Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Bible Study

  • According to John: I Finished the Work

    Tonight (4/2/15) at 7:00 pm central time I’ll be continuing my study of John using the book Meditations on According to John by Herold Weiss. We’ll be working from chapter 10, “I Finished the Work.”

    This is an exceptionally good chapter to be studying on Maundy Thursday, though I’m going to assume nobody will miss a Maundy Thursday service in order to listen! We’re going to talk about footwashing, signs, miracles, works, and witness and the difference between a sign and miracle. We’re also going to discuss what Jesus meant by “greater works” (John 14:12). What are these “greater works”?

    Here’s the key quote from the chapter that will guide what I’ll be talking about tonight:

    Jesus lived performing signs that pointed to the time when he would finish his work. Therefore the life of the Christian must provide signs that advertise the source of strength and vision for those who live by faith. Signs and faith must remain closely bound in the lives of the disciples of the one who is THE SIGN that must be seen and believed. (91-92)

  • What the Greek REALLY Says!

    This was so good I had to embed it!

    https://www.facebook.com/178609685499598/photos/a.558486050845291.147623.178609685499598/1068493119844579/?type=1

  • According to John: Excursus #2 – Interview with Dr. Herold Weiss

    john-weiss-trailerYou can get more details on the Google+ event, and you can watch either through that link, or using the viewer below.

    I apologize for posting this so late. I will post the YouTube and some comments tomorrow. Dr. Weiss is the author of the book I’m using for this study, Meditations on According to John.

  • An Example of Doing Biblical Theology (Mark)

    9781631991219Drew Smith, author of Energion title Reframing a Relevant Faith, has posted an article, Mark’s Presentation of Jesus’ Vindication and Exaltation as an Act of God, which shows some of the nuts and bolts of biblical theology in process.

    Drew will be my guest on my study of According to John on April 16 to discuss how biblical theology is done. One of the questions I’m going to ask him is how the view of the crucifixion and exaltation differ from Mark to John. I think the answer to that question can illuminate some of the topics I’ve been discussing in the study.

  • According to John and Psalm 82 Last Night

    I’m embedding the viewer here. I spent a great deal of time on Psalm 82, and I think that trying to do that just straight talking until I was out of breath may not have been my best choice. I’ll consider posting further on Psalm 82 and John 10:34 here in writing and hopefully clarify where I was trying to go.

    Some of what I’m saying here also relates to what I posted today on Matthew 4:4 and Deuteronomy 8:3.)

  • Every Word from the Mouth of God

    A commenter on my post Words from the Mouth of God asks:

    Would you please comment on Matthew 4:4 in this connection.

    Yes, and it’s a most helpful passage to bring up here, and it suggests quite a number of things to me. I’m going to look at the application in connection with what I said in the previous post, but I want to make a few other points as well!

    First, however, let’s quote the passage and connect it to its sources. (Unless otherwise noted, all translations in this post are mine and are often intentionally just a bit too literal.)

    But he [Jesus] answered:

    It is [has been] written, “It not by bread alone that a human being will live, but by every word that comes from God’s mouth.”

    Jesus answers with a quotation, and the perfect verb form emphasizes that the word is established and remains so. It’s a clear and intentional quotation of scripture, and the line comes from Deuteronomy 8:3. It’s part of the reminder of the law that is given to the Israelites as they prepare to cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan. But let’s look at that passage as well.

    You shall be sure to the entire body of commandments which I command you today so that you may live and grow and enter and possess the land which YHWH swore to your ancestors. 2And you will remember all the way that YHWH your God has brought you over these 40 years in the desert so as to humble you and test you to find out what is in your heart, whether you will obey his commands or not. 3And he humbled you by making [letting-NRSV] you suffer hunger, then gave you manna to eat (something you weren’t acquainted with and neither were your ancestors) in order to teach you that it is not by bread alone that a human being will live, but rather by everything that comes from the mouth of YHWH shall a human being live.

    I think this illustrates something I have been mentioning in my study of John, and indeed something I mention quite regularly in Bible study, that the New Testament writers could draw in a broad range of imagery from the Hebrew scriptures through a simple quote. Note here that it’s not simply that Jesus was hungry, though he doubtless was, but also the 40 years of wilderness wandering are evoked by the specific reference, assuming readers were acquainted with that passage.

    That wilderness time was a time of testing, and it was also a time of humbling the Israelites by forcing them to depend on God. They may have had miraculous food on a daily basis, but they didn’t understand it and couldn’t be sure of the next day based on any natural experience. They received this bread so that they’d know that they were truly dependent on God.

    This is evoked in the temptation in that Jesus is going through this experience of testing and humbling, but with the added note, so briefly mentioned in the gospels, that he had fasted those 40 days. So he suffered this experience without the presence of miraculous food, and in fact rejected bread that came from the wrong source or from wrong actions.

    Besides showing that Jesus experienced testing as we might, it also shows Jesus doing it right, according to Matthew, where the Israelites (and all humanity) have gotten it wrong. Often in discussing the mission of Jesus we miss the importance of Jesus both living his life as a human being and getting it right. It is not just that he died for our sins, but that he lived through our hardships and temptations. Matthew in particular evokes the story of the exodus and wilderness wandering.

    I’d add here that I believe this is what he is trying to do in Matthew 2:15 which quotes Hosea 11:1. Some have tried bravely to make a Messianic prophecy out of Hosea 11:1, to make Hosea actually predict the flight into and return from Egypt. But what Matthew is trying to do with that passage is not present a prediction that is fulfilled, but rather to evoke a story that needs to be completed. Jesus comes out of Egypt (Matthew 2:15) and he experiences the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-11), and he does it right.

    Before I leave this theme, I want to note that this passage is reflected in Wisdom of Solomon 16:20-29, but especially verse 26: “… so that your children, whom you loved, O Lord, might learn that it is not the production of crops that feeds humankind but that your word sustains those who trust in you” (NRSV). I find quite a few nifty little nuggets in the apocrypha, and the Wisdom of Solomon is quite a great source on this, and shows how the Deuteronomy passage, to which it doubtless alludes, was heard somewhere around the time of Jesus (+/- 50 years or so!).

    But now I turn to how this applies to my understanding of inspiration, expressed in my previous post. The fact is that I think it reinforces it. As I have noted, all scripture begins with an act of God. That may be a speech act, but it may not, in the narrower sense of “speech.” But that’s where I may have conceded too much, and I’m happy to correct my error. If we look at the world as described in scripture, there is no act of God that is not an act of the Word of God. Genesis 1 and John 1:1-18 should make that quite clear. So word and act are united in God. By the report of God’s act we know of it, although we may also know of it by its result. We see the Word of God in everything that is. The light by which I type this comes from God’s word. In scripture we have the genuine testimony of those who have seen God in action. Sometimes that will include words attributed to God, but sometimes they will report actions.

    In Deuteronomy, I would read the word “word” in a narrower sense suggested by the context, particularly that a human being lives by living according to the law/Torah/instruction provided by God. Those are the specific words referenced. I think Jesus, in using this passage, conveyed to us by the words of Matthew, intended to expand that concept. Certainly, as Christians read it, they came to believe that we would all live by the Word that proceeded from God.

     

  • According to John: Who Is This Son of Man?

    I’m running a little behind today, so I’m just going to give you the link. You can check out the details via the event on Google+. The YouTube viewer is embedded below.

  • Words from the Mouth of God?

    In comments to an earlier post one reader notes that there are those who call the Bible “words from the mouth of God.” I respond that I do not think the Bible is words from the mouth of God, but rather the testimony of people’s experience of God. There are those who think I diminish the authority and power of the Bible in this way. I disagree. I think that the testimony that results from the experience of God is much more valuable, and I believe it also more accurately reflects the nature of the biblical text itself.

    I believe that it’s valuable to be able to distinguish the nature and function of various portions of scripture. While all scripture is inspired, not all scripture is produce in the same way and it does not necessarily function in the same way. There are some obvious examples, such as the speeches of Job’s friends in the book of Job. That is surely quite a substantial amount of writing that is not words from the mouth of God. One may say that it is inspired and that it is profitable, yes, but in words that the book of Job actually attributes to God, we are told that it is not God’s message in those passages. They contribute to a message provided by the book, but the words are not God’s words.

    Now most people who talk about verbal inspiration are not surprised by this sort of statement. There are also those who point out to me that it’s God’s Word, but not necessarily God’s words in all cases. It seems to me, however, that we might as well just come out and say it. Often our affirmations about scripture get in the way of what scripture actually is and how it functions.

    I prefer to say that scripture is the testimony of those who have experienced God, brought forth in various ways using various forms. It is providentially preserved by God as the message that we need. It begins with an act of God (which may be an act of communication, but it might even be a permissive act, or lack of action, such as permitting the Assyrians to come against Israel (2 Kings 17). It might be reported as the words of God, as much material in the prophets is reported. It might be reported in the form of a story, or history researched and reported, as in Samuel-Kings. It might be a letter written to a church as in many of the epistles of the New Testament. In the end, it must be recognized by the community and then interpreted, in all cases providentially guarded by God. (Of course, we realize that in the interpretation, at least, God’s providence does not prevent our error or even our stupidity!)

    Much of our discussion of inspiration centers around how the original text came into being. This is, indeed an interesting topic, but the majority of our differences come not from potential differences in the source texts but rather from our ways of interpreting them (see my post yesterday, Book: I’m Right and You’re Wrong). Further, I think our affirmations about inspiration often fly in the face of what we actually observe in scripture. This can result in us trying to make scripture fit our conception of what it ought to be.

    If nothing else, the incarnation, in which God acts very much contrary to what everyone expects, should suggest to us the dangers of trying to force God’s actions into our molds. But it seems to me that we do this with scripture.

    Consider Isaiah 7:1-17. This contains the famous “virgin” passage, but that’s not what I want to discuss. Read the passage carefully and look who’s talking at various points. I identify a narrator who gives the historical situation and then reports that Isaiah got a word from the Lord with instructions for action and a message to give to Ahaz. We also have a report on Isaiah’s action, and then some words that Isaiah said, some of which appear to be the words of the Lord, but some appear to be Isaiah simply expounding on what God is going to do. This entire passage is part of an overall Bible book which includes more than one type of literature, and even includes an historical interlude, but only a fraction of the whole claims to actually be God’s words.

    There are those who think I make these comments because I don’t believe the Bible is very historical. I would note that I am not very disturbed by those who are skeptical of the historicity of many Bible passages. But I really find relatively little in the parts of scripture that actually claim to be history that I cannot accept as at least generally historical. What I mean here by “generally” is that I treat an account that says it’s taken from the “chronicles of the kings of Judah” (1 Kings 14:29 and many other references) as precisely that: it’s taken from the chronicles and it has precisely the historical veracity of those chronicles, always adjusted for second hand reporting. I don’t see it as necessary or valuable for God to “fact check” the sources. The message (word) of God is conveyed by the testimony (words) of a human writer depending on the words of other human writers.

    Considering that those words will in turn be interpreted by very limited human beings such as me, I’m pretty happy with that situation.

  • According to John – Excursus 1 – Interview with Dr. Bruce Epperly

    9781938434136sThursday night will represent an excursus in my study through the gospel of John, as I interview Dr. Bruce Epperly, author of the books Healing Marks and Process Theology: Embracing Adventure with God, about the healing stories of Jesus. We’ll be discussing what it means to say that Jesus was a healer and we’ll likely have time to talk about words like “panentheism” that have come up in the study thus far. You can use the link above for more details. I’m embedding the YouTube player for this event at the end of this post.

    There’s also something to look forward to further down the road. Dr. Herold Weiss, author of our text Meditations on According to John, will join us on March 12 to discuss his approach to the gospel. We’ll touch on date and authorship, but most importantly on the theology of the book.

  • Did Jesus Give the Great Commission?

    Thomas Hudgins, writing on the Across the Atlantic blog he shares with Antonio Piñero, asks whether the gospel commission is original with Jesus, i.e., did Jesus say these words. I’ve been thinking of writing a post about historicity in general, though I’ve been focused on the Gospel of John, which I’m working through in a series of Google Hangouts on Air.

    (I’ll be announcing details of the next hangout tomorrow, but I’ll let you know ahead that Dr. Bruce Epperly, author of Energion titles Process Theology: Embracing Adventure with God and Healing Marks, will be joining me this Thursday night at 7:00 pm central time. You can find this via my YouTube channel.)

    Yesterday I posted on the issue of copying and translation, and there I deal only with the reliability of the transmission process. The original doctrine could be fiction or a forgery for that matter, and it wouldn’t impact my points in that earlier post. Discussing the reliability of scripture involves a number of different topics.

    It’s unlikely to surprise any of my regular readers that I think this isn’t as simple a question as it might first seem, i.e., there are more than two (yes/no) answers available to the question of whether Jesus spoke these words.

    Here are some possibilities as I see them:

    1) This could be essentially a word for word record of words spoken by Jesus. The word for word accuracy could result from someone with an excellent memory, from someone who took notes (unlikely but not impossible), or due to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. (While I don’t see any evidence that the Bible’s words were dictated by God, I don’t doubt God could if God so desired.)

    2) This could be a speech created to fill out a more general memory. In other words, the writer of the gospel might be recording a memory or tradition of a meeting with Jesus in which he gave such instructions to the disciples, but the words themselves could be a literary construction.

    3) This could be an event that ratified the early church’s perception of a call to reach the whole world, with this call derived from various things Jesus said to them, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in their lives (perceived or actual).

    4) It could be a complete construction without any basis other than the goals of the early church.

    The reason I think it’s important to break these differences out is that the binary response might result in an inaccurate perception. I, for example, believe that Jesus did meet with the disciples following the resurrection. Various stories of these meetings imply different things about spiritual vs. physical appearances, and I”m not concerned with that issue. For a church that believes in resurrection, things said by Jesus in either form of appearance should be regarded as things said by Jesus, just as Paul’s call, a visionary experience, is considered valid.

    Nonetheless I am not convinced that we have an extremely close, word for word record of the activities of Jesus. I believe we have a record taken from memories and orally transmitted. Even if the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, they were written some time after the events were recorded, and recalling every detail of the speech is unlikely.

    Again, I fully believe that the Holy Spirit could recall such things precisely, but I don’t see evidence that he did. In fact, to the extent that I see eyewitness testimony in the gospels, I see very human eyewitness testimony, with differences in perspective, in details, in focus, and so forth.

    So if you asked me the original question in binary form, I’d feel obligated to say no, but that would tend to make hearers/readers believe that I don’t accept that the gospel commission originated with Jesus.

    Quite the contrary, I believe it did, though I believe the church took some time to grow into it. So answering for myself, I would say something like my #2 above. I take this position because I believe that a robust set of appearances of the risen Christ would be necessary to launch the Christian movement.

    On the other hand, while I consider #2 most likely, I have no problem with those who would choose #3. I believe that God led not only with the physical presence of Jesus, but with the presence of Jesus with the church through the Holy Spirit. Thus I am not disturbed by the suggestion that this is largely a construction.

    Many of my more conservative friends are disturbed by what doesn’t disturb me. (One should note the tag line of this blog, “passionate moderate, liberal charismatic Christian.” There are reasons why I have been called liberal!) But the fact is that while I tend to be slightly conservative in my own assessment of historical issues, I find the reason for my faith more in an experience of the living God.

    When asked why I believe, I quote the song: “You ask me how I know he lives, he lives within my heart.” When I returned to the church after a 12 year “wilderness wandering” following completing graduate school, it was not because I was suddenly convinced that the historical problems of the Bible had been solved. There was no change in my intellectual assessment of historical data. What actually happened was that no matter how hard I tried to avoid it, I truly did believe in God.

    Fortunately I had already encountered ways of approaching scripture from various teachers that allowed me to re-encounter God in scripture. (Without intending to blame any of them for my own theological positions, I would mention Lucille Knapp, Dr, Alden Thompson, Dr. Larry Geraty, Dr. Sakae Kubo, and Dr. Leona Running, all of whom, and many more, helped shape the concepts that go into my understanding of scripture. Since my return to faith, I have added many more to that list.)

    Because it was not a conviction about the historicity of scripture that brought my faith back into activity, debates about the historicity of scripture do not have the power to shake my faith. In fact, I welcome and embrace them.

    I am truly delighted that there are people who see and preach the grace and love of God who differ in their understanding of historical (and even theological) issues. I welcome things that clear the way for us to look up (John 3:14-15).

    I am confident in Jesus. I am not confident in any particular historical or theological construction. I can discover that I am wrong, and hopefully correct myself. He is always there and never mistaken.