by Dr. Bruce G. Epperly, pastor, professor and author of Process Theology: Embracing Adventure with God, Ruth and Esther: Women of Agency and Adventure, and more!
The Bible is a book of relationships and nowhere is it more evident than in the Books of Ruth and Esther. Ruth’s and Naomi’s survival depends on their care for one another and the kindness of strangers. Brought to power against her will and hiding her Jewish identity, Esther springs into action when Mordecai reminds her that God is work in these chance, and unpleasant events, to raise her up for just such a time as this. Queen Esther calls for fasting and praying. The young queen herself is transformed from a concern for individual survival to a commitment to the survival of her people, regardless of the cost to herself.
The God the Bible is a relational God. Abraham Joshua Heschel speaks of God’s relationship to the world in terms of the divine pathos. God cares. God is concerned about weights and measures, foreclosures, and the relationship between piety and poverty. If you don’t care for the poor, the prophet Amos asserts, you will soon experience a famine of hearing God’s word.
In the Biblical tradition, humankind is made for relationships. Although Jesus prized prayerful solitude, he reached out to the marginalized, vulnerable, and forgotten. He embraced the “nuisances and nobodies” (Crossan) as well as the rich and powerful. Jesus saw God as a loving parent, who feels our pain and rejoices in our celebrations. When Jesus proclaimed that as you have done unto the least of these, you have done upon me, he asserted that is God is touched, changed, and transformed by what happens here on earth in our relationships with one another. He also affirmed that God is constantly calling us to be faithful to God’s vision of healing, abundance, and Shalom.
The most pitied person in Biblical theology is the self-made individual – the man who builds a barn, contemplates contentedly his wealth without gratitude or generosity, and then dies that night. Paul’s image of the body of Christ suggests that we truly do experience one another’s joys and sorrows. When one suffers, all do; when one succeeds, all celebrate. We are intimately connected in what Martin Luther King described as the “beloved community.”
Today, process-relational theology describes the spirit of scripture insightfully and inspirationally. In process theology, we are joined. Everything we do shapes our neighbor, and we are shaped by the environment from which our lives emerge, whether this environment is spiritual, familial, educational, communal, economic, political, or planetary. We truly live in an ecological universe in which everyone matters and no one can truly succeed without the well-being of others.
In my books on Ruth and Esther and Process Theology, I have sought to explore the practical implications of scripture and theological reflection. Ruth and Esther remind us of the need for generosity and a secure social safety net. They clearly tell us that our flourishing and survival depends on a benevolent community of relationships to which we are obligated to contribute. Process theology takes the insights of Ruth and Esther one step further in proclaiming the global interdependence of life. What we do here radiates across the planet and contributes to the good or ill of people we may never meet. In process theology, every decision, including business, economic, and governmental is personal and global. Every decision brings more beauty or ugliness to the world and to God’s experience. Ruth and Esther and process theology invite us to move from individual self-interest to world loyalty, to go from individualism to servanthood, and to the place the well-being of others on par with our own. Yes, we must protect ourselves, but not by spiritual or political walls. Our calling is to do something beautiful for God, to recognize our profound dependence upon others and our responsibility within the intricate interdependence of life, and then commit ourselves as individuals, community members, and citizens to doing something beautiful for God and this good earth.
[slideshow_deploy id=’2461′]
Category: Bible
-
Bruce Epperly: Ruth, Esther, and Process-Relational Theology
-
Thomas Hudgins: On Being Filled with the Spirit
What do you think it means to be filled with the Spirit? Thomas Hudgins suggests just continuing to read Ephesians 5:18-21 to discover what will happen when we’re filled with the Spirit (audio only).
Thomas Hudgins led the team that translated Aprenda a Leer el Griego del Nuevo Testamento (David Alan Black, author). He is under contract writing a volume in our Topical Line Drives series on understanding textual criticism. He blogs at Jesus + Nothing = Everything and Across the Atlantic. -
Edward W.H. Vick: Interpreting Scripture
by Dr. Edward W. H. Vick, author of From Inspiration to Understanding: Reading the Bible Seriously and Faithfully, Philosophy for Believers, Creation: The Christian Doctrine and more!
Being Faithful to the TextSince the Scriptures are in some sense fundamental for the Christian theologian, how is he to be faithful to them in constructing theology? What does it mean for him to claim that what he says is in accordance with the Scriptures?
Is he simply to repeat what the Scriptures say? But that would not be to interpret. To repeat is not to bring us any closer to understanding, but only restates our problem, when we have difficulties with the text. But of course the theologian does not begin from scratch. He does not start on his own. He stands within a tradition of interpretation to which he is indebted both positively and negatively. He affirms and he criticises what that tradition says. If he is at all constructive he follows and he departs from the guidance it gives him.
The writer lived a long time ago. Is the temporal gap between him and us important or not? It may be. Time separates. I may be able to understand his meaning, and without any difficulty make it my meaning (whether I agree or disagree with it). But suppose his circumstances are very different from mine and what he said was closely related to his very different circumstances? Suppose indeed that what he took for granted can no longer be taken for granted since his culture no longer exists. How shall I interpret what he meant so that it has meaning for me? His words may well have a different meaning for me than they had for him. If that is the case, can we speak about being faithful to his meaning? How shall we know whether we are ‘taking’ his words correctly in our different situation? Note that the situation is different from one in which we want to know what the writer meant and could not (for various reasons) get him to pronounce on it (e.g. he was silent or he was dead). We are now asking whether there is a relation between his meaning and ours such that we may say that our meaning is a faithful interpretation of his.
‘Faithful’ here may mean: (1) that there is some common meaning or intention which we can specify between his meaning and ours; (2) that a generalization can be made to cover both meanings; (3) that our meaning is a possible derivative from his, that he may well have meant and understood what we understand by it if he were in our circumstances. In each case we have considered all the evidence available, historical, linguistic, literary, and theological. (4) that we in our time share the intention which the Biblical writer and in particular the writer of the New Testament shared and that we attempt to execute it in our context. The task is to interpret the revelation of God in Jesus Christ which takes place here and now. This involves presenting its meaning for us and its application to the situations which we now encounter. The continuity of the task is thus rooted in the continuity of God’s revelation in the past with his revelation in the present. This involves moving beyond strict ‘biblical’ theology to constructive or systematic theology.
Langdon Gilkey addresses himself to the question ‘how the theologian is “faithful” to the scriptural source and how he or she shows a continuity with the spirit of major elements of tradition.’4 He writes, ‘Does this mean the theologian copies or repeats the words, the categories, the propositions of Scripture and tradition; that he or she makes a précis of Scripture or writes a commentary on accepted dogma? If copying or repeating is futile because anachronistic, what is it that the theologian “draws” from this source and this resource?’5
He explains that the Christian tradition has a set of central symbols, through which it interprets the meaning of beliefs, values and goals.
‘In the Christian tradition these symbols find their normative expression, and for theology their source, in the Scriptures, since their primary reference is to the events of revelation to which the Scriptures witness. It is these symbols that are reinterpreted in various ways in tradition; and it is they that the theologian must reinterpret, re-present, in a manner intelligible to us and yet “appropriate” or faithful to their sense in their original locus.’6
The symbols to which Gilkey refers are such as the following: God as Lord, as judge, as electing, choosing, covenanting; God as giver of the Law, God as redeemer, God as faithful; the covenant, the elected people, the Messiah, the new age to come. These symbols familiar in the Old Testament reappear in a new pattern in the New Testament where they are centred around Jesus Christ. In turn, new symbols emerge: incarnation, atonement, resurrection, trinity, second advent.
He then explains the task of theology in reference to these symbols.
‘“Biblical theology” is the attempt to give a unified account of these symbols as they appear in the Old and New Testaments; historical theology is the story of these symbols as they have been reinterpreted in the tradition. Theology as a whole, then, concerns itself with these symbols and with their power to illumine our existence. The awesome and risky task of “constructive” or “systematic” theology is to provide or propose a unified contemporary understanding of that same complex of symbols, an understanding that is (a) faithful to their original sense in Scripture and tradition, (b) adequate to our own general experience, and (c) intelligible in our time.’7
Doctrine does not simply repeat or summarize the Scripture. For one thing, it uses language not found in Scripture. For another thing it is selective. How then does doctrine, theology, interpret Scripture? The task of systematic theology is to present the meaning for today of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. In doing so it uses language which the Bible does not use. The Christian Church has done that from the beginning. Such theology is constructive in that it does for us today what the writers of the New Testament were doing in their time: interpreting the Gospel of Jesus Christ. What we are in our turn interpreting in expounding the New Testament writings is itself a series of interpretations of this fundamental event. That event is Jesus Christ. As history proceeds each particular church community reflects upon the meaning of Jesus Christ for itself, and relates that meaning to the special circumstances of its own history. It will also take account of, and select from, the long history of Christian tradition that which it finds amenable and suggestive for its doctrinal construction.
So what does it mean for a doctrine or a theology to be in harmony with, to be faithful to Scripture? Let us look at alternative answers to the question:
(1) repeating the original words of Scripture;
(2) repeating the original meaning of Scripture;
(3) making a direct application (where possible) of the original meaning of Scripture;
(4) making an indirect application of the original meaning of Scripture;
(5) providing meaning not contradicted by passages of Scripture, where there are such passages as treat of the same subject;
(6) providing meaning not contradicted by Scripture, for the reason that Scripture does not speak about the same subject;
(7) doing today in our way what the writers of Scripture did in their way, namely to interpret the meaning of God’s action in Jesus Christ as we have experienced it, and in meaningful contemporary language, addressing men and women who live in our world and in no other.
The right place to begin is with the last of these suggestions (7). We shall understand Scripture only if we know the reality they were proclaiming: the revelation of God’s love in Jesus Christ and the faith which has responded to it. That happens now and the light from that continuing event illuminates the whole of life in our world: a very complex world. It is our task to show now how that event, that experience, casts light on our problems, for instance on our self-understanding or our understanding of our social relationships and on what we have learnt about it from the psychologist and the sociologist. How does the Gospel illuminate our world in which barbarity and oppression, affluence and abject poverty, hatred between human beings and totally inadequate social and political measures to cope with world problematic etc. etc., are so evident? It is this world of advanced knowledge scientific and technological that has made our outlook so different from ancient peoples in which we understand and present the Gospel of Jesus Christ as best we can. It is in this world that we address ourselves ever anew to the questions of humanity, Who is God? What is man? Why is there evil? Can there be hope? Who am I?
We shall as we do so construct our answers in different ways. Sometimes Scripture language will seem appropriate. At other times the language of Scripture will be very remote from the problems with which we wrestle. That is only to be expected. They did not live in our scientific, bureaucratic, technological and international world. But that to which they witness is that to which we witness. We are bound together in a common witness and in a common task.
To attempt to fulfil this task will obviously take us beyond the text of Scripture . It will involve us in construction of language and ideas, in the use of words and concepts from secular and non-theological spheres. But in being faithful to Jesus Christ, we are in our turn and in our way being faithful to the Bible.
[slideshow_deploy id=’2645′]
-
William Powell Tuck: There Are Many Lessons from Failure
by Dr. William P. Tuck, author of The Church Under the Cross, The Journey to the Undiscovered Country, Overcoming Sermon Block: The Preacher’s Workshop, The Last Words from the Cross, Holidays, Holy Days and Special Days: Preaching Through the Year and more! His blogsite is: friarsfragment.comMany people in life have experienced failure. Moses wanted to go into the Promised Land. He had led the Children of Israel for forty years to the Promised Land. God did not permit him to enter that land himself. He caught a vision of it from Mount Pisgah. David longed to build a temple for God. Because of his sin, he was not permitted to do that. But he still has influenced many through his leadership as king in Israel and through his many psalms. Jeremiah wrote about his own sense of failure. He had preached for thirty-eight years that the end was coming for the nation of Israel, but it did not. He experienced only rejection from the people. He felt that he was a failure. But history proved him correct in his prophecy.
Adoniram Judson wanted to go as a missionary to India with the gospel of Christ, but that door was closed and he turned to Burma. Caruso was told by a music teacher that he had no real potential as a singer. He didn’t listen to that word of failure but went on to be one of the greatest singers of all time. Einstein failed physics. Walter Scott tried to write poetry, but was unable to compose very good poems. Later he wrote novels and became one of the outstanding writers of all times. Georgia Harkness wanted to be a missionary but that door was closed. She went on in her education and got a Ph.D. from Boston University and later became the first woman to be a professor in a theological seminary and to be admitted as a member of the American Theological Society. Helen Montgomery was discouraged from translating the New Testament because she was a woman. But she finished her translation and it was widely praised and accepted.
Lloyd Douglas was a minister in California and resigned his church with a sense of failure as pastor. At the urging of his brother in law, who reminded him that he had always wanted to write a novel, he began to write. His first novel was the famous Magnificent Obsession. Edison wanted to be a newspaperman, but he spilled acid on the papers and was fired. Later when he was working in his lab and had failed eleven hundred times with various experiments, somebody asked Edison: “Doesn’t that mean that you have failed?” “No,” he responded. “It just means I know eleven hundred things that don’t work!” Charlotte Elliot was ill and suffered greatly but wrote over one hundred hymns.
Many persons have failed in their original goals. Few reach everything they aim for the first time. R. H. Macy failed seven times before his store caught on in New York City. Whistler, the artist, wanted to be a soldier but failed his chemistry exams at West Point. John Creasy, an English novelist, received seven hundred fifty-three rejection slips before the first of his five hundred and sixty-four novels was published. Babe Ruth struck out thirteen hundred and thirty times. But he also hit seven hundred and fourteen home runs.
Charles Kettering of General Motors, one of this century’s great creative minds, once wrote these words about the value of learning to fail:
An inventor is simply a person who doesn’t take his education too seriously. You see, from the time a person is six years old until he graduates from college he has to take three or four examinations a year. If he flunks once, he is out. But an inventor is almost always failing. He tries and fails maybe a thousand times. If he succeeds once then he’s in. These two things are diametrically opposite. We often say that the biggest job we have is to teach a newly hired employee how to fail intelligently. We have to train him to experiment over and over and to keep on trying and failing until he learns what will work.
From your failures you can learn what doesn’t work and you can take another approach. There is more growth in risking something great and failing than succeeding at something easy or insignificant without cost or risks.
A Radical Idea
We may fail in one area of life sometimes. That failure, however, does not have to become final. We can learn from our losses and be better persons because of these experiences.
Wayne Dyer has challenged us to consider what he describes as a “radical idea.”
“There is no such thing as failure! Failing is a judgment that we humans place on a given action. Rather than judgment, substitute this attitude: You cannot fail, you can only produce results! Then the most important question to ask yourself it, ‘What do you do with the results you produce?’”
Whether it is learning to play the piano or guitar or taking up golf or mastering the computer or baking a cake, we may not do well at first. Do we look at the results of our efforts and then ask, “Where do I go from here? What have I learned to help me move further along?” Each ‘failure’ provides a learning opportunity to move us toward achieving better results next time.
In one of Paul’s Epistles he writes that John Mark had deserted him. He and Barnabas had a falling out over John Mark. Paul felt that Mark had failed him when he needed him. We don’t know why Mark deserted Paul. Was he homesick or afraid? We don’t know. Barnabas continued to work with Mark. Later Mark became one of the great saints in the early church and the author of one of the gospels. Paul changed his mind about him and requested in one of his last letters, “Bring John Mark with you, because he is a great comfort to me.”
Mark’s failure was not final. Like Mark and many others, we can learn from our failures to become stronger and better persons. “The value of a man,” (or woman) Paul Tournier writes, “is not to be measured so much by his successes as by the way he bears his undeserved failures, that nothing is more dangerous for a man than unlimited success.”
[slideshow_deploy id=’2745′]
-
Herold Weiss: Paul Did Not Teach Righteousness by Faith
by Dr. Herold Weiss, author of Meditations on the Letters of Paul
Martin Luther’s argument against the selling of indulgences to shorten one’s stay in purgatory before reaching heaven was a courageous and necessary attack on a grievous abuse of ecclesiastical authority. The ninety five theses he nailed to the door of the church at the university where he was a professor of Scripture presented his argument with meticulous precision. At its core, the point was that “works” were not what saved those doing them. In other words, paying for sins did not open the gates of heaven. Said positively, Luther’s argument has survived and become encapsulated and promoted as “righteousness by faith.” These days the phrase is understood somewhat differently by different Christians. Generally, it is understood to mean that to be saved one must believe that the death of Jesus on the cross pays for one’s sins and thereafter believers receive strength to live in conformity with the Ten Commandments. In other words, salvation is attained by faith in a substitutionary atonement, and the keeping of the commandments, made possible by Christ’s grace, keeps believers from sinning again.I find the above understanding of righteousness by faith only tangentially related to the theology of the apostle Paul. It is true that there are two texts in Paul’s writings which could be understood in terms of substitution, but such an interpretation is not demanded by them. One says that “God shows his love for [eis] us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for [hyper] us” (Romans 5: 8), and the other says that “the life I now live in the flesh I live by [the Greek says “in”] faith in [the Greek says “of”] the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for [hyper] me” (Galatians 2: 20). The English of the first text uses the preposition “for” twice, but the Greek has two different ones. The Greek preposition eis usually is translated “toward.” In this case it indicates that God’s love is directed towards us, it is aimed at us. The basic meaning of hyper is “on behalf of,” “having to do with.” In other words, Christ’s death had to do with us, had us in mind. It was concerned with us. The idea also appears in the earliest Christian confession known to us. Paul quotes it as the foundation on which to build his argument against those who teach that there is no future resurrection. It said, “Christ died for [hyper] our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, he was buried, he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and he appeared . . . “ (1 Corinthians 15: 3). The confession is formulaic. The formula “for our sins” is balanced with the formula “on the third day,” and both are declared to be fulfilments of the Scriptures. In summary, that Christ’ death had to do with “ us,” “me” or “our sins” was the customary way of affirming that Christ’s death had not been just a Roman execution, which in fact it had also been, but an event of cosmic significance in which God was involved. It was “concerned with” the life humans live under the power of sin. These texts do not show that Paul saw the death of Christ as a substitute for the death of sinners.
Paul is quite clear, however, on the necessity for all men and women to die with Christ. In other words, the predominant Pauline teaching is not that Christians need not die because Christ died for them, but that all must participate in the death of Christ in order to also live “in Christ.” He does not teach a substitutionary atonement but the need to die to life in the flesh and live free from the condemnation of the Law (Romans 6: 4-8; 8:1).
The first thing one should know about Paul’s understanding of faith is that for him it is not a noun but a verb. It is a serious handicap that English does not have a verbal form of the root “faith” as it has one of the root “belief.” Faith is not a belief. Faith is a way of being. As Paul says in the verse quoted above, I live “in the flesh” and “in faith.” To live in faith is to live in Christ by the power of the Spirit. For him salvation is not by faith as the adoption of a belief. Salvation is something God accomplishes for those who “live in faith,” that is, those who live faithfully in Christ. Righteousness is not a stamp placed on those who affirm a particular proposition as true, but something “attained to” (Romans 9: 30) by those who live in ‘a manner worthy of the Gospel” (Philippians 1:27).Paul defines the Gospel as “the power of God for [eis] salvation to every one who has faith” (Romans 1:16, RSV). The translation “to every one who has faith” provokes misunderstanding. Paul wrote, “to all the faithful.” Faith is not something to be had, something to be grasped intellectually. The Gospel is not information to be believed, but power to live faithfully (Romans 1:16). Paul says that righteousness can never be attained from [ek] works of law. It can only be attained through [dia] faith in Jesus Christ, or from [ek] Christ’s faith (Galatians 2:16; both expressions are found in this text). This is so because those who have been baptized and thereby have been crucified and raised now have Christ living in them and are guided by the Spirit that made them a new creation. They are “alive to God in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 6: 11), rather than dead under the Law. Paul, quoting Habakkuk, says that the righteous live from [ek, out of] faith (Galatians 3: 11). In other words, for Paul faith is not a way of knowing but a way of living.
The mantra of righteousness by faith may be used to live unlovingly; it may serve as an excuse for living denying the Gospel’s power to give life. True Christianity is not a theological system, but a way of being. Paul emphasizes that Christians are those who crucify themselves with Christ and participate in the faith that brought about Christ’s resurrection and gives new life to the believers. That Christ died “for [hyper] all” (2 Corinthians 5:14), does not mean that therefore no one else needs to die. It means that his death was concerned with all, and all are welcome to die with him having the faith that Christ himself had in God when he died. Faith has to do with a manner of living and of dying.Paul makes very clear that at the Parousia all will have to appear before God’s judgment and give an account of what they have done (2 Corinthians 5:10). God’s judgment is definitive; therefore, Paul insists, no believer has the authority to judge another. God’s judgment, however, is not an evaluation of what people believe, but an assessment of whether or not they live “in the faith of Jesus Christ.” Since all believers are servants of their Lord Jesus Christ, only their Master has the authority to judge them (Romans 14:4, 10).
Paul also warns his converts of the necessity to live as members of the body of Christ who are guided by the Spirit. As such, they are empowered by the Spirit to discern the will of God (Romans 12:3). Living in the Spirit, guided by the Spirit is living “in faith.” It is living empowered to “approve what is excellent,” and thus be “pure and blameless for the day of Christ” (Philipians 1:10). The conduct of those who have Christ living in them is no longer determined by the conditions of life “in the flesh,” in which the Law of Moses rules. Those who live faithfully are beyond the power of the Law to condemn (Romans 8:1), but not beyond the judgment of God. The sins of the believers are the things they do which are “not of faith” (Romans 14:23). As Paul says, God’s righteousness has been revealed “apart from the Law” (Romans 3:21). According to Paul, those who live actualizing their faith and hope, that is, those who demonstrate the power of God’s promise to give life to the faithful attain to righteousness. That is Paul’s understanding of righteousness by faith. It has to do with the actions performed by those who live in the faith of Jesus when he faced death. It has nothing to do with the Ten Commandments and judicial declarations.
-
Thomas Hudgins: Satan, Judas, and the Events Leading Up to the Cross
by Dr. Thomas Hudgins, translator of Aprenda a Leer el Griego del Nuevo Testamento
How did Jesus go from walking around Galilee, teaching the multitudes, healing the sick, and dining in people’s homes to having his body marred more than any other human in history and eventually giving his life for the sins of the world on the cross? Well, there are a number of ways we can approach this question, such as by focusing on the religious elite of Jesus’ day and how they wanted Jesus dead and out of the way. But I want to turn our attention to Satan and Judas Iscariot, paying special attention to where Judas’ life intersects with the workings of the evil one.
The Gospels tell us that Satan was actively involved in leading Jesus to the cross. Maybe you recall where it says in one of the Gospels that Satan “entered into Judas” during the last week of Jesus’ life. But this begs the question, “To which Gospel am I referring?” I say that because there are actually two references in the Gospels to Satan entering into Judas—one in Luke, and one in John. And there are a couple of details that make these reports difficult. So, let’s look at each account and then we can step back and make some observations. I have placed in italics the text indicating Satan entered into Judas.
The first report is found in the Gospel of Luke:Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching. The chief priests and the scribes were trying to figure out a way they could put him to death; for they were afraid of the people. And Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot, who was one of the twelve. And he went away and discussed with the chief priests and officers how he might betray him to them. They were glad and agreed to give him money. So he consented, and began seeking a good opportunity to betray him to them apart from the crowd. Then came the first day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. And Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the Passover for us, so that we may eat it.” (Luke 22:1–8)
The second report is found in the Gospel of John:
When Jesus had said this, he became troubled in spirit, and testified and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, that one of you will betray me.” The disciples began looking at one another, at a loss to know of which one he was speaking. One of his disciples, the one who Jesus loved, was reclining on Jesus’ bosom. So Simon Peter signals to him, and says to him, “Figure out who Jesus is talking about.” He, leaning back on Jesus’ bosom, say to him, “Lord, who are you talking about?” Jesus then answers, “The one for whom I shall dip the morsel and give it to him.” So when he had dipped the morsel, He takes it and gives it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. After the morsel, Satan entered into him. Therefore Jesus says to him, “That which you are doing, do it quickly.” Now no one that was reclining at the table knew for what purpose he had said this to him. Some thought he said it because Judas was in charge of money box, and Jesus was basically saying to him, “Buy the things we need for the feast”; the other option was he was saying Judas should give something to the poor. So after receiving the morsel he went out immediately; and it was night. (John 13:21–30)
Alright, so you can tell there is something going on here in the accounts that needs our attention. According to Luke, Satan enters Judas before the disciples sit down to celebrate the Passover. In fact, according to Luke, it takes place before the plans for the Passover meal are finalized. According to John, Satan enters into Judas during the Passover meal. Luke mentions demonic possession in a number of places (Luke 8:30, 33). John, however, makes no such mention in his Gospel, well except one. The sole mention of possession in the Gospel of John is this entrance of Satan into Judas. So how many times did Satan enter into Judas—once, twice, or never at all? And why did Satan enter into Judas, or, depending on how you answer the first question, why did the authors of their respective Gospels indicate that Satan did so?
I’m going to go ahead and show my cards. I think Satan entered into Judas twice. Part of the reason I answer this way has to do with what I think about the Scriptures. They are inspired by God and, as a result, they are true in the reports they present. They are totally accurate and the accuracy of their content flow out of the very character of God, for whom it is impossible to lie. Even if someone does not agree with this view on biblical inspiration, the evidence in John supports two entrances of Satan into Judas. John does not directly mention the entrance found in Luke. Why not? Well, John focuses heavily on sharing material that is not found in the other Gospels. And John focuses heavily on describing the events of the last night of Jesus’ life (John 13ff.). Even though John does not specifically mention the entrance found in Luke, he does seem to make an indirect reference to it. He writes:During supper, the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come forth from God and was going back to God, gets up from supper, and lays aside his garments; and taking a towel, he girded himself. (John 13:2)
When John indicates that the devil (i.e., Satan) had already put the desire to betray Jesus in the heart of Judas, he is probably referring to the account found in Luke. John specifically mentions Satan’s involvement in this desire. He put the desire inside Judas. And apparently he needed to enter Judas in order to accomplish this end. Satan enters Judas the first time to put the idea in Judas’ mind and heart. And considering how Satan is presented in other texts (e.g., Genesis 3; Matthew 4), he probably did everything he could to make the idea as appealing as possible. Just think, if Satan could take Jesus up to a mountain and show him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory (and offer them to Jesus in return for his worship), how appealing would he make this opportunity to betray Jesus and in exchange for what (though an offer is nowhere mentioned in the Gospels or elsewhere)?
So Luke records this first entrance. That moment is the first time Satan shows up personally and out front in the plan to get Jesus to the cross. Luke foreshadowed this moment after the temptation: “When the devil had finished every temptation, he left him until an opportune time” (Luke 4:13, emphasis added). That first entrance into Judas was this opportune time, and Satan would take a very active role leading up to the cross from that point forward, both with the betrayal of Jesus and the temptation of some (possibly all) of his apostles. I say some of his apostles (plural), not one of his apostles. The reason is because Jesus told Peter leading up to the cross that Satan was going to tempt him and the other apostles: “‘Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you (plural) like wheat; but I have prayed for you (singular), that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers’” (Luke 22:31–32). The mention of the first entrance by Luke connects the dots from Luke 4 to Luke 22, and it reminds Theophilus and his greater audience that the cross has not only the attention of all of heaven, but that of all of the domain of darkness as well. John connects the dots as well. His Gospel in many ways is the “behind-the-scenes” Gospel, providing us with some very important and always interesting details about the life of Jesus. The second entrance of Satan into Judas is one of the many offered by John. In the first entrance, Satan plants the idea in Judas’ mind and heart. In the second one, he executes the plan and secures that Jesus will be taken into custody. -
Changing My Mind about the Bible
[Editor’s Note: This is another post in our series of “Why I changed my mind.”]
by Elgin Hushbeck
I have changed my mind many times, often quite drastically. The most drastic was probably my journey from Atheist to Christian. But that took many years and many phases. One part of that journey was a softening in my attitude towards the Bible. This occurred while I was in the Air Force working on Minuteman missiles which brought me in contact with a lot of different people. Minuteman missiles were scattered across the country side, and so to work on them involved a lot of drive time. My team member and I would load up a truck, pick up a guard and drive out to the missile site, driving 1-2 hours each way on average. As a result, there was plenty of time to talk.
Most of the time the discussion was on more mundane topics such as sports, but from time to time I we would get a guard who was a Christian and the talk would turn to religion. When that happened often the sparks would fly.
Few of the Christians I would talk to actually knew very much about the Bible other than citing a few verses they had memorized. When I would point out the contradictions or problems from the list I had made, for the most part, they had never even heard of these potential problems, much less did they have any answers, other than to say that the Bible was the Word of God and was to be believed despite what might seem to be problems.
All of this reinforced my belief in the error of Christianity, as it seemed a faith one could believe in only if one did not look too close, or ask too many question.
Still, from time to time I would come across a Christian who knew something about their faith and the Bible. I would run down my list of potential problems, and they would actually have an answer that could stand up to my questioning. When that happened I was never too concerned, as there were many more items on my list and I would simply move to the next item.
When someone did raise a serious objection to one of the things on my list of problems, however, it would tend to stick with me, and I would seek a way around it. While sometimes I would find some weaknesses in their proposed solution, there were also times when I had to admit, if only to myself later, that they had a point, and my alleged problem was not really a problem after all.
As a result, over time, my list of problems and contradictions got smaller and smaller. In addition two other things happened. First, with each problem dealt with, the credibility of the critics correspondingly suffered. After all, if the critics were wrong on these alleged problems and contradictions in the Bible, perhaps they were wrong on the others as well. Second, my diminishing list of errors was being replaced by a growing respect for the reliability of the Bible. I did not yet believe the Bible was the Word of God, but I could no longer write it off as simply a collection of myths and legends either.
It was at about this point in my odyssey that I had one of the more significant of these discussions. I think this was the only time we had this particular guard, and unfortunately his name has long since been forgotten. He was different than many of the other Christians I had met in the way he listened to my challenges without any confrontation in his responses. It wasn’t that he knew how to answer my remaining challenges all that much, but he did do something, none of the others did. He offered to set up a meeting with someone who he said could better answer my questions and I agreed.
This someone was an officer at the base, and we talked for several hours one evening. I explained my spiritual journey to that point and we talked about some the remaining problems I saw with Christianity and the Bible. He was able to provide some answers. On a few others, such as why would a loving god allow evil, I was not convinced. But he did show me a different side of Christianity even when his answers were not completely satisfying. He showed me that Christianity and the Bible were something an intelligent thinking person could take seriously. Even if I did not agree with him, I had to respect him as someone who had thought seriously about his faith.
When I left that evening, he encouraged me to continue my journey and seemed oddly sure and confident as to where that journey would lead me even if I had not reached it yet. I was still over a year from becoming a Christian. And even becoming a Christians was in many ways just a beginning of a new journey.[slideshow_deploy id=’2411′]
Click on any book for more information and ordering -
Has the multiplicity of interpretations made the bible incomprehensible? —NO!
[EDITOR’S NOTE: This post is part of our series on controversial questions. A NO post will normally follow a YES post. Join in by posting your comments.]
by Edward W. H. Vick
In the sixteenth century there was a major conflict within Christianity. It was over the Bible. Before then it was only available in Latin, and so only for the clergy, who then told their followers what they interpreted it to mean. So there was an interesting but dangerous disagreement between the Catholic church and the Protestant advocates of translation of Scripture into native languages.
The interesting agreement was that it was possible for ordinary people, the laity, to read and to understand the message of the Bible by anyone who could read it, or have it read to them. The danger was that the translators considered it necessary to make the opportunity available to everyone who could read or be read to. That incentive was violently opposed. So the Catholic church opposed the translation into European languages because it realized that it would pose a most serious challenge to some of its basic teachings.
The Reformers for their part, particularly Tyndale and Luther, also realized that lay people, if they had access to Scripture in their own language, would understand its teachings, its message. And that message called into question basic teachings of the church.
So there was enthusiasm on the part of both parties: the ruthless efforts to repress the translation and distribution of the translated Scripture, the Reformers patiently and persistently, but at great cost, determined to make those writings available to all. The following conviction motivated their sacrificial efforts to translate the Scriptures and then to get the translations distributed. It also motivated the ruthless opposition.
Scripture if made available can be readily understood by laypersons.
We must not forget at what great cost in the sixteenth century the efforts of the translators and their supporters, printers, and distributors, resulted in making Scripture available to us all. We should not take it for granted.
We now realize that the availability of Scripture has made possible a multitude of different interpretations. That poses for some the problem, having read, how to understand i. e. interpret Scripture faithfully. The first rule should be that I read Scripture for myself, and think about what I read. Then I may have some ground for considering alternative suggestions. But for some readings the obvious sense will satisfy you.
Do you know how many kinds of apples there are? I don’t. But, like you, I am sure I know very well the ones I like. You no doubt will have a favorite. I am also quite sure that the fact that there are so many kinds of apples did and does not put you off either eating apples nor indeed preferring the one you like best. It is rather naïve to suggest it! But you have to make choices.
But before you can make rational choices you will have to have tasted a range of apples. You then, and only then, unless you rely on what others recommend to you, will be in a position to make your decision. But even if you accept a suggestion you will still get hold of the recommended apple and try it out for yourself. Otherwise, how will you know what to make of the other’s recommended assessment, to accept it or to reject it?
The question we are to consider is also rather naïve. Take the first alternative. Why would one refuse to consider an interpretation of Scripture and give as the reason that there are so many interpretations and so the confusion between them makes the quest to find an adequate position so difficult as not to be worth the trouble to find. But you are the one who says ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to the suggestion you accept. You are the one who chooses not to pursue it any further.
A second alternative is not to make a choice. To shelve the question and close the questioning, in short to make a negative decision. It amounts to excusing yourself not to make any effort to discover your own satisfactory answer.
The third alternative is to make a worthy attempt at evaluation, however much labor and struggle it might cost you. You make the effort freely and so the decision is yours. Making the attempt is a worthy thing. Many have made it before you, and many are in the process of making it.
I now ask you to consider what a costly, blood-stained process it was to provide the Scripture in the language of the people. That we can read Scripture and understand its message is a privilege offered us at the cost of many lives devoted to the task of translating the Scriptures into spoken languages and in the attempt to distribute the text, initially by such remarkable figures as William Tyndale and Martin Luther.
So let us consider how we come to make choices in such contexts. There are three alternatives:
Number one : You let someone make the choice for you. But that is no solution for you since you do not know the considerations that person has taken to come to the suggestion. When you accept a recommended alternative you may even plead the authority of your informant as the reason. Or is it rather a pretext than a reason? So and so knows the truth. I accept it as given. Your choice is to accept the suggestion of the other person. But that is a choice, and a poor one when the alternative is to search for yourself.
The second alternative is not to make any decision, not simply to defer it, but to make a decision not to consider further. This is the negative argument. The Bible is the source of many and divergent interpretations and contrary beliefs. There are so many different positions that it is difficult if not impossible to make a rational choice between them.
The third alternative is to make the attempt to find the meaning for yourself. That is the first positive step that promises to yield a satisfactory result. But you will know that you may have to do some work to find your satisfaction.
This is a short response.
That there is a multitude of teachings derived from the Bible should not be taken to imply that none of them is worthy of belief and so the effort to discover which are to be accepted is not a worthy activity. It is the result of bad logic, an example of non sequitur. Does the proponent really mean to suggest that the more interpretations there are the less any are likely to be reasonable? Or, is it not rather the unwillingness to be involved in expending a great deal of effort in the quest?
Or is the idea that the Bible is untrustworthy because its writings give opportunity for different interpretations. Should not that fact be taken as a merit of the writings. Good literature is always suggestive of appropriate interpretations in different contexts.
That we have the Bible in our own modern language is an inheritance that was achieved at enormous cost. For most of the Christian era the Scriptures were not available to the ordinary believer. And so there was no alternative for them but to hear and to respond to what the church taught them was proper to believe, and often threatened them if they did not conform. The cost many paid for your freedom to read the Bible in your own language, in our case English, on the European continent Luther’s German, was imprisonment, ostracism, deprivation, betrayal, isolation, death.
That was before Tyndale and Luther. After them the Bible was becoming available to everyone who could read. In step with this development was the conviction, made into a Reformation principle that the Bible could be understood by the ordinary Christian reader. As we now know, a very large percentage of what became the Authorized Version, the King James version, was the work of Tyndale. It was simply taken over from his translation.
William Tyndale paid an enormous price for his persistent efforts as a scholar in translating and circulating the translated Scriptures, as did those who supported him by printing, distributing and reading his work. They were under the constant threat of being apprehended and severely punished for so doing. The price Tyndale paid for his efforts was to be hounded all over Europe by Thomas More and his spies, and finally by being betrayed and put to death for heresy and treason. Those who read the English translations were considered heretics, and heresy was considered treason since it stood in opposition to the interpretations and the established teachings of the church. Death was the fate of those who disagreed.
That the Bible was now available for all who could read or have it read to them resulted in the emergence of various interpretations of what it taught, each interpretation often being taken as the true one.
For the simple believer, there was now the freedom to read and to understand that the love and grace of God was available without the mediation of the church and its agents. That constituted reformation. It was inevitable that different interpretations emerged and with them many different Christian communities.
The new freedom made its own demands. What was now needed was to find a way to assess the different interpretations, since some were incompatible with others. The new situation demanded a new attitude on the part of those aware of such diversity. Two essential demands were recognized:
Accept the authority of the Bible,
Recognize the diversity of interpretations and teachings.
This meant seeing the need for discernment and for making decisions about those that were reasonable and worthy of belief. In the immediate context of the availability of the translations one was faced with a choice: to accept or to reject the authoritative pronouncements of the church. Take two examples. About sacraments and about the church. It was a matter of different interpretations being given on the one hand to the gospel statement, ‘This is my body’ (to be taken literally as re-enactment in the communion service by the Roman Catholic, or as indicating remembrance or memorial of the event of Jesus’ death by Tyndale. The other is whether Jesus’ word to Peter, ‘I will build my ekklesia’ (Matthew 16:18) is be translated by the term ‘church’ (the Catholic version) or ‘congregation’ (the Tyndale translation). The different translations of the same term reflect different doctrines concerning church and church authority. Tyndale’s translation ‘congregation’ was considered heretical as it expressed a quite different understanding from the Catholic (and heresy meant death).
After this preamble let us take a look at the negative argument, stated briefly above and now expanded
The Bible is the source of many and divergent interpretations and contrary beliefs
There are so many different positions that it is difficult if not impossible to make a rational choice between them.
That impossibility makes any thought of examining the issues fruitless.
In terms of the Bible, the proliferation of interpretations, some in contradiction to others, leads to the conclusion that it loses what authority it may have had, giving occasion for multifarious and divergent beliefs and communities.
The question, ‘What does the Bible teach?’ is therefore not a rational question.
So, there is no point in engaging in a fruitless quest.
The following is a reasonable response to this negative argument.
Would it not be rather better to inquire about the rationality of the various positions as having their source in the Bible? For it is of urgent concern to those who hold the Bible to have a special and unquestionable authority that they relate their interpretations to the text in a convincing, reasonable way.
This raises the serious question of the relationship between understanding, acceptance, and belief. While it is possible to believe what one does not understand, it is also possible and preferable to believe what one understands, and to understand as adequately as possible.
The problem is that it takes time and effort to arrive at an adequate understanding. For some that is too much, and some are even put off by just realizing that there are many alternatives, or by the thought that to make a choice would mean not only a lot of careful consideration but might in the end lead to a change in their present outlook, with which they are quite content. So they simply dismiss the enterprise as either beyond them or as not worth the effort, even if they are capable of making it and achieving a result. “No thanks, I don’t want to talk about it!”
The alternatives are:
(1) to take on board without too much thought one or another teaching at second hand, so to speak. So and so believes and teaches this. So I accept it! No further thought or discussion is then permitted.
(2) to rest content with the status quo of my thinking (or lack of it) or, if not really content with it, to repress the thought of the challenge and give the matter no further consideration.
Nothing we have said here should be taken to imply that the devotional approach to the Bible, for encouragement and succor as well as challenge to action, good deeds, etc., is not important. The sincere believer reads the Scripture not to get doctrine as a result, but for encouragement in living life from day to day, for rebuke and for strength just to carry on in Christian faith. None of this is here being down played.
The Reformation made the Bible available to the public by translating it into their own language. This was a major achievement. One result is that a multitude of interpretations resulted. The question became urgent, ‘How can opposing interpretations of what the Bible teaches be claimed to be the Bible teaching?’ An affirmative explanation justifies this consequence. To put it simply: That various interpretations are made of a given passage, or chapter or book need not call into question the status of the text and then further involve applying a negative judgment to the collection of writings we call the Bible. Consider that often it simply points to its importance and relevance for changing contexts.
That there is a multitude of teachings derived from the Bible should not be taken to imply that none of them is worthy of belief. The effort to discover which are worthy is itself worthy activity. The negative assessment is the result of bad logic. Does the proponent really mean to suggest that the more interpretations there are the less one or some are likely to b e reasonable?
It is a very strange idea that the Bible is untrustworthy because its writings give opportunity for different interpretations. Should not that fact be taken as a merit of the writings. Good literature is always suggestive of appropriate interpretations in different contexts. And reasonable discussion of issues raised is not a bad thing, surely!
Always enjoy the apples you prefer!
Dr. Vick’s books can be viewed and ordered here: https://energiondirect.info/authors/authors-t-z/edward-w-h-vick -
Has the multiplicity of interpretations made the Bible incomprehensible? —YES
[EDITOR’S NOTE: This post is part of our series on controversial questions. A NO post will normally follow a YES post. Join in by posting your comments.]
by Steve Kindle
For those of us in the West, once the Roman Catholic Church lost its hegemonic hold on the content of the faith, it’s become “every man for himself.” Or in the words of pope of the Reformation period, “With every man his Bible, soon every man his own church.” Quite prophetic, wouldn’t you say?
The Reformation’s emphasis on the right of every believer to interpret the Bible soon became warrant for any old interpretation that suits the interpreter. Who is there to suggest otherwise?
Add to this that the scholarly biblical academy can’t seem to come to a consensus on, well, you name it. We’ve arrived at a point where biblical inquirers are presented with a smorgasbord of options, and we pick and choose as it suits us, with no better reason than choosing a Ford over a Chevy, merely personal preference.
This all begins with the complicated nature of the Bible itself. In order to make sense out of the 31,102 verses, 1,190 chapters and 66 assorted books, it is necessary to employ a schema, or template, to organize its contents into a manageable whole. This is truly a “can of worms,” as the options for this are mind boggling. Additionally, the Bible is a product of people with a worldview quite different from ours. It’s a very difficult task to enter into that ancient world and think as they did. It requires immersing ourselves in cultures two to three thousand years in the past. Many bypass this step and just read it like the daily newspaper. This “what it means today must be what it meant then” approach is sure to yield disappointing results.
What this has done to the church is create oases of partisanship based not on what is found to be the highest truth, but on, as we know from H. Richard Niebuhr on down, economic and political confederacies. It means, “I belong to my denomination because I was raised in it,” or “The people were good to me and so nice.” No matter that you are led by a Jim Jones (Peoples Temple), or a Martin Luther King, Jr. People who, indeed, attempt to find the church closest to the Bible soon learn that it is a fool’s errand. Even the New Testament churches present a wide range of doctrines and differ in many ways. What would the doctrinally perfect church look like? The fact that there are hundreds of options (if not thousands) reflects the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of making sense of the biblical data to anyone but the interpreters.
The classic creeds from the Nicaean forward were attempts to cull the basics from Apostolic Christianity to bring order and clarity to the church. All they did was divide the church then, and today make understanding them as difficult as understanding the Bible. Homoousios anyone?
A literal understanding of the words in the Bible is no help either. Whether the literalist understands it or not, there is no such thing as an uninterpreted text. Whatever lens we view the Bible through will control the outcome. And we all wear lenses.
Now, as to the meaning of incomprehensible. The dictionaries basically define it as “unable to make sense.” My overall point is this: Because the Bible does not speak with one voice, but covers a variety of points of view, and even contradicts itself from time to time, one can’t expect its interpreters to do any better. This cacophony of interpretations is bewildering and finally debilitating to the average Bible reader who ultimately surrenders to what seems best, unable confidently to sort out the best among its many contenders. “This makes sense to me,” serves as the final judgment, because we make it make sense.
Any “sense” made from the Bible, is a derivative sense, derived primarily from the approach taken in the reading. There is no obvious sense lying on the surface for any fool to see.
None of this is, of course, the Bible’s fault. It has the inconvenience of being made up of words. Words are, after all, symbols, and symbols are capable of wide meaning, especially when read by people with different backgrounds and experiences. The meaning taken from the Bible varies greatly among women, minorities, third world, poor, oppressed, and oppressor (to name only a few). The meanings are so dissimilar that one sometimes wonders if they are reading the same book.
The real question is, is this a problem? Not if you understand that diversity of interpretive outcomes is inevitable. In fact, diversity of interpretation, for those who remain tentative in their work, is welcome. Why? Because it acts as a corrective. If we remain humble before the text and are willing to listen to others, inch by inch, we may actually come to a more suitable outcome than simply camping on what seems good to us.
This diversity of interpretations is also good for us. Paul’s advice that we “work out our own salvation with fear and trembling,” puts the burden on seeking and finding for ourselves, but not just by ourselves, but in community with other seekers. Only in community can we be exposed to correctives and also the motivation to live out our discovered truths. Even though we may never find the ultimate answer (we see in a mirror, darkly), journeying together has its own rewards. In a very substantial way, the enigma of the Bible is also its greatest good.
Now I know what you’re thinking. I may be right about some of the more difficult areas of biblical interpretation, but the Bible is very clear on what we need to know for our salvation. Oh, really? Is Paul the authority that we are saved by grace through faith–not of works? Or is it James who says that we are not saved by faith alone? Or are the Restoration churches correct in insisting that baptism for the remission of sins is necessary for salvation, or the Baptists who believe that baptism follows salvation? And all are against the Calvinists who insist that humans have nothing to do with the decision! (We could go on, couldn’t we.)
Therefore, in the words of Micah,
“With what shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? Or, as Ecclesiastes would say, “This is the end of the matter.”
Steve’s books can be viewed and ordered here: https://energiondirect.info/authors/authors-d-k/steve-kindle -
How Does Science Inform Biblical Interpretation?
by Steve Kindle
“By identifying the new learning with heresy, you make orthodoxy synonymous with ignorance.”
~ErasmusWhat follows in this post is my personal reflection on Dr. Vick’s post which ran yesterday. Although I hope he finds this compatible with his own view, he may not. He is only responsible for prodding me to think through some of the implications of what he wrote.
The heliocentric model of the universe changes everything.
Since the Copernican revolution, we can no longer accept the Ancient Near Eastern three-tiered universe with heaven “up there,” and Sheol “down below.” Paul’s vision of a man transported to “the third heaven” reveals a psychology steeped in that worldview. Elijah taken to heaven in a fiery chariot, and even the ascension of Jesus, can no longer be taken literally. Given the vastness of the universe, the psalmist’s question, “what are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them?” takes on deepened meaning. Can we still speak of God “in the heavens,” or literally understand that “The Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which mortals had built.”? I think not.
The biological Theory of Evolution changes everything.
No longer can we think of the world as created in six days, or Bishop Ussher’s 6,000 years ago, or the Creationist’s 10,000. The creation narratives in Genesis can no longer be taken literally, but as a poetic ode to creation and the Creator. Adam and Eve can now be seen as a primordial myth that speaks to the human condition, not of the actual First Parents. The Flood has shrunk to the area surrounding the Black Sea about 12000 BCE. (The universality of flood stories can be traced back to the melting of the great ice sheet that covered most of the northern hemisphere at the same period, and how it affected its people.)
The only answer that literalists can give in response is that the Bible is the word of God and must take priority over any other presumed authority…regardless of the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. “The Bible says” trumps scientific findings.
Literalists do claim a kind of science on their side, Creation Science. They marshal “evidence” that no scientist in the academies supports, even continuing to cite long overturned arguments from John Whitcomb, Henry Morris, and George McCready Price. The Creation Science movement proved too embarrassing for many scientists of faith, because it was tied too closely to biblical arguments. They began the Intelligent Design movement and eschewed any taint of religion in their deliberations. However, virtually all are aligned with some form of Christian Evangelicalism or Fundamentalism, which drives their efforts, not pure science. They have yet to make significant inroads into the wider scientific community.
So what does the consensus scientific worldview do for biblical interpretation and theology?- It removes biblical supernaturalism as an explanation of events.
- God’s transcendence is not physical (out there), but “wholly other.”
- Literalism is no longer the first and preferred reading.
- The biblical notions of sin and salvation (atonement) need to be understood as arising from the ancient milieu, and not appropriate today.
- The Bible, rather than being a scientific textbook, can be recognized as the record of a people trying to understand their world and their place in it. It is the people’s record, not God’s.
- The apocalyptic undergirding of the New Testament needs to be seen as a yearning for hope in a world gone mad, not as a timetable for the ages.
- It ends the dualism that turns the world into a battleground instead of a paradise.
What are some of the applications that can be made from these assertions?
It removes biblical supernaturalism as an explanation of events.
God can no longer be seen as acting from outside the cosmos upon the Earth shaping events and suspending natural law at will. Things have proceeded over the past 14.5 billion years in a natural fashion and continue to do so. We know that the Earth rotates about 25,000 miles per hour and orbits the sun, which is stationary (relative to the earth). The story of the battle for Jericho includes God causing the sun to stand still in the sky to allow for more daylight. This is a perfect example of the ancient worldview’s explanation for how Israel wins battles: God intervenes for them. This, for me, serves as an archetype for all such interventions.
God’s transcendence is not physical (out there), but “wholly other.”
By removing God from beyond the cosmos (heaven), we have not demoted God, but made God immanent—within all things. In certain ways, God is closer to humanity than before. Gone are such notions as “the Man upstairs,” “the Old Man in the sky,” and other figures of speech that make God remote and far removed from human life. God being intimately related to and involved with every aspect of life, from the smallest subatomic particle, to the fullness of the cosmos, makes everything sacred and gives humans motivation for proper care of creation.
Literalism is no longer the first and preferred reading.
Knowing that we are reading ancient documents that are informed by a worldview vastly different from our own, we can no longer accept their understanding at face value. Taking the text literally is to overlook this fact. We begin interpreting by asking what informed the author to understand the text in this way, and then compare it to how we find things in our world today.
The biblical notions of sin and salvation (atonement) need to be understood as arising from the ancient milieu, and not appropriate today.
Can you imagine anyone operating out of the modern worldview attaching the remedy for sin to blood atonement? The gods of the Ancient Near East were capricious and vengeful. In agrarian societies, the only thing they had to offer the gods to appease them were what they grew or the livestock they raised. They saw these things as an extension of themselves, and, in a way, the offering of themselves. Blood, life, in exchange for their lives.
Even the Bible comes against this notion from time to time. From Amos: I hate, I despise your festivals, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them; and the offerings of well-being of your fatted animals I will not look upon. Take away from me the noise of your songs; I will not listen to the melody of your harps. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an everflowing stream.
Even the pagans such as King Nebuchadnezzar found peace with God away from blood atonement. From Daniel: Therefore, O king, may my counsel be acceptable to you: atone for your sins with righteousness, and your iniquities with mercy to the oppressed, so that your prosperity may be prolonged.”
Not all the atonement theories arising from the New Testament and later required a blood sacrifice for efficacy. Specifically, Luke sees salvation arising out of being faithful to the end, even as was Jesus, who models our means of salvation.
The Bible, rather than being a scientific textbook, can now be considered a record of a people trying to understand their world and their place in it. It is the peoples’ record, not God’s.
Rather than this being woeful, it is an amazing realization. Humans are capable of spiritual insights and profound realizations about the world and themselves. God will be seen as a participant in this, but the record is from humans. Therefore, for humans to engage the Bible as human to human is to do precisely what the ancient people were doing that resulted in the Bible. The tradition continues into our own time and much spiritual good is reaped in the process.
The apocalyptic undergirding of the New Testament needs to be seen as a yearning for hope in a world gone mad, not as a timetable for the ages.
Apocalyptic theology, that is, the understanding that God shapes all world history according to God’s will, and that good will ultimately triumph over evil, arose out of a need, indeed, a longing, that this is the case. I believe that God will ultimately prevail in securing a world typified by shalom, and I recognize this as a faith statement. But the notion of God superintending history, much as a mother hen, doesn’t give free will its due.
The Hebrew Bible is full of instances where God is depicted as “changing his mind.” First, with being sorry, actually repenting making humankind, and rectifying this by the genocide of the race. Then there is Moses pleading with God in the wilderness not to destroy Israel. God relents when Moses argues that the Egyptians will laugh at him. These and many other examples suggest that not all things are set in place “before the foundation of the world.” That the future is unknown and not predicable, as apocalyptic would have it.
It ends the dualism that turns the world into a battleground instead of a paradise.
Religious dualism is the idea that there are two supernatural forces diametrically opposed to one another vying for dominance. For nearly 4.5 billion years of the formation of planet Earth, down to our own day, dualism was irrelevant. Actually, the idea that there is God and an anti-god (Satan), is very new to humanity. In fact, the Hebrew Bible’s recording of the history of Israel from creation to the return from Babylonian exile got along without it. Satan, as known in the New Testament is absent. Dualism emerges in the Intertestamental period and flourishes in the New Testament. Many scholars believe that Jewish theologians were introduced to dualism during the Babylonian captivity with their exposure to dualistic Zoroastrianism. Dualism tends to divide people, institutions, and things into good or evil. Monism (the metaphysical and theological view that all is one, that there are no fundamental divisions) promotes world unity and peace and is the basis of Shalom.
Conclusion
We in the 21st century have been given a marvelous inheritance in the Bible. If we can learn to view it as a human enterprise encapsulating the wisdom of a people who earnestly sought to find answers to the human predicament, we, too, will find our way out of darkness and into the light. But only if we are not imprisoned by an outmoded and now harmful worldview that would keep us from finding our own way.
Steve’s books can be viewed and ordered here: https://energiondirect.info/authors/authors-d-k/steve-kindle
