Energion Direct

Category: Hermeneutics

  • 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.

  • Biblical Teaching about Inspiration

    by Edward Vick

     
    Inspiration bannerWe begin this section with a caveat. We are speaking in what follows of individual writings speaking about other writings. The term ‘writings’ (or ‘Scriptures’) in the New Testament is the Greek word graphai, a plural form, from which we get such words as graph, graphic and all the other words of which these form a part (e.g. photographic, lithograph). This word has a general and so a rather vague reference. We cannot therefore, as some people would like to think, speak about ‘the Bible’s view of itself’. When some of the statements were made the Bible did not yet exist as a whole. Moreover the recognition of a particular body of books was in the future. Only when that recognition was established was it possible to speak of ‘the Bible.’ That was, of course, after the production of any particular writing. What we should rather say is that some writings talk of other writings. One may, of course, take what these writings say of those others as true of the whole. But that is an interpretation. It was not the intention — how could it have been? — of the writers themselves. This will become clear as we consider the particular passages themselves in some detail. We shall have to ask whether we can say for sure which writings are being spoken of, when the term ‘writings’ is used.
    It is therefore misleading to say, ‘the Bible claims’ to be inspired.
    There is no “the Bible” that claims to be divinely inspired. There is no “it” that has a “view of itself”. There is only this or that source, like II Timothy or II Peter, which make statements about certain other writings, these rather undefined. There is no such thing as “the Bible’s view of itself” from which a fully authoritative answer to these questions can be obtained.
    It is wrong to claim that the New Testament states clearly and unambiguously that ‘it’ is inspired. As we have seen, the canon has a history. Some books were considered secondary, even disputed. II Peter was one of these secondary books and II Timothy was considered marginal. This means that two of the less important books make claims about source writings which they know. The term Scripture means ‘writing,’ simply ‘writing’. We have no means of knowing which books they are speaking about. We cannot, must not, assume that II Timothy 3:16 is referring to the twenty-seven books of the canon which we adopt. We do not know how many such writings II Timothy knew. We cannot say that this passage represents the New Testament teaching about itself. The passage reads: ‘All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness.’ The marginal note correctly indicates that the language is ambiguous. It reads as an alternative: ‘Every Scripture inspired by God is also profitable. . . .The ambiguity is inherent in the Greek construction. The text reads: pasa graphe theopneustos kai ophelimos pros didaskalian. There is no verb, no ‘is’ in the sentence. Rendered word for word, which in this case is not misleading, the passage reads: ‘every writing inspired and (or also) profitable for instruction.’ We have to supply ‘is’. But the writer does not indicate where we shall put it, and so we do not know which of the following alternatives he intended. We can read either: (l) ‘every writing is inspired and profitable’ or (2)‘every inspired writing is also profitable’.
    In the first case we have supplied ‘is’ after graphe ‘writing.’ In the second case we have supplied it before kai (and), which, since it then introduces a second adjective ophelimos, is translated ‘also,’ as it often is. There is no stretching or distortion. To translate the passage as in 2. is to render into English a perfectly normal usage from Greek. The sentence is ambiguous in Greek and requires consideration of both (1) and (2) to render that ambiguity. So much for the language.
    Therefore, first, we cannot say which books the writer refers to either from the meaning of the words of the passage, or from its context. We cannot, therefore, construct from this one use of the term ‘inspired’ a theory of the authority of the whole Bible. Second: the term is used only once, and the associations with the Greek culture render it unsuitable for use as the basis of a doctrinal theory. It is only as the concept of inspiration is duly qualified that it may be used as a theological principle. Even then it has serious limitations. This is because the Biblical materials are so diverse that we cannot impose one and only one model of inspiration on them.
    Even if it were the case that the Bible claimed that the Bible had authority, that the Bible was ‘inspired,’ holy, set apart, that would not prove that it was. We just cannot take as a general principle: What x, say a book, claims to be it is or, If someone makes a claim, that person is the something he claims to be.  That we must establish on other grounds. Not all those who claimed to be prophets inspired by God were prophets inspired by God. Several stories in the Old Testament make the point that other considerations than that a person makes a claim have to be carefully weighed before a decision is reasonably made about the claim.
    We mentioned the Greek concept of inspiration. The word theopneustia itself is not biblical. It is not found in the Septuagint but it is part of the religious vocabulary of Greece. Inspiration is a kind of possession. The state of mind is readily identified. It is a kind of madness, dementia, loss of wits and remembrance. The accompanying behaviour is unusual. The person has visions and utters words, is beyond consciousness and needs an interpreter to judge of their sanity and of the truth or falsity of the matter. When they speak they do not know what they say. ‘No man, when in his wits, attains prophetic truth and inspiration, but when he receives the inspired word, either his intelligence is enthralled in sleep, or he is demented by some distemper or possession.’ So it is necessary to ‘set up spokesmen to pronounce judgment on inspired divination.’
    Christian theology of revelation could be developed along such lines. Were that done, the unusual behaviour of the individual would then have to be explained. If one took the problem boldly in hand, the unusual phenomena accompanying the visitation might be taken as evidence that it was authentic. The physical or psychological state would then be interpreted as positive evidence of the divine activity. But that is the very thing in question. It is illogical, and so irrational to argue from an unusual psychological or physical state for support of the trustworthiness of the sayings delivered. Plato knew that. An interpreter or ‘spokesman’ (prophetes) was needed to assess the whole business.
    There were ecstatic ‘prophets’ in the Old Testament story, and they were considered to be mad. Their ecstasy was wild and contagious. It is as if something enters into a person from without and he becomes another person. Such is the literal meaning of ‘possession’ and ‘ecstasy.’ ‘The spirit of the Lord will come mightily upon you and you shall prophesy with them and be turned into another man.’ That was said of Saul. And when the ‘prophet’ comes with a notorious message to Jehu, his servants ask him, ‘Is all well? Why did this mad fellow come to you?’
    But the Hebrew understanding of prophecy did not in the main develop along these lines, the lines of mantic possession. Nor did the Christian understanding. It could have done, and later to some extent it did. Philo the Jew spoke of the divine possessing the human and shaping words within the man. Many Jews treated their books as though they had been produced in this way. Some Christian writers use metaphors which suggest possession of the human by the divine. Athenagoras speaks of man as the flute and God as the flute player. The Holy Spirit is like a player blowing into the flute.
    There is no suggestion on the part of the New Testament writers that this was the way they thought about the matter. They do not think of possession, nor of a verbally inspired text, nor of inerrancy as Philo had done. That was left to much later Christian writers for whom inerrancy and verbal inspiration was crucial. But from the beginning that was not the case. The reason for this is that they do not think of the activity of the Holy Spirit in this way. The Holy Spirit is active in the many and varied activities which make up the whole of the church’s life and witness. The whole Christian movement is inspired. Without the Spirit there could be no witness, no love, no unity.
    The term used of ‘the writing’ in II Timothy 3:16, theopneustos, means literally ‘God-breathed.’ It is a combination of the words for ‘God’ and for ‘breath’, ‘breathing.’ The term ‘inspiration’ is a very free translation, and is thus inexact. As we have seen, the term, once used of the writings, calls on a whole range of meanings which are not suitable here.
    Nor does the text claim a great deal for the ‘inspired’ writings. They are ‘profitable for instruction and for edification.’ That does not particularly set them apart from many other writings. The later high sounding claims made in the name of inspiration have no basis whatever in the modest association of theopneustos with edifying.
    Writers up to and around AD 200 have various ways of describing what it is that makes New Testament Scripture different. The writings are sacred because they are inspired by the Holy Spirit. The terms used vary. The writers are pneumataphorioi ‘bearers,’ i.e. instruments, of the Spirit. Their minds are ‘flooded’ with the Holy Spirit. Sometimes the source of inspiration is the Holy Spirit. Sometimes the writings reflect the authority of Christ. The writings are kuriakai graphai (the Lord’s writings). Christ speaks through the writings. Some speak of the inspiration as having to do with the very words, and of the Spirit as foreseeing what would happen, e.g. that heresies would arise, and speaking appropriately to the situation they foresee. Sometimes Scripture is said to be perfect and infallible. Scripture is holy.
    The term for ‘spirit’ in the Old Testament is ruach, in the New Testament pneuma. In both cases the term means ‘breath,’ ‘wind.’ Breath is air in motion, and without inbreathing air there can be no life. Breath is life-giving. Without breath there can be no speech. When the breath moves over the vocal cords and articulate sounds are produced, communication becomes possible. It is itself invisible but its results are quite visible and tangible. The term ruach is in the Old Testament books used of the life-giving power of Yahweh, and of the revelation he makes through the prophets to man. He breathes the ‘Spirit’ into the lifeless form and man becomes a living being. He sends his ‘Spirit’ and the prophet speaks the ‘word of the Lord.’
    Since the term ruach, spirit, is a way of speaking of God, the writers of the Old Testament recognize that God is in some sense present in the very process by which he comes to be revealed. God is in some way present in the events which make possible the speaking of the prophet.
    So the metaphor of inspiration, in-breathing, has connections with this process of revelation. The word of the Lord and the Spirit of the Lord are dynamically one. When ruach is used metaphorically, at its root is the idea of movement, creative and revealing movement. Breath is air in motion. So there are remarkable and sometimes devastating results. The wind moves mightily. Storms follow, and leave their trace. So it is with the Spirit of God.
    It is clear that the ruach has many different meanings, and can express in concrete terms, physical terms, a quite basic conviction of the Old Testament, namely that God is active in the midst of his people in many different ways. The idea of God’s spirit influencing persons and events through persons underwent change and refinement as time passed.
    The earlier prophets behaved in very strange ways. On those occasions when the ruach came upon them, entered into them, they were filled as the lungs are full of breath. So possessed, they did strange things. Then the spirit left them and they resumed their normal personalities and more normal activities.

    [slideshow_deploy id=’2645′]

  • 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

    Inspiration coverIn 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

    Head-Brown smallFor 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.”
    ~Erasmus

    What 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.

    Head-Brown smallThe 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

  • WHAT IS TRUTH?

    by Herold Weiss

    John coverMore than any other biblical book According to John is concerned with the necessity to distinguish what is true from what is false, what is genuine from what is spurious. Throughout the gospel one finds declarations concerning “the true light,” “the true bread,” “the true food,” “the true Israelite,” “the true shepherd,” “the true disciple,” “the true worshipper.” It would appear, then, that there are false manifestations of all these things. These statements, even while cast metaphorically, are discrete claims to be taken seriously. Moreover, the gospel establishes that “God is true,” and that the Son brought “grace and truth” to women and men. Jesus among human beings is identified as “the way, and the truth, and the life.”
    The gospel makes clear, however, that the truth it is concerned with is not that which stands because it passes the test of non-contradiction. Neither is it an abstract universal that exists apart, of at least distinct, from all its instances. Today the search for truth is concerned to establish the facts in any given case. We are the inheritors of the Western tradition that is interested in dissecting nature and in establishing what happened in the past. These efforts are constrained by restrictions as to what counts as evidence on which conclusions may be drawn. There is a prevailing skepticism about any claim to absolute truth because there is no evidence that can support such a claim. Of course, the basic characteristic of both scientific and historical truths is that they are to be discarded as soon as new evidence establishes that something else is to be taken as true. This new truth, of course, is also liable to becoming obsolete. Our modern search for the determination of what is going on in nature and in history assumes that truth has to do with knowledge, that is, with true information. Thus our search for the truth is bound to what is bound by space and time.
    In According to John, on the other hand, Jesus promises his disciples that the truth they will encounter will make them free. Freedom, however, is not something to be known. It is something to be had. Like the truth that Jesus promised his disciples, freedom is something to be experienced, something to be lived. The establishing of this basic distinction between what is in the realm of knowledge and what is in the realm of being is one of the great treasures to be found in this wonderful gospel. In fact, it would seem that it was written to answer Pilate’s question at Jesus’ trial, “What is truth?” Pilate’s question assumes that truth is to be known. Jesus assumes that truth is in the realm of being. What he promises his disciples is life, not more information.

     

  • READING AS CONTEMPLATION

    by Herold Weiss

    John cover            It is not uncommon for a person who has not read the Bible to ask a Bible reader for advice as to where to start. Most books are read starting at the beginning. Reading the Bible this way, however, may prove quite a challenge. If one does that it may not take long to find it hard to concentrate on the reading. Quite often the person asking for advice is told, “Start with the Gospel of John. It is simple and interesting.” That is true, and reading According to John for its narrative can prove quite beneficial. The simplicity of its language and its limited vocabulary make it quite accessible. Teachers of New Testament Greek invariably use texts from this gospel as examples for learning Greek vocabulary and grammar. The familiar expressions make it an ideal text for beginning students of Greek.
    In the process of coming to terms with the story of Jesus told in According to John, the careful reader soon realizes that there is something going on underneath the surface of the story, and this discovery sparks the desire to dig down to the deeper levels of meaning that echo on the surface. Curious readers who decide to explore the treasures buried underneath will soon discover that the simple vocabulary is the carrier of heavy loads of meaning. They will find that the narrator had an ample supply of plays-on-words, a good ear for irony, that the dialogues consistently leave Jesus’ interlocutors in uncomfortable positions, and that the community in which this gospel took shape was philosophically literate. Of course, the linguistic alchemy is not there to impress readers with the superior talents of the narrator. It is there at the service of radical and profound theological claims.
    The richness of According to John is not easy to tap because it is cast in a symbolic universe that is strange to us. The Johannine community apparently had serious disagreements with the Jewish community within which it had been conceived and with the Christian communities that were being formed around the main apostles. Coming to terms with the peripheral Christian community that defined itself by means of this document is a basic requirement for reading this gospel intelligently. With the help of a good historical guide, however, reading According to John can be an act of contemplation.

     

  • What Does It Mean to Believe?

    by  Edward W. H. Vick

    Philosophy coverThe question is: What does it mean to believe?
     The following sentences express some themes of the thirteen chapters of the book.
    Ask yourself these questions:
    What do I believe?
    Is it the same as what I say I believe, or think I believe?
    Is my belief reasonable?
    Is it justifiable?
    Is it true?
    Are these three different questions?
    Have I accepted what I believe without thinking about it?
    Can I believe something I do not understand?
     You will agree that some beliefs are rational and some are not.
    When you accept something as true (Is that what you mean by ‘belief’?) you may or may not have considered whether it is rational, whether you understand what you believe, why you are believing it, or to what extent you are being reasonable about your belief.
    Before continuing to read, you might like to take a specific example or two, preferable of a topic discussed in the book and ask some of the above questions about it, for example, miracles, self deception, identity, personal Identity, survival.
    Now you have had an opportunity to ask yourself serious questions about belief and believing. If you have already given yourself answers to questions about what and why you believe you are on the verge of or have already been doing philosophy. So if you are interested you can be even more serious by looking at specific topics and by examining them at greater length. Be warned that you will need to master the vocabulary appropriate to the topic in view, and should not always be content with simple answers.
    Philosophy for Believers addresses various issues in thirteen chapters, each one dealing with a particular subject of belief. What we shall now do is to take one of these topics for consideration.
    Here is a representative statement of belief: I believe in the resurrection of the dead and the life everlasting.
    Certain considerations immediately arise. To consider whether our dealing with them will be reasonable, we must ask the following questions:
    What assumptions am I making?
    How do I understand the key terms I am using?
    Is the language I am using, understood in the way I understand it, adequate for the explanation I am trying to achieve?
    Are the steps in my reasoning logical, i e., is the reasoning valid?
    In particular: Does the conclusion I draw follow from my reasoning?
    To return to our statement of belief: we notice at once that it is very short and because it is so concise it invites various interpretations. The ordinary believer says and remains content with the simplicity of the confession and holds to the restatement:
    I believe we shall be given new life and that life will be never ending.
    The questions that arise from this simple creedal statement give rise to a multitude of philosophical problems. Our task is to specify which of the interpretations we can reasonably consider.
    Start with your initial assumptions, among them possibly answers to the following questions:
    How shall we conceive the idea of resurrection?
    What evidence do we have that resurrection is possible?
    What do I have to believe to accept that it is possible?
    What sort of life is eternal life and how is it related to my present life?
    Will I be the same person in the hereafter as I am now?
    Same person? So what constitutes identity, personal identity?
    Now let’s take examples of a process by which you reach your conclusion.
    You will note that some terms are in italics. These are the basic terms that require detailed consideration and definition. Only then will constructive and consistent argument be forthcoming and leading to a reasonable conclusion.
    Example 1: I believe in the immortality of the soul
    Assumptions:
    bodies do not survive,
    souls may survive,
    the soul constitutes the person
    God is active in the process.
    Argument:
    the constituent of the self
    the soul is inherently immortal
    connect the idea of immortality with the idea of the self
    Conclusion:
    The life everlasting is the life of the immortal soul. The soul survives eternally.
    Explanations required:
    Concerning the source of the assumptions, and how they are to be justified
    How to justify speaking of the soul as the constituent entity of the self
    How to conceive of the soul as immortal
    How to conceive of the possibility of retaining identity in the after life
    How to think rationally about eternity
    We now consider an example of a different interpretation of the same initial creedal statement.
    Example 2: I believe in the resurrection of the body.
    Assumptions:
    The idea of the soul is misconceived
    It is not needed to give an account of what constitutes a person
    It is therefore not needed to account for personal survival
    Speak of the body to conceive the survival of the person, i.e. of resurrection
    Search for a rational way of conceiving the identity of the surviving person with the original person
    God is active in the process
    [A hidden assumption (and all that it implies) may well be that the idea of bodily resurrection is what is taught in Christian Scripture and so should be the proper subject of rational explanation. However the philosophical treatment must stand on its own rational feet.]
    Argument:
    The idea of survival is to be connected with the concept of the body
    The concept of bodily survival can be conceived rationally
    This is achieved by introducing the idea of personal identity, continuing after death though resurrection
    The concept of replication achieves the desired result
    Resurrection of the body to eternal life is a reasonable belief
    Conclusion:
    You will note that some terms are in italics. These are the basic terms that require detailed consideration and definition. Only then will constructive and consistent argument be forthcoming and lead to a reasonable conclusion.
    Explanations required:
    Assumptions should not be taken for granted. Since we are engaged in a philosophical exercise, even if a primary source of a key assumption is that it represents the teaching of Christian Scripture, the argument will rest on the validity of the reasoning involved, i.e., the validity of the logic by which the conclusion is reached.
    We have taken the theme of chapter 11 as our subject. There are thirteen chapters altogether, each one dealing with an interesting theme of both general interest and also of interest to Christians. These chapters are supplemented with tutorials and Work Sheets. This makes the book suitable for use in the classroom, as well as for individual study.
    Having considered the above explanation I propose you attempt an answer to the following question:
    How does philosophical discussion affect the understanding of your belief?
    Suggestions:

    1. make some general statement(s).
    2. take a single belief that is important for you and examine it.

  • How is the Bible authoritative?

    by Edward W. H. Vick

     9781893729100sThe question is:
      How to explain that the Bible has authority?
    That the Bible is unique is not the question. But why is it unique? Ask different people and you will get different answers, for different people read the Bible for different reasons, approaching it in different ways according to their particular contexts and their particular interests, subject to different influences. Are there, among the many and various answers given to the question, correct ways of addressing it?
    Most Christians would say that the Bible has unique authority. Some simply accept this proposition and think no further about it. They would not be thinking in terms of authority at all. They turn to it for comfort in sorrow, for help in day to day life, for devotional purposes. When is it appropriate then to speak of the Bible as having authority? Others, in accepting biblical authority, seek to give an account of why it has that authority. One account has a long history within different contexts and is held by many conservative Christians today. These claim that the Bible is inspired, that the inspiration is from God, and so the Bible has divine authority. This belief is elaborated in many different ways. This book indicates that these many ways make the concept of inspiration a most ambiguous idea, and one not suited for the purpose of establishing biblical authority. Since this is the case we must ask why and then pursue the quest for an alternative answer. Bur first we must answer the question, What sort of authority are we attributing to the Bible? or Is it a unique authority quite different from others, scientific, historical, moral and independent of them?
    The Bible tells vast numbers of stories. It speaks in many different kinds of symbolic language,
    A common designation for the Bible is that it is the ‘Word of God’. What is sometimes said to follow from this is that it is his communication, however he made it, to us human creatures through intermediaries whom he chose and with whom he worked in special and often unusual ways. The frequent model for the explanation of inspiration is that of the prophet. The details of the process are explained in different ways. Some downplay the human element in the process by which the human agents came to produce the writing.
    This explanation claims that Scripture has authority on account of the origin and the process of its inspiration. Not all explanations express the extreme view that the very words were provided to the passive but receptive agents who then wrote down those words in their language.
    But however the words got into the mind of the prophet and later onto the scroll or page, the process was inspired. Our language was not one of the original ones. So the process of translation was also inspired.
    This book provides evidence for the confusing ambiguity that results when this line of thinking is proposed. A traditional belief about the Bible can be expressed in three propositions:
    (1) It discloses truths about God and the world not available elsewhere.
    (2) It is authoritative, equally and in all its parts.
    (3) It is exempt from error.
    When we ask ‘How is the Bible used?’ if ‘used’ is the proper word, we find that very different answers are given. The words and sentences of Scripture get interpreted in many ways. Can we find right and wrong ways of answering this question?
    Give your answer to this question. Think of what it implies
    The simple believer seeks consolation, guidance, assurance in Scripture. The church seeks doctrine and derives it by interpreting selected writings of Scripture to frame a set of teachings, which are then often seen to share the authority of Scripture. Scholars have their own interests and methods in approaching Scripture. For example, they may be seeking the solution of historical issues. Other examples include researching  context and dating of particular writings, analysing how the text has been transmitted, searching for evidence for historical events referred to in Scripture, exploring how an accurate text is to be constructed from the evidence, finding and presenting the historical and cultural background of the writings and of oral traditions that ended up as components of the ‘books’.
    Some approach the Bible with no interest in the historical or contextual background of the texts being read. Others have a scheme of interpretation already in mind as passages of Scripture are read and pieced together with other texts and used as ‘proof texts’ to create doctrines.
    The claim that Scripture has unique authority is universally believed by the Christian. But there are right and wrong ways of defining and then accounting for that authority. This book examines that issue in some depth, as well as addressing itself to the other issues raised above, as it examines carefully the idea of inspiration. For conservative sections of the church assert that the Bible has authority because it is inspired. This claim calls for careful examination. It must take account of the fact that the concept of inspiration is a highly ambiguous term. So it must be carefully articulated. For it lends itself to a series of category mistakes. The book examines these by setting out the meaning of authority in this context. An inspired writing has no authority unless its ideas are transmitted to a receptive subject, society, or circle. It has authority only as it is read and interpreted. And it can be interpreted in different ways.
    The answers to the question about inspiration are multiple and complex, and very ambitious, like the concept of authority it seeks to underwrite.
    Why is the doctrine of inspiration constructed and what is it then employed to achieve?

    1. to identify the source of Scripture. God inspires the prophet or other functionary,
    2. to identify the process of communication: God speaks,
    3. to account for the condition of the ‘writer’ in the process: the subject ‘hears’ and responds,
    4. to account for the composition of the original: how the various texts were put together.
    5. to account for the unique status of the original product: these texts are set apart from all others
    6. to account for the unique status of the writing that results: it has divine authority
    7. to claim the authority of writings translated from the original documents.
    8. to underwrite the authority of those who interpret the writings.
    9. to support the obligation that both the doctrines and those who teach them be believed.

    When the church, for example, interprets Scripture and produces a set of doctrines, it often claims that those teachings share the authority of the Scripture itself. Then the idea of ‘inspiration’ may be employed to underwrite the obligation to accept the teachings of Scripture as interpreted. So arises a tradition of interpretation.
    Two sources of authoritative doctrine (= teaching) thus emerge, Scripture and tradition, often associated respectively with Protestant and Catholic. Whether this division is proper and how it might be made is given attention in this book, which insists that to understand the issue you must seriously consider the procedure of the hermeneutic involved. Any appeal to Scripture for doctrinal purposes must recognize that how you interpret will determine the outcome of the doctrine invoked. So you must ask what assumptions have been invoked in the process.
    It is because Scripture is interpreted according to different principles taken as normative that differing teachings emerge. Scripture is claimed as foundation for many divergent hermeneutics and for the doctrines they produce. Scripture has authority for those who so interpret it and for those who accept the proffered interpretations. The authority of Scripture is conditioned by the acceptance and employment of particular methods of interpretation. So both Protestants (of many different stripes) and Catholics agree. The results of interpretation of Scripture that each provides become normative, and the term ‘tradition’ is quite appropriately used of the results. Protestants appeal to tradition in appealing to the authority of their teaching, Catholics have made appeal to tradition an essential part of their outlook. Both are concerned that theirs is the correct way of interpreting Scripture. To speak of understanding the Bible is to attempt to find a profitable way of interpreting Scripture. Recognize that Scripture contains a great variety of writing, a multitude of stories and symbols, indeed a lot of non-literal writing and it becomes impossible to claim that everything is to be interpreted literally.

  • Is Jesus coming "soon"?

    by Edward W. H. Vick

    Eschatology coverHere is the question for you:
    What do you make of the following sentences taken with the qualification, ‘But we cannot tell you when’?
    The end of the world is nigh.
    Jesus is coming again soon?
    God is about to judge the world and bring in his kingdom.
    *************************
    I am going to tell you a story soon, a parable really! But first some explanations.
    Eschatology has to do with the end. The Greek word eschaton means ‘end’. In Scripture and in Christian theology that means we shall talk about the future of the human species. But while so talking we involve ourselves in the present. Sometimes that present brings very trying times, the desolation, suffering and despair hardly expressible. Indeed Scripture expressed recognition of this and provided encouragement in striking and disturbing symbols. Some whole ‘books’ employ apocalyptic language, their purpose being to offer the hope that God is in ultimate control. For that reason, even if the present has to be lived under galling, violent and destructive conditions, it can be a hopeful present but one calling for continuous courage and patient endurance.
    Since the ‘end’ is in God’s hands, in the present there may be contentment, courage and hope born of patience. Eschatology touches the life of the believer in all aspects of life.
    The believer may live in hope that in the end goodness may prevail over evil. God will act in his wisdom and in his own time. But that time is never disclosed to humans. No one knows the day nor the hour of the final dénouement. There can nevertheless be an incentive in the here and now for constructive efforts, for endurance when persecuted. Such hope for divine intervention when final justice will prevail provides incentive for constructive, courageous and ethical activity in the here and now.
    Some, taking their cue from apocalyptic passages, feel that they have authentic knowledge of the nearness of the Advent, the parousia, the Last judgment. These believers even attempt to calculate from numbers in the apocalyptic writings when the final events will occur. When the event did not take place on the date or dates predicted, they experienced bitter disappointment. There are those today, retaining some of the original fervour, who say that they are living in the ‘time of the end’, a phrase often left undefined, but still serving as a basis for expectation.
    Among the many themes discussed in the book, I now select one for our consideration. For those who take their primary interpretations from the apocalyptic portions of Scripture the issue is about the end of the world and the introduction of the new age. Many believers are ready to say that it will be ‘soon’ but insist that neither they nor anyone can know when the event will take place. They cannot say how long it will be for the waiting to end. While they say they cannot specify a date for the Second Advent, they persist in saying, even with urgency, that it will be ‘soon’. They use various synonyms when asked what ‘soon’ means: ‘imminent’, ‘in the very near future’, ‘without delay’, ‘nigh’, ‘almost upon us’. Such emphatic denial that specific times can be given would seem to make the claim empty, or even not a claim at all. Look a little closer.
    There are some sentences that cannot be false because they cannot be true either. Why not? What kind of sentence could that be? Does it depend on what the words mean or what even a single word in the sentence means, or on how the sentence is put together?
    Finally, here is the parable.
    There was a farmer who had three sons. Each one of them said, ‘Father, I shall come to help you soon.’
    The first one, Bob, said ‘I shall come to the farm soon, this Wednesday in fact.’
    The second one, Tom, said ‘I shall come to the farm soon, within the next ten days.’
    The third one, Hank, said, ‘I shall come soon, but I do not know when and cannot say when. Nor can I give you a set limit for when it will be.’
    Father was well pleased, and went to bed content that evening.
    The sons got together afterwards and fell into conversation. Hank said, ‘Father seems very pleased and is looking forward to my help, even if I did not commit myself in any way. I did not give a particular date, and I did not set a time limit either’.
    ‘So, what do you mean then? That is not a proper way to use the term “soon” is it? It amounts to an empty promise doesn’t it?’ asked Tom.
    ‘I mean just what I said, I don’t know when.’ responded Hank.
    Bob broke in, ‘If you don’t know when, then you cannot say ‘soon’ can you? Or if you do, it can’t mean anything. We know what we mean. We know what we intend. Father knows exactly what to expect of us. But as far as you are concerned, you might as well not be coming to help at all. You have given father hope by saying you will come soon. You have taken away all meaning by saying that “soon” does not mean what the rest of us take it to mean. It is an empty term.’
    ‘So be it’ said Hank.
    ‘But look here,’ exclaimed Tom. ‘You have raised hopes in father but his hopes are not at all well founded.’
    ‘Look!’ said Hank, ‘what is important is that dad is happy. I do not see myself in the near future being able to spare the time. But if Dad thinks and hopes that I shall be helping, that is what is important. Hank smiled and continued, ‘Every time he asks why I have not yet come and when I will be coming I can always go on saying that I am coming soon to help. My “soon” is a kind of elastic ‘soon.’ It is an extensible ‘soon.’ So as long as Dad hopes and I go on saying I will come “soon”, we are both happy. He is happy because he thinks I shall be not long in coming. I am happy not to have to fulfill a definite promise. My “soon” is a different “soon” from your “soon”. ’
    ‘Promise!’ shouted Will. ‘You can’t call that a promise when no-one can possibly know what it means in terms of real time. It can’t be false and it can’t be true. It’s an empty sentence and such sentences can’t be false or true.’
    Bob said, ‘We have given definite information about when he can expect us. You have not said anything at all. You could go on saying your ‘soon’ as long as you live!
    So it was. Hank is still saying his ‘soon’ and Dad is still waiting expectantly.
    Consider hortatory meaning.
    Let’s now look at another example of a sentence that looks at first sight to be stating simple facts but whose primary meaning is something else and ask what that is.
    It’s six thirty and the shops shut at seven.
    If you ask, ‘What is the function of this sentence?’ the answer might very well be that it is suggesting, urging, reminding you that you should be getting off to the shops. It is not just giving you information. It is saying, ‘Let’s go. We’re hungry!
    It is to be taken as a command, a call for response. Commands are neither true nor false. They are not cognitive. So the primary function of a sentence that makes a statement may not be to assert something, to inform you of a state of affairs, even if you take it to be doing that, but rather to arouse you to do something. Its primary function is hortatory. It may state a fact. But the statement of the fact is not the primary intended meaning of the sentence. Its primary meaning is non-cognitive. The essential function of such a sentence is not to state a fact, but by stating a fact to urge you to action: ‘Go and buy some bread while you can! Don’t you know we’re hungry?’ The function of the whole sentence is to provide encouragement, to exhort, to suggest (sometimes urgent) action. That’s what ‘hortatory’ means.
    It has its hortatory function when two conditions are fulfilled. First, that what the sentence states is both true and is understood, and second that the hearer accepts that it states a fact. In our case, the temporal reference (i. e. within half an hour, or at seven o’clock) can be checked and only, if true, can it provide the ground for the incentive to act appropriately. Note that the temporal reference may consist in reference to a specific time, date or to a limit, a stretch of time as in the above case: ‘at seven o’clock’, ‘within half an hour’.
    *************
    What we have here discussed represents one topic expounded in the book Eschatology. Others include:
    New Testament Eschatology
    Prophecy and Apocalyptic
    Different kinds of eschatology
    Words and Meanings
    Jesus of the Gospels, the Eschatological Jesus
    Resurrection
    After the End

    Another book by the author discussing these themes is available from Energion Publications: Edward W. H. Vick, The Adventists’ Dilemma

Energion Direct
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.