The more I study
about philosophy, history, worldviews, and the Bible the more I am convinced
that in order to progress in our understanding of truth we must start reading
the Bible differently than we did in the past, especially in the previous
modern era. We need to recognize what the texts were saying in historical context and then move beyond it to what they mean for us today with the input of modern thought.
When studying the
Old Testament you have to realize that it is focused exclusively on one group
of people and their fight for survival and relevance. What’s more is that the
narratives found in scripture cannot be taken as the actual course of history.
The stories were never written for that purpose, in fact they were separate and
distinct stories and folklore of what occurred in the past and were then
added together by redactors and compilers as they collected them. We like to
think that the Bible is a coherent collection of historical fact that contains a
perfect sequence of events, but that just isn’t the case. Even when reading the
two tellings of creation found in Genesis 1 and 2, the two orders found back
to back are completely different! The writers of the Bible were not concerned
with accuracy of facts; the primary concern was what the story revealed about
their relationship to God.
It is so important
to recognize that the stories of the Bible tell a progression of understanding,
but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are historically accurate in that progression.
If we are going to truly obtain value from what we find in the Bible we must
read it differently. It tells the progression of one group's understanding of
God throughout the ages. It must be noted that the Old Testament is indeed
solely focused on Israel. God is not the God of humanity in general; God is the
God of Israel. His covenant is not with mankind; his covenant is only with
Israel. This provides many problems for people reading the Bible from a literal
point of view. For some it leads to a religion of exclusivity and a rigid
refusal to change from that which was “revealed” to Israel. But for others, if
you approach scripture from an understanding that it is the story of one group
of people struggling with their relation to God, it suddenly gains a completely
different picture with deeper meaning and beauty then ever before.
Israel progressed
from a people who thought God had rejected them and abandoned them in slavery to Egypt to
a people who realized that God cared about them, rescued them, and dwelt with
them. The history of Israel’s law is not a history of rigid structure and
brutal punishments, it is a history that revealed that God could be reconciled
with. In the religion of Israel it was possible to become right with God. The
law was a covenant given in response to the grace God had bestowed. That idea
is something that all other religions of the time lacked. Israel then
progressed to understand that God did not dwell only in the temple, but was
with them even in Babylon and indeed could be experienced by the individual who
read the written record of God’s promises. From there you move to the New
Testament which has the startling revelation at Pentecost that God was
concerned primarily with the individual. In Acts God’s presence did not descend
and dwell on a building but on humans.
In each era there
was a new revelation of man's relation to God. That is the beauty of the Bible.
It is not beautiful because of its historical accuracies, or its perfect
stories, or even yet its unflinching and unbending moral law; it is awesome
because it reveals something great about human thought and God’s leading of human reason. It is time we stop attempting to read into the Bible what we
think it ought to have said if the writers had been in our generation, and
start reading the Bible as it is. We owe the Bible the respect that we want to be given to ourselves, and that is a willingness to read and interpret
scripture in its historical context with an understanding of what it said to
the writer back then rather than changing it to what we think it should say today. Once we have done that, we must then allow ourselves to be influenced by the
trajectory of truth.
I've heard several theological discussions along these lines. Theologians who speak with utmost authority when positing such theories leave me thinking, "What Old Testament did they read?" I don't know what theologians proposed the theories shared in your post, but in the spirit of Dr. Maxwell, I question their answers.
ReplyDeleteThe transmission of scripture, be it oral or written, was taken very seriously. Accuracy was of utmost concern. As a University of Wisconsin professor said about the oral transmission of American Indian's scriptures - if one took on the task, one did it not only well, but extremely well. One recited scripture in the presence of people who had heard it many times, and were ready to make corrections ASAP. In the Hebrew culture, if any editor or redactor was allowed to insert a footnote, it would have been done under the surveillance of leaders who guarded accuracy. Dr. Maxwell's book entitled You Can Trust The Bible discusses how, when written transmission of the scriptures took place, an entire Masoretic copy had to be destroyed if one tiny error was found - lines on the page were counted, letters in lines counted backwards and forwards for accuracy, every jot and tittle accounted for, etc.
ReplyDeleteAs for information about creation in Gen. 1 and 2 – yes, there are scholars who propose that the two chapters present completely different descriptions of creation. There are just as many excellent scholars who believe that Gen. 2 simply flashes back to the Gen. 1 account and expands it – (there being a distinct difference between words used for “plants bearing seeds” in Gen. 1 and “plants of the field” in Gen. 2 – presenting no conflict between the two discussions of creation).
ReplyDeleteIn reference to the proposal that in the Old Testament, “His [God’s] covenant is not with mankind; his covenant is only with Israel” - I don’t see that as I read the Old Testament:
ReplyDeleteGod made a covenant with Noah “and every living creature that is with you, for all successive generations” – (Gen. 9). The everlasting covenant of mercy established in Gen. 3:15 applies to all mankind in every age. Therefore the statements “The earth is also polluted by its inhabitants, for they transgressed laws, violated statutes, broke the everlasting covenant (Isaiah 24.5). Isaiah 33.8 reads “He [God] has broken the covenant, he has despised the cities / He has no regard for man.” These statements refer to everyone on earth – they’re not specific to Israel and Judah.
Covenants God made with Israel were designed to bring the truth about God to other nations – “And I will appoint You as a covenant to the people, As a light to the nations – (Isaiah 42.6) / “Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant . . . you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’” (Exodus 19.5-6) / ““So keep and do them [God’s statutes and judgments], for that is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes and say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as is the LORD our God whenever we call on Him? Or what great nation is there that has statutes and judgments as righteous as this whole law which I am setting before you today?” Deut. 4.5-8).
ReplyDeleteGod has always considered every nation to be His – ““Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance.” – Isaiah 19.21-25. We read mainly of the history and discipline of Israel since God chose Abraham’s seed to be the people Christ would be born to. But he sent prophets to the other nations as well – warning, counseling, forgiving, comforting, etc. God made it clear to Israel that He would never show partiality (Deut. 10.17). Israel taught that God was partial to their nation – God taught just the opposite.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the proposal that Israel progressed to understand “that God did not dwell only in the temple, but was with them even in Babylon” and that “From there you move to the New Testament which has the startling revelation at Pentecost that God was concerned primarily with the individual” doesn’t coincide with my understanding of scripture. Early on it was evident that God didn’t dwell only in a temple. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had no temple. There was no sanctuary during the first part of the Exodus. After the Exodus God dispelled Joshua’s fears saying, “Do not tremble or be dismayed, for the LORD your God is with you wherever you go” – no “God dwelling only in the temple” there. As I read it, God has always been concerned primarily with the individual - Cain, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Sampson, Saul, David, Hezekiah, and on and on . . .
ReplyDeleteI’ve admired C. S. Lewis’ tactful way of addressing faulty theological premises when, in Screwtape’s Letters, he has Screwtape counsel Wormwood to get his “patient” to listen to people who present proposals in sophisticated-sounding language and theories, speaking with utmost authority on various issues that would undermine confidence in what the enemy (Christ) would like “the patient” to trust. By doing so, the “patient” would become dazzled by “sophisticated,” “advanced,” avant-garde” proposals and not realize that what was said wasn’t the case. We do well to be alert to the same tactics of the adversary. As far as I can see, undermining confidence in scripture by presenting it as man’s conceptions of God instead of what God wanted man to know about Himself is one of the adversary’s most useful weapons.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments again :) I'll post up here what I responded on Facebook.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I do not doubt the seriousness with which the oral traditions were passed down, I am suggesting however, that those oral stories were not told in chronological order. They were written together by editors long after the original story was handed down. These stories were compiled into the first five books of the Bible. I am not doubting the validity of scripture, I am doubting whether or not it's purpose and beauty is found in its historical accuracy. I think it's beauty is found in its revelation about who God is. The intended purpose of scripture is not history, it is one people's journey in truth.
As for Genesis, again I am not suggesting that the Bible is contradictory and so cannot be trusted, I am suggesting that the absolute order of creation was not a main concern of the writer, he was not attempting to document the exact happenings and order of creation, he was attempting to create a story that depicted God's interaction in creation.
As for God's covenant being with all of mankind, I agree, however the writers of scripture focused almost exclusively on God's relation to Israel and not to any other nation. If God had dealings with other nations it was in relation to Israel in one form or another. Almost all of scripture is written in relation to one nations experience, it is not written from the standpoint of anyone else.
I again agree that God was directing Israel to understand that He was a God of the heart and not of buildings etc. but Israel did not understand that for a very long time. There is a definite progression of understanding as you read from the old and new testaments. Obviously, like any truth there is always outliers who saw truth before the rest, such as David, and many others but the general population of Israel did not understand that for a very long period. In fact it could be argued that they never understood that even up until the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. God led the Christian church into an understanding that the religion of Israel had previously either completely ignored or just failed to understand.
Even when discussing Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the writer frames them in relation to Israel. Israel's duty to God is framed in the relationship God had with their ancestors. Especially when trying to discern biblical thought on morals and ethics, they are always framed in reference to their duty to God because of their ancestors and God's deliverance of them from bondage. All I'm saying is that we can't read the Bible like we do other books. It doesn't read like history, or any other book, it is a revelation of how God has continued to reveal himself throughout history, with a definite trajectory of where God is leading us today.