I finshed my response, and couldn't wait. So here it is.
First off, let me say that I am not dismissing any part of the Bible. However, I understand some parts to be human invention, perhaps not of God’s direction. And Shannon is right—God chose to leave them in. Maybe for theology; maybe to understand humanity better or differently. I am not sure. But that is something to discuss. What I am proposing is not new, nor is it an attempt to say that those before me did not properly understand the Bible. I do not have an “edge” on understanding God that others (far smarter than me) did. Many others have asserted and believed the same things I do which at certain points agrees with and at other points disagrees with those who went before. That is the nature of Scripture—it is so rich and deep that one man or community will never grasp it. Yet each generation of Christians struggles with deciphering just what this corpus of literature meant and now means. With that in mind, we struggle forth.
Let me try to lay out again what I am proposing. Regan said, “How can you tell what is biased?” I would reply, “All of it is biased.” It has all been written by men of faith advancing their own view of God, religion, and the world. I don’t discount the work of the Spirit, but in the end, men are still writing and I have faith that God is guiding the process. Now Tom worries that this view dismisses God’s “commandments”. This is of course, not the case. I don’t seek to dismiss morality or God’s call to holiness. But we all know that there are things in the Bible that are very situational that we no longer (or at least should no longer) adhere to. For example, Corinthians is full of situational edicts or “commandments.”
“Any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head.” (1 Cor. 11:5a)
“Women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law says.” (1 Cor. 14:34)
I doubt many of your churches refuse women the right to participate publicly in the worship service. And when they do, are their heads covered with a veil? I doubt it. Yet, such practices undermine the Scripture. Though I am challenged that I toss away certain parts of the Bible, we all do it frequently. How about all of the Levitical laws? What about those “commandments”? We dismiss them as archaic or not applicable to the New Covenant. The reason we take such an approach to Scripture is because of the human element that is inherent in the Bible. Even Paul admits that his own preferences have made it into the Scriptures. 1 Corinthians 7:12 states, “To the rest I say—I not the Lord—that if any believer…” Clearly Paul’s own understanding and application of God’s commandments made it into the letter.
My point is simple—we all interpret the Bible according to our current situation. If a particular passage or commandment seems based on a specific context, we ignore it or find ways to reapply it. I am doing the same sort of thing. The OT is full of polemic—stories intentionally crafted to further a point of view or to discount a point of view. For example, the creation accounts in Genesis 1-2 are more a response to the polytheistic ideologies that ran unopposed in the Ancient Near East than they are an exact account of what happened. If that is the case, than why couldn’t other material from the OT be along the same vein? Why couldn’t the Israelites justify their wars by assuming God commanded them? All I am saying is that some of the “Thus saith Yahweh” phrases may not be from God.
We can talk about the implications of such a view. Like, “How do we know what is from God?” Or, “Were the Israelites then wrong for doing such things?” Or even, “How can I trust my Bible?” But I will save that for another day.
Let the flogging commence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Sam siad, "My point is simple—we all interpret the Bible according to our current situation. If a particular passage or commandment seems based on a specific context, we ignore it or find ways to reapply it. I am doing the same sort of thing. The OT is full of polemic—stories intentionally crafted to further a point of view or to discount a point of view. For example, the creation accounts in Genesis 1-2 are more a response to the polytheistic ideologies that ran unopposed in the Ancient Near East than they are an exact account of what happened. If that is the case, than why couldn’t other material from the OT be along the same vein? Why couldn’t the Israelites justify their wars by assuming God commanded them? All I am saying is that some of the “Thus saith Yahweh” phrases may not be from God."
I don't think it is the same thing. When I read the creation stories, I assume that the original audience understood that the author was not trying to be literal, but making some pointed arguments against polytheism. I don't think there is any misleading going on, and the primary lesson stands: Yahweh/Elohim is above all. The same goes for the Corinthians passage about hair. The principle (as I have been told) is don't dress like a prostitute. I think that stands today.
By disagreeing with the text's assertion that God ordered the annhilation of the Canaanites, you are not looking for the same general understanding of the original audience. Nor are you pulling out the over-riding lesson the author intends, as I and others attempt to do with some of the passages you referred to. You just flat out disagree with the text. That seems different to me.
And as for 1 Cor 7:12, Paul points out that he is asserting his own opinion. Why does he feel the need to point this out here, if this was his common practice all along? Why does he poin this out here and not all (or any of) the other times he does it? This admission is unique to this text, perhaps because speaking his opinion is unique to this text.
How's that for a flogging? Next time, I'll burn you at the stake.
I would love to hear how do we know what is from God. That was the reason for my bias question in the first place.
Ben made the comment that some passages are misunderstood and that they dealt with customs of the time. I totally agree. It is a misunderstanding of context and writing style that causes such a skewing of probably interpretations. In fact, I am extending that argument somewhat. A custom of the Ancient Near East was to claim divine support of your actions. My God is bigger than your God, my God told me to do ______, my God won the battle, etc. You see it all over the literature from the surrounding nations. I think that probably the Israelites engaged in a little bit of that themselves. This was widely accepted back then and known by all as somewhat of a ploy.
For example, when the Assyrians surrounded Jerusalem under King Hezekiah, the Biblical account states that an “angel of the Lord” came during the night and killed something like 200,000 of them. And, the king scurried home with his tail between his legs. Assyrian historical documents just state that he ended his military campaign (that had gone on for many years) and went home. So which is it? Did God kill off a bunch of the people or did they just leave and the writers attributed it to God? We like to think God did it and he probably did. But how many other times do the Biblical writers gloss over God’s “failures” to act? How many times do they play up God’s role to more than it was? I don’t know, and to be honest, it doesn’t change my view of God all that much.
Now, I concede that God could have commanded and acted in these instances. And, even if he didn’t I do not automatically dismiss them as having no lesson to teach us. But I don’t think it is the same lesson that others gather from the text. Regan wants to know what is from God. I say it all is from God in the sense that He guided the process and can use the Spirit to teach us. But I stand by the statement that all of the text is biased (not that it is a bad thing).
But, we can continue to go round and round on this. I still hold the text in high regard and seek to learn more about my relationship with God through the Israelites interaction and approach to life.
Just a word to the wise, your speculation about Old Testament Polemic will lead some astray and into further fields of fruitless speculation. Guard your faith and come to the Scripture with meekness or risk travelling farther from a true knowledge of God. For knowledge of God flows from the Bible and speculation such as yours calls all Scripture into question. The text is undermined and we find we are walking upon shifting sand. We need less speculation and more obedience to the word as it stands. "He who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice..."
Spoken with love and concern.
Post a Comment