolute uniqueness of God. For Christians, there’s some wiggle room. The two approaches can’t be reconciled. Two different foundations mean two different buildings. The two buildings might look similar. The same outside painting. The same number of floors. The same reception area. But underneath it all they are very, very different. If the Bereans found Paul to be orthodox, then Paul’s message was justified because he shared the same foundation, not because he presented a radically different one. We might have to follow their path if we’re going to understand a Hebrew point of view. Some buildings need to be torn down and replaced, not simply painted a different color.
Topical Index: exegesis, orthodox, Berean, Scripture, Acts 17:11
[1] “Introduction”, The Believer and the Modern Study of the Bible, p. Edited By Tova Ganzel, Yehudah Brandes, and Chayuta Deutsch, p. viii.
