Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Biblical Inspiration

  • KJV Nostalgia and Standards

    Suzanne McCarthy, on the Better Bibles Blog has blogged somewhat about nostalgia for the KJV language and for the standard English Bible that was accepted by everyone in a post titled The 1611 King James Text. I like Suzanne’s work, and this is not intended as a critique of her comments, but she collects the various links quite nicely and I’m saving time (and being lazy) by linking to her and you can follow the rest from there. Besides, Better Bibles is a good blog for you to look at anyhow, and I have a list of posts there that I intended to comment on, but haven’t had time. (Hmmm! Having read this again, I want to repeat that nothing here is aimed at Suzanne’s post; I thank her for the convenient references and for her useful comments.)

    I want to examine briefly the key element that most of the nostalgia posts about the KJV have in common, which is the element of moral authority. In the past, the argument goes, there was the KJV which all regarded as a standard, and which was used to settle all arguments. This admirable (to some) state of affairs has now been shattered by the existence of multiple translations so that nobody is sure anymore what the Bible really says.

    This reminds me of a young man who came by our booth at a show where I was displaying my book, What’s in a Version?. His major question, repeated often through about a half an hour of discussion (it was a slow show) was this: “What is your absolute standard? Where do you have a book that you can hold in your hand and say, ‘This is the Word of God’?” What he wanted was something in English, accessible to him, that gave the absolute answers.

    The answer to his question is that no such book exists, no such standard exists, and none has ever existed.

    Previous generations may have been sure that they held the absolute one and only Word of God in their hands when they held their KJVs, and modern KJV only advocates may try to stand in their footprints, but they are both surely wrong! The fact is that even if we had only the KJV to guide us, there would remain substantial differences of interpretation. We might be pointing back at the same book, but we would not be getting the same standard things from it. But that’s not really the issue or the state of affairs.

    • When the autographs were penned, there was no Bible, there was just a collection of scrolls. There was no single book that one could hold and say, “This is the Word of God!”
    • When the New Testament canon was finally collected, the autographs were probably no longer in existence, and certainly not collected into a book. Differences between manuscripts, sometimes substantial, already existed. There was no single book that one could hold and say, “This is the Word of God!”
    • When the New Testament and the Hebrew scriptures (as the Old Testament) were first collected together into books, the version of the Old Testament used was a translation, and one of quite variable quality. There was no single book that one could hold and say, “This is the Word of God!”
    • When the KJV was translated, based on several earlier English versions, there were both numerous translation options in English, and numerous variations in the available manuscripts. There was no single book that one could hold and say, “This is the Word of God!”

    This search for the supposed “standard” in the form of a book is simply a search for security where none is available. There is no great benefit in being sure but wrong, as our ancestors were in regarding the KJV as the one authority. The weakness of that position is demonstrated by the collapse of that position when contrary evidence was discovered. Now there are many who thought that such assurance was available in Christianity give up because they find that it is not available. It was a false trust, and it failed because it was false. There is no benefit in trying to step back towards an imagined standard.

    Let me be blunt. I think the problem here is much the same as the problem with idolatry–we put our trust in something less than God. Stealing from Tillich, we make our ultimate concern the KJV, which is considerable less than ultimate, and thus fall into idolatry.

    In supporting this idolatry, we use the standard arguments of idolatry, which go back at least to Exodus 32. Moses is missing. We don’t know where God is. We need something to hold on to, we need assurance, we need a standard. So we make a calf.

    There is no such standard, indisputable, not subject to misinterpretation, easily accessible to everyone. It does not exist. Short of God, that is. Inventing an alternative is idolatry and is doomed to failure.

    God has given us minds. He has created and he sustains a universe that is susceptible to serious study using those minds. He has given us the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit, as our guide, and he has provided the guidance of the past experience of those who were in communion with Him through the Bible. Now we just have to use the tools God has given us to make good, Godly decisions for our lives and for our communities.

    It’s not really that hard. But our natural human laziness asks God to provide us with clearer answers, ones that don’t take work. We are like a man provided with a stream filled with fish, rod, reel, hooks, and bait, who complains that he lacks fish because they won’t jump out into the pan. What God doesn’t provide we simulate, and because God knows that is our tendency he has forbidden us simulation as idolatry. He wants us to have the real thing.

    He could make us with finished characters, but he doesn’t. He lets us mature.

    14Solid food is for the mature, for those who through practice have exercised their understanding to distinguish good and evil. Hebrews 5:14 (from my project)

  • T4G Article II: Canon within Canon

    In a previous entry I discussed the inspiration of the Bible in response to the Together for the Gospel statement, Article I. Since I disagreed almost entirely with that article, and Article II also deals with the Bible, it is no surprise that I find much to disagree with in this second statement as well.

    Article II says:

    We affirm that the authority and sufficiency of Scripture extends to the entire Bible, and therefore that the Bible is our final authority for all doctrine and practice.

    We deny that any portion of the Bible is to be used in an effort to deny the truthfulness or trustworthiness of any other portion. We further deny any effort to identify a canon within the canon or, for example, to set the words of Jesus against the writings of Paul.

    I agree that the authority and sufficiency (whatever that means) of scripture extends to all of scripture, but for reasons I have previously stated, I do not agree that the Bible is our sole source of doctrine. The key to this article, however, comes in the denials, which show that it is intended to respond to the idea of a “personal canon” or a “canon within a canon.” Now I think the notion of a “personal canon” is logically questionable. A “canon” is a set of writings held by a community to be authoritative in some formal sense, such as church law. Thus a “personal canon” can be held to be oxymoronic. But there is a very practical point that is intended by the term; individuals build their spiritual life with different emphases on different portions of the scripture.

    As an example, other than the gospels, which I regard as central, I spend more time on the average reading the Pentateuch from the Old Testament and the general epistles, especially Hebrews from the New Testament. My wife tends to read more of the Psalms, some prophets, and her New testament reading other than the gospels generally comes from Paul’s less theological letters such as 1 & 2 Corinthians. But neither of us would deny that what the other is reading is inspired. This is a sort of “practical” canon within a canon.

    But I agree with the statement here to the extent that someone who defines a separate canon while denying the inspiration of other writings separates himself to some extent from the community. When the “canon within a canon” becomes more than a practical choice for my own spiritual walk and I start denigrating the authority of other scriptures for other people, then there is a cause for concern.

    But setting the words of Jesus against the words of Paul is another matter. First, there is the simple point that God chose to give the scriptures through different writers at different times and in different places. There is evidence of these differences in the writings. I believe a greater danger is the homogenizing of these differences that God put into scripture. It is not honoring scripture, or the God of scripture, to pretend that it is not constructed the way it is.

    But more importantly, this phrase is a code-word for those who build a theology out of Paul’s writings and use it as a basis to ignore the words of Jesus. Jesus talks about holiness of life and obeying the law; Paul speaks against the law. It is essential to their theology to keep people from setting the words of Jesus against their interpretation of Paul. It is common in discussion or in theological writings for them to use the words of Jesus and Paul equally because both, they say, are inspired.

    But to truly honor scripture, one must note that Paul’s words were written to a different audience than were those of Jesus. If one takes the differences seriously, then one will have to deal with what Jesus says brings salvation, and what Paul says brings salvation. One will need to deal with issues of behavior and holiness. When you homogenize scripture, on the grounds that it all comes from God, you immediately lose these nuances, and will form a theology that may be more systematic, but is less faithful to the experience of God reflected in scripture.

    In addition, those who form theology from Paul in this way tend to form their theology largely from the more theological books of Romans and Galatians, and particularly from the parts where Paul expresses his theological foundation. But salvation is also discussed in 1 Corinthians, with much less theology and much more practical application, and in both Romans and Galatians, when Paul gets down to application, he sounds much more like Jesus. One possibility that must be examined here is that modern readers have misunderstood Paul’s basic theology and its application, and may need to check their application against Paul’s.

    For example, the conclusion of some that one can be saved without the fruit of faith is clearly challenged starting with Galatians 5. Theologians have found many ways to work around this, but all of these ignore some aspect of the text. (I apologize for making broad statements with little support, but I’m trying to work through this in a reasonable amount of time. I have discussed a good deal of this material in my essay A Fruitful Faith.)

    Thus while I have some agreement on the point of a canon within a canon, I must reject what I believe is the real thrust of this statement. One cannot simply combine texts from Jesus, Paul, and other writers on the basis that all come from God. One must understand the overall view of each one and then see how they mesh. One must not limit what Jesus can say based on what he must be saying because of some theological principle gleaned from Paul.

    Let me also repeat one last time: If you are a Christian who believes the incarnation, you must logically believe that Jesus is more important than any other person, whether a writer of scripture or not. Jesus is central.

  • T4G Article I: The Bible

    The first two articles of the Together for the Gospel statement relate to the Bible. I’m going to deal primarily with the first article in this short essay. The article reads:

    I find myself so fundamentally in disagreement with this article that practically every word requires some sort of response. Since I have written fairly extensively on Biblical inspiration in articles available on the internet, I will refer to those where possible and only summarize my difficulties.

    We affirm that the sole authority for the Church is the Bible,

    It’s interesting that the major portion of the history of faith in the world in general occurred without the Bible, and even more without the Bible as we have it today. If the Bible is the sole authority, God took his time about creating that sole authority. Where in the Bible is there a statement that the Bible is the sole authority? If one is to hold to this type of exclusive view of “sola scriptura” then there should be a basis in scripture for:

    • The canon of scripture, which is nowhere specified in scripture
    • The use and interpretation of scripture, again unspecified, though we have examples of some interesting approaches
    • The precise text of scripture.

    Note that I don’t have a major problem with these issues. The Bible is the foundation of my faith, but then I don’t make any claim that the Bible is the exclusive authority. One of the key errors that stands behind the T4G view is the understanding that when the Bible refers to the “word of God” one can apply all those things that are attributed to “the word” to the Bible. For a more detailed discussion of this issue, see the pamphlet What is the Word of God.

    Throughout Biblical history the church was led by prophets, apostles, and other leaders who were said to be in some sort of communion with God. There is no indication of a time when a collection of literature would become the sole authority. This does not mean that the Bible is not fundamental, or that it is not extremely important, or that it does not convey God’s word. In fact, I would say that its authority is foundational, but it provides the foundation for a structure. The Christian church is not founded on a book, but on a person.

    verbally inspired, inerrant, infallible, and totally sufficient and trustworthy.

    You will search the Bible in vain for scriptures that actually affirm these doctrines. Skipping over the more complex theological definitions, verbally inspired is generally understood to mean that the words of scripture, and not just the thoughts or the message, is inspired. Some of those who hold that the Bible is verbally inspired also hold that it was verbally dictated, that God provided the very words of scripture to the prophet. Others hold that God protects the words so that we can safely say they are God’s words, even though the personality of writers show through. The end result is very similar, because one assumes that each word is there by God’s direct choice; not God’s choice of a writer or a message, but his choice of a specific word.

    Inerrancy is normally understood as the claim that the Biblical autographs are without error in all it affirms, no matter what the topic, thus including science and history. A minority will hold that a particular translation or manuscript contains the perfect word of God. This latter position is clearly nonsense, because no matter what translation of manuscript one chooses, one also excludes the majority of the readers of the Bible throughout history from having such an inerrant scripture. Inerrancy of the autographs suffers from a lack of any autographs by which one might check the claim. If God was concerned that the autographs be without error, he was apparently inexplicably unconcerned with seeing that the actual copies that you and I can read are without error.

    Infallibility is a vacuous claim to make about a book, simply because the book does not, in fact, do anything. Interpretations can clearly be in error. It seems more important to me to understand how people get information from the book. Infallibility that is inaccessible is of little interest, and one need only read a few commentaries or books on Biblical theology to see that infallibility is apparently inaccessible.

    Totally sufficient and trustworthy causes me to wonder what it is that the Bible is totally sufficient for. Normally theologians will say “totally sufficient for salvation,” though many will maintain that under appropriate circumstances considerably less than that is sufficient. This claim seems to me to hardly go beyond saying that the Bible is what it is. I agree! And I think it is sufficient to its purpose. I also find it trustworthy, provided we are careful to understand what its purpose is. It is no trustworthy, for example, as a science text. That’s not a criticism, just an observation. It was never intended as a science text. It does not replace one’s personal communion with God. Again, it was never intended to.

    More important than the items of definition I have pointed out is a common failing of all these claims about scripture: They all rely on a particular approach to developing a Biblical theology of the Bible. The common approach is to take a passage such as 1 Peter 2:19-21 or 2 Timothy 3:16, and then decide on the basis of these texts what the Bible ought to be. Other than the circularity of this approach, which can be ameliorated through other theological approaches, I find it interesting that in the face of a substantial history of the Bible and how it came to be, so many theologians prefer to define what they want it to be, rather than simply observing what it is.

    2 Timothy 3:16 provides us with the word “theopneustos” or “God-breathed” which has been made to carry a great deal of freight. But when God breathed into Adam he didn’t make him inerrant, he made him alive. What exactly is the content of a text that is God-breathed? But this issue applies much more to verbal inspiration. The evidence against verbal inspiration is very strong in the text and the history itself. There are certainly words that are attributed to God, but there are also words that are clearly not attributed to God. The synoptic problem presents us with clear evidence that the gospel writers copied from one another, that there are different sources in the Pentateuch, Samuel, and Kings, just as examples.

    My point here is not to recite again the details of the inspiration of scripture, which I have deal with elsewhere (Inspiration, Biblical Authority, and Inerrancy and my posts on inspiration in my studies on Hebrews), but rather to suggest that we need to use a different method. If the history of the Biblical text were completely obscure, we might have an excuse to determine its nature by creating standards based on texts, but instead we have extensive material available. We know that one author copies from another, we know that there are various sources, we know that there are differing viewpoints. (I will comment on this issue a bit more in my entry on Article II.)

    We deny that the Bible is a mere witness to the divine revelation,

    I don’t get the phrase “mere witness.” To me, the most wonderful thing about the Bible is that it is a witness to divine revelation and to divine action in history. The fact that it is written by humans who are subject to error as I am makes it much more accessible. I know that one can live by faith because Abraham, Moses, and Jesus did. This witness is not mere, it is critical. The author of Hebrews uses it as a showcase for his argument in Hebrews 11.

    or that any portion of Scripture is marked by error or the effects of human sinfulness.

    But the copies that we actually have are marked by error. I do not mean extensive error, but Biblical inerrantists will not allow the smallest error in the autographs, and yet are satisfied with a 98% or 99% accurate copy. Of course one can’t determine that for certain again, because we don’t have the autographs. I don’t think this is a serious problem for Bible study, interpretation, and application, but that is because I don’t believe that inerrancy is relevant to those issues at all.

    The effects of human sinfulness are all around us. The very fact that we need to hear the word through prophets or read it in books is the result of sin and our separation from God. Without human sinfulness there would be no need for the Bible at all.

    Inspiration is an incarnational process, God breathing life into imperfect words in imperfect human language to be preserved imperfectly by imperfect copyists, read imprefectly by imperfect readers, preached by imperfect preachers, and discussed by very imperfect bloggers such as myself.

  • Basis of Faith and Meaning

    A number of people over the years have suggested that because of some doctrinal position or another that I hold, I no longer have a basis for my faith. Those who express themselves a bit less forcefully see it as a weakening of faith, a distancing from God, and a lessening of belief in God’s power. Two doctrines in particular tend to bring this response: 1) My rejection of Biblical inerrancy, and 2) My acceptance of the theory of evolution. In the second case, it seems also that people feel that an acceptance of the theory of evolution robs life of all meaning. If human beings were produced by a process of descent from the smallest form of life, somehow God no longer has a purpose, or no longer has control.

    I’ve been thinking about these things recently, and asking myself just what is the basis for a meaningful Christian life, a question that seems to me to combine these two issues quite nicely. Since I rarely have difficulty finding meaning in any particular day of my life, these aren’t questions on which I spend lots of time.

    Let me list some of the places from which people say they get meaning and find a basis for their faith:

    1. A certain set of historical events, such as the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus
    2. Certain spiritual experiences or encounters with God or the divine in some way.
    3. Don’t know, it just happened.
    4. A deep internal need for God.
    5. God made me specifically, and intended me for a specific purpose.
    6. Community, being part of a church or spiritual family
    7. I make my own meaning.
    8. I became convinced that the Bible was true for logical and historical reasons.

    That list is not exhaustive, but I think it illustrates this adequately. I would have to say that for myself, there are elements of the first, second, third, sixth, and seventh. The focus of my own meaning in the world, however, combines my personal encounters with God with making my own meaning. My encounters with God, however, mean that when I make my own meaning, I do so in relation to God, which doesn’t mean quite the same thing as it does by itself.

    So what would it take to shake my faith or even to make me abandon it? I really can’t think of anything. The classic question for Christians is what would happen if someone found a clearly identifiable body of Jesus, proving he was not physically resurrected. Since I do believe in the physical resurrection, that would be troubling and would require some rethinking of elements of my faith. At the same time, I believe I would simply adjust to the other possibilites in the resurrection. If I had never experienced the risen Christ, I would not find the historical evidence anything like sufficient to convince me of the resurrection. If the physical evidence got worse, I would still have the experience of the risen Christ.

    Similarly, at one time I believed something very much like a hard version of inerrancy–there could be no errors in the Bible of any type, including in historical and scientific matters. Through study I became convinced that this was not the model of inspiration displayed by the scriptures. At the same time I knew that I heard the voice of God through the scriptures. So despite a substantial shift in the method by which I believe God communicates (and it’s quite possible I’ll again change my mind with further study!), I don’t doubt that God does communicate.

    I never had the problem that some people claim with evolution, which is the loss of meaning. I went from believing that God literally formed the first human being from dirt and then literally breathed into this statue so that it became a living creature (Genesis 2:7), to believing that God formed a human being through the process of descent with modification, and when that being was the human being he intended, he saw that it was good. Notice that I don’t see God as ever getting further from the formation of man. The method changed; the result was the same.

    In a conversation with my wife I was searching for an analogy for this difference in the method by which a person was formed. I proposed the difference between a mother laboring and giving birth to a child versus a C-Section. She suggested more the difference in the connection between a parent by birth or by adoption. I still feel a little closer to the first analogy; there really is no difference in how connected the mother is to the child in either birth. I will admit that if adoption (or step-parenting) is done properly, I agree with my wife’s point. The tie should be created and should exist just as tightly as a blood tie. But I’m not sure people understand it that way. The key is that God’s parent-child relationship with human beings is not changed by the method by which he produces those children. It has always interested me that many are happier being descended from dirt than with the idea of being descended from a small life form that lived in dirt–or water.

    I think that if the meaning of your life is shaken by any change in the method of your creation, that meaning may be pretty loosely attached in the first place. You may need to look at your experience of God and your connection to God. I’m often accused of putting more weight on science than on the Bible and faith, but in a most fundamental way I think it is creationists who put a greater weight on science than I do. The methodology of science is, for me, a way of learning about the physical world, with results that are tentative and subject to change at any moment. They have to be, because we learn new things. My meaning doesn’t come to me from my understanding of the function of the physical world, and it isn’t shaken when new things are discovered about the physical world. I’m really placing much less weight on science in my spiritual life than the creationist who feels that he must find a scientific basis for everything in Genesis in order to uphold the faith.

    1Now faith is the substantial nature of things we hope for, the clear conviction of things we don’t see. 2By this means the elders were approved.

    3By faith we understand that the universe was made by the word of God, so that things which are seen didn’t come out of things already visible. — Hebrews 11:1-3 (TFBV)

    It’s my faith–my belief in, my confidence in, and my trust in God that gives substance to my spiritual hopes and gives me clear conviction. This is a different category of “knowing” than knowing that the earth orbits the sun, or accpetance of common descent. Even using the word “knowing” is deceptive, because it is entirely subjective. I can’t prove it to you, I can’t make you hear me. I have good friends who think I’m irrational because of it, and I understand their point of view. But I have the firm conviction.

    This is a conviction that worked from Abel, Enoch, Abraham, and Moses, who had no scriptures at all. They couldn’t believe that scriptures were without error, because they had no such option. They only had their belief that they had encountered and communicated with the living God. That gave them enough to work with, and gave them meaning in their lives. They didn’t have the doctrine of the incarnation or the resurrection. But they were faithful nonetheless.

    39And these all, having received approval of faith, did not receive the promise, 40since God concerning us foresaw something better, so that without us they would not come to completion. — Hebrews 11:39-40 (TFBV)

    Their belief was without seeing, without scripture, and yet they received approval and remained firm. I’m not against facts as part of your faith. But the foundation had better be deeper than the details.

  • Hebrews 1:5-14

    I’m going back now to fill in some of the blanks in my blogging on the book of Hebrews. My series of classes is finished, and I’ll focus just a little bit more narrowly than I did in a series of thematic classes taken from the book.

    Following his introductory long sentence (1:1-4) our author immediately moves back to establishing the details of his broad claim. He wants to show that Jesus is greater than any previous revelation, and from that he will establish the better priesthood, the better sacrifice, the greater salvation, and the greater need to carry on to the end. We have already seen to some extent how he interleaves his goal–faithful endurance–with the reasons supporting it. So first we will hear about how Jesus is greater than the angels, then we will hear a little bit about the nature of the salvation that Jesus brings (2:1-4), and then again we hear about who Jesus is (2:5-18), and so forth through the book.

    In this section we will also see our author’s use of the Old Testament in his teaching. He’s quite willing to slice and dice it, phrase by phrase, and use what would seem to be minor points in their original context to make major points in his context. I’m going to blog later on his use of the Old Testament. For now, I will only make brief remarks as it applies to the way in which the passage is being used.

    5For to which of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son, today I have given birth to you” [Psalm 2:7] or again, “I will be a father to him, and he will be a son to me”? [2 Samuel 7:14]

    It’s useful here to read both of these verses in their Old Testament context, not because the author is using them in context–he’s not–but because he is aware of the context, and is drawing meaning into the passage. He can count on his readers having some knowledge of the passages from which he is drawing. The first, Psalm 2, is a royal Psalm and most likely would be used for coronation and/or confirmation of the king. The second, 2 Samuel 7, is God’s words to David about his successor, Solomon, and what his relationship would be to that king. Neither passage, in context, appears to be predictive.

    So what is going on here? First, let me note that New Testament writers are not afraid to make use of Old Testament language in just about any context, borrowing it, paraphrasing it, or alluding to it as it suits them. But second, we should be aware of typology, which understands a present event in the light of past events. As an example, let me cite Matthew 2:15, “out of Egypt I have called my son.” Matthew uses this citation as a prophecy, to be fulfilled in Jesus, specifically that Jesus went to Egypt as an infant, and came back to Judea and then Galilee.

    But if we read the citation, from Hosea 11:1, we will find that not only is this not a prophecy but rather a historical reference, there are a number of elements in the next few verses of Hosea 11 that we would certainly not want to apply to Jesus. But Matthew accomplishes something with this reference that we modern folks often miss. He’s letting us know that he interprets the mission of Jesus in the light of the exodus from Egypt, right down to the sacrifice of the passover lamb. How well that works is another matter. Our modern focus is on whether Hosea was predicting this particular event in the life of Jesus, and we must conclude that he is not, if we’re faithful to the context of Hosea. But while Matthew may think of this single sentence as a prediction, his greater concern with it is to tie the mission of Jesus with the a previous act of salvation history, the exodus from Egypt.

    So back to our text. The greatest point here is to establish that Jesus is greater than the angels. Like the kings of Israel, and especially Solomon, God calls Jesus “Son.” I believe that the royal element in the mission of Jesus is implicit throughout Hebrews even though it is not developed. It is likely that the author assumes an understanding of the royal metaphor for who Jesus is, and simply wants to establish the other elements–priest and sacrifice.

    6But again when he brought the firstborn into the world, he said: “And let all the angels of God worship him.” [Deuteronomy 32:43 LXX; Psalm 97:7]”

    We’re again working with a single phrase, and the worship referenced in context is worship of YHWH as God. For Jewish readers this would have been quite an astounding verse to quote. This verse would work very poorly to convince opponents. But if you combine it with 2:1-4, we get a verse to draw Jesus, already known to be divine in some sense, into the act of worship.

    7Rather he says concerning the angels:

    “He who makes his angels spirits {winds}
    and his servants flames of fire.” [Psalm 104:4 LXX]

    In this case the LXX quote is required. The Hebrew can be read in this way, but it is not the most likely translation. See my notes on Psalm 104.

    8But concerning the Son he says:

    “Your throne, God, is eternal,
    and the Scepter of your kingdom is a righteous one.
    9You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness,
    Therefore God, your God, has anointed you;
    With {olive} oil of rejoicing amongst your companions.” [Psalm 45:6-7]

    If I were translating this myself, I would translate Psalm 45:6 thus:

    “Your throne is a divine one, forever and ever,
    Your royal scepter is one of justice.”

    I suspect that the combination of royalty and divinity is precisely what was desired by our author again. Read Psalm 45 in context to get the flavor there.

    10And:

    “At the beginning you founded the earth;
    The heavens are the work of your hands.
    “11They will pass away, but you remain.
    They all become old like a piece of clothing,
    12and as a canvas you roll them up.

    Now we are dealing with pure divinity, in material written of YHWH himself.

    13To which of the angels has he ever said:

    “Sit at my right hand,
    Until I set your enemies as a footstool for your feet”? [Psalm 110:1]

    And again back to a royal Psalm, but one which we will hear about later. This is the Psalm that mediates the use of the story of Melchizedek, who becomes the type for the eternal priesthood.

    14Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out for the sake of those who are about to inherit salvation?

    Essentially, angels are servants, and Jesus was more than that. He has really only hinted at this rather than proven it in these few verses, but he has snuck a rather large amount of typology, especially royal typology, into his argument.

  • Genesis 3: The Story of the Fall

    I just completed drafting a translation of Genesis 3 for my Totally Free Bible Version project, which is simply where I make my personal translation work available free on the web for anyone who wants to use it within a very limited set of rules. I want to comment some on this story and its meaning in the Christian tradition.

    If you haven’t read my materials on Genesis 1 & 2, you might want to follow the link now just to get some background. In addition you will find some useful information in my series on the historical critical method on my Threads from Henry’s Web blog. The first article is Biblical Criticism Overview – I, and the category is Biblical Criticism.

    Introduction

    A fundamental question in dealing with Genesis especially is just what type of literature each passage is. A great deal of the way we interpret a passage depends on the type of literature we perceive it to be. Both young and old earth creationists, for example perceive the first 11 chapters of Genesis to be narrative history in some fashion. The debate between their two positions has to do with precisely how one understands certain terms in the narrative. Old earth creationists, for example, will tend to see more distance betweent he symbols and the reality.

    I like the illustration used by Derek Kidner in his commentary on Genesis in the Tyndale Old Testament commentary series (see the end of this entry for links). On page 66 he discusses the differences in terms of history between the historical description of David’s sin in 2 Samuel 11, and the prophetic restatement of that in 2 Samuel 12:1-6. I think that distinction is a good one to keep in mind, but one should also be aware that Nathan’s parable that narrated David’s sin is intended in some way to convey historical facts, though concealing somewhat their real referent (even David doesn’t realize who he is condemning), and clarifying the moral issues involved.

    I would like to add a third category here–not intended as historical narrative at all. Gerhard von Rad, in his OTL commentary, tries to present these early chapters of Genesis as heavily demythologized, and indeed compared to their ancient near eastern parallels they are. But at the same time there are many mythological elements remaining, and I believe those elements, along with the function and message of the story, give us ample justification to read these passages as myth, and to accept them as performing the function of myth within early Israelite culture.

    What indicators show me that this should not be read as narrative history? Those who have read my earlier discussions of Genesis 1 & 2 will notice that some of the same reasons apply, but chapter 3 is even easier. In fact, I have some difficulty seeing how so many people can read this chapter and actually expect it to convey narrative history. Kidner’s comment that the New Testament writers take it as history (op cit, 66) misses the point, I think, simply because as a myth it is well suited to provide the foundation for precisely the type of doctrines Paul especially was presenting. We are separated from God and need to be reconciled. We are separated from eternal life, and must be redeemed by Jesus.

    Indeed, one of the most common passages used to read Satan into Genesis 3, and also involved in trying to make it history, is Revelation 12, which itself is pulled out of the narrative sequence. In my study guide to Revelation, I title that section the timeless conflict, because the rebellion of humanity, or in general creaturely rebellion and separation from God and God’s saving activity is not limited to a single historical instant.

    In this chapter, however, we open with a talking snake. As we will note there is no indication that the snake is anything but a snake, except that he talks. Then we have magic fruit. Notice that the effect comes automatically. At the end of the chapter God has to block the way to the tree of life because if human beings gets back there they will obtain eternal life magically. There is mythology removed here, but this is not entirely demythologized!

    So in my view the chapter expresses a state, an ontological reality, without providing us a narrative of the process. One could understand this as indicating an instant in which humanity was offered close communion with God and preferred instead to live independently. It could, as Tillich might express it, simply state the separation of the finite being from the infinite ground of all being. In either case the end-state is the reality with which we live, and the reality from which we look to be redeemed. At the same time, I think there is a clear sense of something gained as well. Humanity accepted cognition, choice, and moral responsibility. As a result, redeemed humanity will be, I think, greater than a humanity that never went through that experience and never experienced the choice to do right or wrong. (Pardon a little extemporaneous theologizing!)

    Sources

    This passage has a single source, the J source, and ties closely with Genesis 2:4-25. If you were reading the priestly source alone you would go from Genesis 1:1-2:3, and then go straight to chapter 5, following which you would read about the flood as the first sign that things went bad. In this case, we have the story of the fall, then Cain and Abel, then the crash represented by chapter 6.

    But this chapter is a unity. If there are any borrowing or other sources, they are at the phrase level.

    Translation and Notes

    Note: Regard this translation as draft. It’s as fresh as this morning. 🙂 Scripture text is in blue.


    1Now the snake was more crafty than any of the wild creatures that YHWH God had made, and he said to the woman, “Has God said that you may not eat from every tree in the garden?”

    Note several things about the snake. He is not a special creation. He’s one of the creatures of the field. Other than being more crafty and able to talk, we get no introduction. I would simply suggest here that when you have talking snakes, you’re probably dealing with something other than narrative history.

    2And the woman answered the snake, “We may eat the fruit of the trees in the garden. 3But regarding the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘Don’t eat from it or touch it, lest you die.’”

    It’s interesting that the woman immediately moves to put an extra buffer around God’s command. If you don’t touch it, you can’t eat it. Let’s be safe. But moral choices will often require us to operate at the limits of moral decision making. For example, as one makes a decision about the morality of stem cell research, how does one operate with a hedge. You have sanctity of life issues on both sides of the equation. You have to make a decision, and you don’t get to hedge it very much. Will you eliminate research that could save lives, or will you protect embryos?

    Eve wanted a hedge. She distanced herself from the problem.

    4And the snake said to the woman, “You will certainly not die. 5Indeed, God knows that on the day that you eat from it, your eyes will be opened, and you will become like divine beings, understanding both good and evil.”

    The odd thing here is that the snake turns out to be right, as the story goes on to show. We often try to ignore this, or interpret around it in Christian understandings of this chapter. “Well, they started to die,” we say. I would suggest that there is no way out of this dilemna within Christian theology except an understanding of grace. God intended them to die, but preserved their life instead. God can repent (Genesis 6:6). I think we have the first instance of it here, and I think we’re supposed to notice.

    At the same time note that God had never denied what the snake promised. He simply said, “Don’t eat.” The possibility is left open that they would become like divine beings, and yet die as a result.

    I use the translation “divine beings” rather than “gods” because I think that fits better with the trend of the Torah as we have it now. It was not that they would become gods in the sense of being worthy of worship, but rather than they would share in an aspect of divinity, namely the ability to bring forth either good or evil.


    6When the woman saw that the tree’s fruit was good to eat, and pleasing to look at, and desireable so as to gain wisdom, she took from its fruit and ate it, and she also gave it to her husband with her, and he ate. 7And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they stitched together fig leaves and made themselves loin cloths.

    The woman “saw” that the fruit was good. We have an abbreviated narrative. Somehow the snake makes the woman see the fruit in the way he wants her to see it. This passage makes me wonder if we don’t have more of a narrative of internal struggle, the sort of struggle that takes place in any child who is contemplating something forbidden. It might be the cookie jar. Indeed, the cookies will taste good, and the child will experience pleasure from eating them, but there is a reason not to. An internal conversation convinces the woman that this is a pleasure worth having.

    Conversely, the text doesn’t tell us that the woman decided that God was wrong, even though that is what the snake had told her. She convinces herself that the fruit is good, and God’s statements about it recede conveniently into the background.

    8Then they heard the sound of YHWH God walking in the garden in the cool time of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from YHWH God among the trees of the garden.

    The immediate result of stepping out on their own is that the human couple are afraid. Notice that God is merely going for a walk, presumably looking to talk with the people he made and placed in the garden. He’s not blustering, throwing thunderbolts, threatening, stomping, or anything similar. He’s just taking a walk. Humanity has stepped out indepedently, but is afraid of the results.

    9And YHWH God called out to the man, “Where are you?”

    10And the man said, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked, and I hid.”

    11And God said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”

    The human couple had been naked since they were created, but suddenly it becomes important. With self awareness comes shame, shyness, uncertainty of how to present oneself. It’s something they will have to deal with on this new path they have embarked on.

    12Then the man said, “The woman whom you appointed to be with me, she gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate.”

    13So YHWH God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?”

    But the woman said, “The snake led me astray, and I ate.”

    Who says the Bible isn’t relevant? This scene takes place in myriads of households, myriads of schools, and myriads of workplaces every day! We’re confronted by something that has gone wrong, and everybody looks for the person who is to blame. Everyone points at someone else. It can’t possibly be our own fault.

    Notice that God doesn’t ask the snake anything. Is it possible that the snake is simply a symbol for an internal struggle, that God doesn’t deal with the snake because it’s being used by the woman as a “devil made me do it” kind of excuse? I don’t know, but I suspect there’s a reason why the snake doesn’t get to defend himself.


    14So YHWH God said to the snake, “Because you have done this, you are more cursed than any of the wild creatures. You will crawl on your belly and eat dust as long as you live. 15And I will place hostility between you and the woman, and between your descendants and hers. Her descendants will bruise your head, but yours will bruise her descendants’ heel.”

    I have no problem in Christian theology reading back into this passage some reference to redemption, but that is not the point in its original context. The passage here simply explains why snakes are considered dangerous, looked down on, and crawl on their bellies. They did a bad thing here and they are paying for it! Women have a feud with them. This is hardly the serpent of Revelation 12, cast down from heaven, or the great Leviathan, conquered by God.


    16To the woman he said, “I will make childbearing much more difficult for you. You will bear children in pain, yet you will desire your husband, and he will rule over you.”

    Again, a description of real life in the real world of that time at least. It doesn’t mention good pain medications or women’s liberation, but the equality of male and female is something promised in Jesus, after all, and not that much a reality in the history of the world thus far.

    My wife tells me that if men had to experience the pain of childbirth there would be no humanity, and I pretty much agree with her. Somehow women keep undergoing the torture and propagating the species.


    17To the man he said, “Because you listened to your wife’s voice, and you ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat from it,’ the ground will be cursed on account of you. You will eat from it only by hardship as long as you live, 18and it will bring forth thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat vegetables from the field. 19You will get bread to eat by laboring until you sweat until you return to the ground, because you were taken from it. Dust you are, and you will return to dust.”

    The man gets to work hard to produce food. But I think there is a spiritual dimension to this in that having given up total dependence on God he becomes dependent on himself. From now on he must make his own moral decisions as well as producing his own food, building his own shelter, and clothing himself and his family. Independence comes at a price.


    20So the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all people who were alive.

    21Then YHWH God made coats of skins for the man and his wife, and he dressed them.

    It’s interesting that Adam just now notices that Eve is the mother of all living. Perhaps it was of less importance before they were aware of their situation. In any case, to cover their nakedness, and prevent shame now that they were aware of it, they are clothed.

    22And YHWH God said, “Look! The human has become like one of us, understanding good and evil, and now, [we need to take action] lest he should take also fruit from the tree of life, and eat it, and live forever.”

    23So YHWH God sent him out of the Garden of Eden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken. 24And he dispossessed the man and made him live to the east of the Garden of Eden, and he placed Cherubim with flaming swords turning this way and that to guard the way to the tree of life.

    This is another “magic fruit” instance. There is a tree which God must prevent the human couple from reaching, otherwise they may become immortal contrary to God’s will. Surely this is not intended as narrative history! Symbolically, this says that God does not provide eternal life to those who are operating in complete independence from him, but the fact that the couple do not die, even though God had said they would, shows that he graciously extends life.

    Let me recommend three excellent commentaries on Genesis:

  • Revelation: Progressive or Continuous?

    Working on the book of Hebrews over on my Participatory Bible Study blog has led me to do some additional thinking about revelation or inspiration, and how it functions. One of the key claims of the book of Hebrews is that Jesus is a greater revelation than that provided by the Torah. In order to support this claim, he has to first establish that revelation is in some sense progressive, though he does not develop a doctrine of progressive revelation, but rather establishes that a new, greater revelation can supercede an earlier one.

    This is a key difference between Christianity and Judaism. Judaism sees the Torah as the ultimate revelation, and everything that follows is less authoritative. The idea of something appearing that would supercede the Torah is pretty much anathema. It is typical of later religions to make a claim that their own newer revelation is greater than what has gone before. For Christianity, it’s Jesus and the New Testament, but then many Christians want to claim that revelation has ceased. For Islam (or at least the vast majority of it), the Qur’an is the final revelation, and cannot be superceded. It’s finally the perfect thing.

    But Christians divide on this point, some believing in one form or another of continuing revelation, while others believe that revelation ceased with the age of the apostles. Amongst Christians liberals and charismatics tend to see revelation as continuing, while the reformed movement and those related to it see revelation as complete with the Bible. There are a number of special cases, such as the Roman Catholic church and the concept ofthe “magisterium.” Technically, this is not continuing revelation, but in effect, it certainly gives that appearance. The Latter Day Saints have their living apostles who can bring out new revelation.

    I grew up as Seventh-day Adventist, and one of the key controversies between SDAs and the rest of the Christian community is over Ellen White. Can you have a modern prophet, and how does this relate to scripture? Here again I think there is a difference in the way things are expressed and the way they are put into practice. My experience was that many Adventists used the writings of Ellen White as though they were scripture, no matter how church doctrine was stated. But I don’t think SDAs are alone on this issue. The place of the prophetic movement in charismatic and pentecostal churches is very similar and I see some of the same things being done either with words from the Lord, visions, and writings. Some conversation here between modern charismatics and Seventh-day Adventists might be valuable. I have often wondered how Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel would fare if we had as detailed a record of their lives, along with copies of every letter they ever wrote. Fortunately or unfortunately we don’t get to compare the first draft of Jeremiah with the second, and attempts at a chronology of his message are often quite speculative.

    So let me ask first whether revelation is progressive. I think “progressive” is a terribly dangerous word. In biology, evolution is often described as a progress from simple to complex, primitive to modern, with “modern” defined as “better.” As time goes forward some suppose that organisms become better adapted to their environment, so that we have a constant movement toward perfection. But if you read descriptions of evolution by actual biologists, this picture doesn’t seem to work quite as well. One can say for certain that variety has generally increased, i.e. there is more now than there was in the Cambrian period, but none of the other claims I mentioned can be made with certainty. “More complex” may mean less adapted, and thus natural selection would select for simplicity. The environment changes as well, so one cannot be certain that we’re always moving to better adaptation.

    Why bring biological evolution in here? Simply because progressive revelation is often compared to biological evolution, often in a negative sense. It’s part of the “applying evolution to everything.” Well, one can certain apply some evolutionary concepts to anything that changes, but that’s not really the issue here. “Progressive revelation” has gotten tangled with the same types of misunderstandings that are involved in biological evolution. First, it is assumed that any new revelation must automatically supercede an older revelation. Second, it is assumed that as time goes on the revelation we have in our possession will be better and better, i.e. that we will become closer and closer to the truth about God.

    Just as the inevitable progress of biological evolution does not seem so well founded, and just as adaptation can go on for many millions of years without any assurance that anything actually gets 100% adapted, so I see little reason to assume that revelation will be progressive in either of those senses. What I personally hear from the Lord is more adapted to my circumstances. A current revelation to a church community will be better adapted to their time and their place, but because we are imperfect people, we will always have problems fully comprehending that revelation. A perfect revelation cannot be 100% adapted to imperfect recipients.

    But my prior paragraph could easily be misunderstood. The biological analogy breaks down. The revelation is not, in fact, adapting itself. Rather, the revelation is coming to different people, in different circumstances, at different times, and in different ways. It has always been that way. We can refine our understanding, but again, because we are imperfect, there is no guarantee that we are always getting better. We can hope we are, but we cannot be certain. The next generation could look back at our time and laugh, just as many of us laugh at a prior time.

    I think that God is continually revealing himself, continually speaking. We hear with varied clarity. In scripture and established traditions, we take those things that have been heard, confirmed, and reaffirmed at many times and in many places. What Isaiah said is not necessarily better than what someone hears from the Lord in their morning devotions. But Isaiah’s words have been used and tested repeatedly by many people over a long period of our tradition, and so have been accepted as of genuine, general value over a wide geographic area and over a broad range of times and places. The fact that his book is scripture is a definition of the community that accepts it, not a simple derivation from the nature of the content.

    I know there will be those who are disturbed. I am overcome by delusions of grandeur, and am receiving revelations of the quality and value of those of the prophet Isaiah. [Pause for effect :-)] Well, no, I’m not. But if God speaks to me, and if I hear correctly, the words of God are just as true whispered in my ear as in anybody else’s. And of course they are just as true whispered in anybody else’s ear, including the ear of someone I despise, as they are in mine.

    I have more options to test these words now because I have scripture, as defined by my community, and I can even dabble in scripture as defined by other communities just to check things out. This increase in quantity and variety gives me an advantage. One pictures Abraham, as tradition suggests dealing with idols as was the family business, and suddenly addressed by God. “Get out of here! Go somewhere that I’ll show you!” Abraham has very little to go on. Scripture doesn’t exist yet, and won’t for centuries. He simply has to decide whether to accept what the voice says (presumably based on the patriarchal tradition, but do you want to decide on God’s voice based on your family tradition?) or not. I have it easier. I have a community; I’m not about to found one. I have other people who at least claim to hear God speak, though this is often more of a hindrance than otherwise. There’s more variety.

    But fundamentally God speaking is God speaking, and I don’t think it’s getting better or worse. We just have more instances of it to study. So I reject the term “progressive” and prefer “continuous.”

  • Hebrews 4:12-13: God’s Word is Alive and Active

    Yes, but what does it do?

    I sometimes think that this passage should be our key passage for the inspiration of the Bible rather than 2 Timothy 3:16. After opening with the wonderful passage in Hebrews 1:1-4, and telling us how God has communicated in so many ways, he begins to close the circle on the Word of God, and the powerful work that it does. The word came in many ways at many different times, but now it has come through a Son, Jesus Christ. This word challenges us to its quality and nature (Hebrews 2:1-4). God not only has information for us; he has a plan. We don’t only need to know the contents; we need to let our lives reflect that content. When we “consider the apostle and high priest of our confession” it is not so that we can polish up our doctrinal statements, it is so that we will be faithful to our confession.

    Hebrews 4:12-13 brings a close to this part of the argument and launches us into a new phase as we discuss priesthood. To catch the emphasis, let me translate very literally: “Living is the Word of God and active/powerful . . .” There has been some debate over whether our author here is talking about Jesus (John 1:1-3) as the word, or is talking about the scriptures. Scholarly opinion centers on the second. But I think both are too narrow. I think he has seen the marvelous ways in which God, through his word, intrudes himself into our lives. He sees the benefits that will result from responding to this activity and makes a call for us to be faithful to that call.

    That’s why the next section of this passage talks about knowledge. God’s word not only enlightens us and informs us, it discovers all that there is to be known about us. You can get a picture almost of dissection, but that wasn’t on our author’s mind. He was probably looking more at a combat metaphor of the skilled swordsman whose sword finds the precise mark. But in this case the purpose is not to wound, but to lay it all bare before the eyes of God. All creation is open to him because, after all, he is the creator of all creation. It’s all laid bare.

    The word of God is both informative and formative. It provides us with knowledge of God. It is God, knowing all there is to know about us. It is the motivator of our actions and the empowerment to do them.

    By the word of YHWH the heavens were made,
    By the breath of his mouth, all their host! — Psalm 33:6

    But then perhaps 2 Timothy 3:16 is not so far off after all. In fact, as I read it, I see much the same thing. “Every scripture is God-breathed, and is useful for teaching, for rebuke, for correction (straightening out), and for instruction in righteousness.” Isn’t that pretty much what this is saying? I find that this verse gets quoted more often to tell us what the content of scripture is. The Greek term “theopneustos” is analyzed to tell us how inspiration works, and what it must do to the words of scripture. In fact, the Revised English Bible translates, “All inspired scripture has its use . . .” and many people have told me that this takes all meaning from the verse. Not at all! What Paul is getting at here is how to put the scripture to practical use. The word is active, and we need to get active with the word. We need to let the word change us.

    One particularly important point I like to emphasize in Bible study is the need to let the word correct you personally first. It is so easy to read the Bible, or hear the word in any context, and find all of the things that other people need to hear. There is correction there for my wife, for my children, for my pastor, for my Sunday School class. But the real question is this: When that sword cut to the heart of the matter, what did it find?

    That should be the focus of our Bible study!

  • God’s Nature in the Natural World – Take 1

    Study Guide Q2: How much of God’s nature and will can be determined from nature? How do the natural and moral laws of God differ?

    This question spans this less and the next, which is about God as creator. I suggest doing it as I’m doing it here and taking a look first from the point of view of God’s direct or “special” revelation, and then looking at it again after looking at God as creator, and what this might mean about the physical world. Applicable additional reading is Psalm 33 and Romans 1-3. Genesis 1-2 & 6-9 provide more advanced background.

    This question is not a primary concern of the book of Hebrews. The reason I suggest studying it at this point is simply to round out one’s doctrine of divine communication. I think that too frequently we look simply at a doctrine of scripture, or of prophetic utterance, and not at the overall view of how God communicates with people.

    The author of Hebrews is focussed on God’s communication specifically through prophets. He does see this as happening in small portions at different times and in different ways. He also clearly sees the communication via the events of history and the testimony of individuals in the long history of God’s relationship with Israel (see especially Hebrews 11). His focus is on showing the superiority of the revelation though Jesus due to the superiority of the messenger. But just what is the actual superiority of the message?

    One exercise I suggest is taking each major topic and then re-reading the book of Hebrews with that topic and its major questions in mind. This means that if one completes all 13 lessons of the study guide, one will have read the book of Hebrews a minimum of 13 times during the course of that study. This may seem like a lot of reading to many people, but the book is actually only a few pages, and you will benefit from such study.

    But the revelation through prophets and even the revelation through Jesus Christ is not the whole of God’s revelation. Paul tells us: “For [God’s] invisible attributes, his unending power and divinity, have been understood and seen since the creation of the world” (Romans 1:20). I would suggest that this is a neglected text. Just how much can one learn simply from the creation without the benefit of direct revelation. Paul seems to think this revelation is sufficient that there is no excuse for missing the essentials of this revelation. Thus apparently one can derive from God’s created things sufficient to be in favor with God, i.e. presumably for salvation, and this is clear enough that one cannot be excused for failing to understand. I don’t think we give enough weight to the implications of this passage in Romans.

    But Paul continues later:

    12 All who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all. — Romans 2:12-16

    This passage makes several additional points. First, according to verses 15 & 16, this knowledge is sufficient for one to take into judgment, and God may find the person acceptable. Second, there is an interesting possible allusion to the law written on the heart (Jeremiah 31:33), a characteristic of the Messianic age. Third, it is apparent that one can follow the law instinctively.

    The further passages on the creation emphasize that the creation, the physical universe, results from God’s word, from God’s will and command. This suggests that we can learn a great deal about God simply from the way he has constructed the universe. I would suggest that Christians ignore this aspect of God’s revelation too frequently. I discuss one aspect of this in my post Evolution, Theology, and Respect.

    Let me suggest not conclusions, but questions:

    1. What can we learn about God from nature?
    2. What is the role of the Holy Spirit when we receive revelation?
    3. Does the Holy Spirit always enlighten the mind of one who honestly seeks knowledge (a broadened prevenient grace)?
    4. How does the revelation of God in the natural world interact with direct or special revelation?

  • Why Doesn’t God Speak Directly?

    Note: I strongly recommend that if you are taking my class in Hebrews, or who are following my study guide through the book answer the study guide questions before reading this entry. The purpose of the thought questions is to provide an opportunity to think. These are just some of my own thoughts on the question.

    Q#2: Why does God use prophets rather than speaking to everyone?

    The actual genesis of this question was in a small study group I was leading several years ago. Part of the group program was that we would take however much time the members wanted to and work through the meaning of each passage as long as the group cared to do so. This led to some rather lengthy arguments, and often to nitpicking the meaning. (You should only use this kind of approach in a study group if everyone truly wants to do it.) In one such session we were debating some passages in Revelation, and one of the members finally gave in to frustration and said, “Why can’t God just write all this out in the sky clearly, so that we would know beyond any doubt what it meant?”

    Now that’s not the same question I’m asking, but it’s related. We’re starting the study of Hebrews, and the key passage for this first lesson is Hebrews 1:1-4. God has spoken at various times and in various ways through the prophets. Now, in the last days, he has spoken by means of his Son. But you and I still have to listen to God speak to someone else. We don’t see a physical Jesus or hear him preach. Instead we read reports of what he said to other people 2,000 years ago. We don’t even get to listen to the author of Hebrews; indeed, we can’t seem to agree on who he (or some say she) is. So again we’re hearing him speak to other people, and we are kind of eavesdropping. Why doesn’t God make it clearer? Why doesn’t it speak directly to me?

    It’s not just speaking directly, though. It’s the clarity that’s important. If God would just make the message personal, we would not have to consider just what the principles are, and how to apply them to our own lives–we’d know!

    Personally I believe that God does speak to each person directly, but clarity is another matter. In doing prayer ministry, one reason people will ask me to pray with them is that they believe they have heard from God, but they’re not sure that it is God, or they’re not sure just how to put it into practice.

    This is not a question that we can resolve in a single blog entry, but it’s a good question to think about. Let me make some suggestions to think about, and then also provide links to some other things I have written on the same subject.

    1. God wants us to learn to think. We often treasure the work of the prophets, and we like the results of the wisdom writers, but are we willing to do the work that goes behind wisdom? Hebrews 5:14 tell us: “14Solid food is for the mature, for those who through practice have exercised their understanding to distinguish good and evil.” God may well want us to practice our own judgment and discernment and grow in wisdom.
    2. God wants us to hear from him in a community. Any one of us can go wildly astray on our own, but when we have accountability to brothers and sisters, at a minimum we have to consider the response of those close to us to what we say. Even writing this blog entry has made me give new consideration to this particular question.
    3. God wants to leave us free to make unpressured decisions. This is hard for some of us to understand, because we think we want to know and do precisely what God commands. But if God made himself too obvious, we might feel pressured just by his obvious presence, sort of like having the boss breathing down our neck.
    4. Those who actually listen to God are rare. It’s possible that God is speaking a great deal more than we are hearing, and that the prophets are the ones who listen more. If this one sounds good to you, make sure to consider the idea of the prophetic call Ezekiel 1 or Isaiah 6, for example, in this connection. Is it possible God calls many, and only a few hear and report the situation?

    Now let me provide a few links to material on this topic.

    For inspiration and testing claims that someone is speaking for God read my series that starts with The One Ended Crod. In addition, the Participatory Study Series pamphlets What is the Word of God?, The Authority of the Bible, and Spiritual Gifts: Prophecy.

    On the possibility that God prefers freedom to security and certainty, see my entry Evolution, Theology, and Respect.