1. Jesus didn't stick to what "the Bible says," but read it with a creative flair that had little if any connection to what the biblical writer actually meant to say.Now, I would tend to disagree, partly with the content of his arguments, but more to the reasoning.
2. Jesus felt he could "pick and choose" what parts of the Old Testament were valid and which weren't.
3. Jesus read his Bible as a Jew, not an evangelical (or even a Christian).
Jesus read His Bible with "creative flair". Yes. Indeed, it wasn't always the same way that the original author had intended it. Now, why would that be? Could it be that Jesus was the Word Himself? Could it be that He was, in Himself, the original author of these texts? So when Moses (note that Jesus thought that Moses wrote Exodus) quoted God--"I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." (Exo 3:6)--Moses understood that to be a reference to his ancestors. And when the Inspiration "translated" it in His day (Luke 20:27-38), He used it to point out that God "is not God of the dead, but of the living." Now, wait! I'm pretty sure that's not what Moses understood it to mean. So what's with that?
Enns writes:
What Jesus is doing here wouldn't sit well with most Christians if, say, their pastor got up and preached like this. They'd ask him or her to try and stick to the text better and if not to start looking for another line of work.Enns is right. As it should be. Because, you see, my pastor is not God-breathed. He is not the Son of God, nor is he divinely inspired. So when Matthew does it (e.g., compare Hosea 11:1 and Matt 2:15) under divine inspiration or Jesus does it as the Son of God, I have no problem with it. It doesn't nullify the meaning. It's not a contradiction. It's just an additional meaning for an Old Testament text provided by the Author of the Old Testament text. Am I supposed to do that? By no means!
Enns argues that Jesus felt he could "pick and choose" the validity of Old Testament passages. As "clear proof" of this, he references Jesus's Sermon on the Mount where Jesus said multiple times, "You have heard it said ..." and points to something in the Law, followed by "... but I say to you ..." There, see? That passage was not valid, right? No! Jesus did not say, "It does not mean what you understood it to mean." He said, "It means that and more." When He deals with Old Testament Law, He says that murder includes the hateful intent (Matt 5:21-26), adultery includes lustful intent (Matt 5:27-30), divorce causes adultery (Matt 5:31-32), and argues that it's better not to swear at all than to swear falsely (Matt 5:33-37). None of these invalidate the original; they expand on them. God warned in Exodus 21:23-25 that the punishment must fit the crime ("eye for an eye", etc.), but Jesus says it doesn't have to be that extreme (Matt 5:38-42). (So God says, "This far and no farther" and Jesus says, "You can also choose to ignore the offense.") This is not invalidation; it is expansion. In fact, in one of the "You have heard it said" passages, Jesus addresses a tradition rather than a text: "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy" (Matt 5:43-47). That's not found in the Old Testament. And He is certainly free to correct faulty traditions. Was some of what God said in the Old Testament "inadequate" (Enns's word)? I would be seriously cautious explaining to God that He didn't say enough and I would like to offer a correction. Now, should a pastor do this kind of expansion? Probably not, since my pastor is neither God Incarnate nor divinely inspired.
I love this accusation that Jesus read the Bible as a Jew. Like there was such a thing as a Christian or evangelical at the time, but He chose not to be one. But Enns recognizes this ... and again steps on his own argument. "Jesus did not agree," he argues, "[that] 'God's word is eternal and never changes.'" Really? As I've demonstrated above, Jesus didn't actually negate God's Word. He didn't actually invalidate any of it. He expanded on it. That's fine for God Incarnate to do. That's acceptable for one divinely inspired to undertake. But this Jesus who did not agree that "God's word is eternal" argued at the outset of the Sermon on the Mount discussed above, "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matt 5:18-19). That sure sounds eternal. And it sure does not sound like an invalidation.
Did Jesus read the Bible different than we do? As different as the actual author reads his own works, sure. That doesn't mean we should. Enns concludes, "Our own Bible shows us that getting the Bible right isn't the center of the Christian faith. Getting Jesus right is." I would suggest that he's not getting Jesus right at all if he argues that Jesus invalidates His Father's Word. But, to "get Jesus right" requires getting the Bible right, doesn't it?
25 comments:
Like most on the theological Left, Enns assumes that Jesus isn't divine. Nearly everything Enns says from there is then wrong.
Ah, Neil, you're jumping the gun here! Look, if we can read our Bibles like Jesus did, then we can read it with a creative flair and make it say what we like. We can pick and choose the parts that are valid and that aren't. We can, in essence, make the Ronco Erasable Bible a reality. You know, erase the parts you don't like, write in what you do in its place, and God has to do it because it's "in the Word".
I've looked into Enns's book, The Bible Tells Me So, which the publisher says he "wants to do for the Bible what Rob Bell did for hell"--make it pointless. It is praised by folks like Rob Bell, Rachel Held Evans, and Brian McLaren. And this is an "evangelical" who is touting a new and improved way to read your Bible. They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.
Don't have a lot of time here, maybe tonight I can expound in greater detail, but some quick notes:
1. You skate close to official heresy (see the early church councils. primarily Chalcedon) -- in terming Jesus God -- when Jesus was God AND Man. He wasn't "superman" like so many conservative evangelicals cast him.
2. On SoTM, Jesus was pointing to a larger, more universal truth, that the nitty-gritty of "the law". And when he spoke of the "commandments", that meant ALL 613 commandments of the Torah, most which nearly ALL modern Christians (fundamentalist, conservative, liberal, orthodox, etc.) eschew most of.
3. Agreed, to "get Jesus right" requires getting the Bible right, doesn't it? And that it was Enns is trying to do -- instead of adherence to rigidness that actually is blinding to truth and more rooted in post-enlightenment western rationalism than the multi-leveled way the ancients actually read (no, actually, they *heard*, not *read*, as text up until way past Gutenburg, was for hearing, not reading).
4. The arrogance of those who claim they don't "pick and choose" is astounding.
5. Evangelical comes from the Greek word εὐαγγέλιον which literally means "good news" (or "good tidings", and the label for the Gospel (which existed centuries before the New Testament was written to scrolls). So that term can be self-applied to anyone believing in the "good news" of Jesus Gospel (or, in like, good news in the Kingdom Jesus declares).
6. Finally, love how people with little or no theological training (compared to Enns, who has MDiv from one of the most prestigious conservative seminaries and a PhD from Harvard in ANE languages/civilization) throw stones based on their limited dogma.
In the order received ...
Since I didn't suggest He was "superman" or anything like it (believing, as I do, in the orthodox version of the doctrine of the Trinity), I will assume you were speaking of "close to" (in a sense I don't understand) and not "into" heresy.
I am not aware that "nearly ALL modern Christians" have discarded most of the Old Testament commandments. I am aware that most have discarded (not an accurate term, actually) most of the sacrificial laws, understanding that they are not abrogated, but fulfilled in Christ. (Thus, it isn't "eschewing" them, but embracing them as completed.) That leaves two "standard" categories of "cultural laws" and "moral laws", and as far as I know "nearly ALL modern Christians" still embrace the moral laws of the Torah. (The laws, not necessarily the penalties, which are only possible in a theocracy.)
You can't get the Bible right to get Jesus right by eliminating as a usable source ... the Bible. If the Bible is a "pick and choose" book read with a "creative flair", then we don't even know what we can know about Jesus.
You are suggesting that I "pick and choose" what is valid? I guess I don't understand since I understand all of Scripture to be valid. How it applies may vary (A command given to Abraham, for instance, may have been intended for Abraham), but I consider it all valid, and the problem I see is first in the "pick and choose validity" concept and then in the accusation that Jesus did it in contradiction to His own words on the subject.
The origins of the word, "evangelical", is all well and good. (And, thanks, but I already knew that.) The problem with communication is that one group means one thing by one word and another group means something else by that same word. So, if, by "evangelical" you mean "someone with good news" and everyone else, by "evangelical", refers to the much more popular "Evangelicals" concept (the ones with their own "National Association of Evangelicals") which includes by definition a belief that the Bible is the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God, then we are talking about two different things--two people separated by a common language. "Evangelism" is typically a reference to spreading the gospel. Conversely, "In the English-speaking world, however, the modern term [evangelical] usually describes the religious movements and denominations which sprung forth from a series of revivals that swept the North Atlantic Anglo-American world in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries." Evangelicalism is a movement aimed at combating a loose version of "Christian" doctrine (brought about primarily by "higher criticism") that denies the Bible and, thus, effectively denies the good news.
The arrogance of those who claim that the Holy Spirit has failed for 1800 years to accomplish what He was sent to accomplish until now, in our latter days, we have managed to figure it out and corrected nearly 2000 years of a complete failure of Christianity to understand its own book is astounding. The call to "He's got an MDiv so he's smarter than you" doesn't make it any better.
"So God says, "This far and no farther" and Jesus says, "You can also choose to ignore the offense.""
I disagree with your statement here. Jesus said to turn the other cheek. He didn't say strike him with equal force, or slightly less, or turn the other cheek. In this case he is not going further, he is invalidating. It is clear from Jesus teaching that an Eye for an Eye is out of bounds now. Especially after the whole love your enemies passage.
Okay, so I just need to understand what you are claiming here, Josh. God said, "An eye for an eye" (in the sense of a command, not as a limit as I said) and Jesus is saying, "God was wrong when He said that and now we've come up with a better way--turn the other cheek." Further, the current command (assuming it God hasn't come up with a still better way) is "Turn the other cheek" which, interpreted means never ask for justice or recompense ... right?
(This, of course, is very problematical for me since Jesus claimed He only said what His Father told Him but you are saying He went against what His Father said.)
I am saying that Jesus is introducing a different way to seek justice. Leave it to God, and don't take matters into our own hands. Pray for justice, don't take it yourself. The time for the nation of Israel to exact punishment and enforce justice is over.
It fits well with the fact that God commanded his people to destroy their enemies in the Old Testament, but now Jesus commands them to love them.
Jesus demonstrated what God is like. He went to the cross for his enemies. Jesus reveals to us the very essence or image of the Father.
We must interpret the Old Testament through the lens of the cross, as it was the truest representation of what God is like. God used a nation for a time, but his Kingdom has come and now justice and vengeance is left to him. We are to love unconditionally.
So in summary, Jesus is not saying God was wrong. Jesus is saying the method we seek justice is different now. Corrupt humans no longer get to dole out "justice" how they see fit.
Okay, still seeking clarity here. Jesus did not say God was wrong. The claim of Peter Enns is that Jesus invalidated parts of the Old Testament, as in these types of passages. You say Jesus did invalidate the original "eye for an eye" concept. But, for reasons I'm not quite understanding, you still hold that He was not making God out to be wrong. Okay, not getting that.
And I'm not getting the current condition as you've described it. First, it's a command from Christ, right? Thus, it is an imperative. And the imperative is ...? From what you said, it looks like you're saying that the command of Christ is that humans are no longer allowed to seek justice. Here, let me get your exact words: "Corrupt humans no longer get to dole out justice how they see fit." (Note, by the way, that the Old Testament commands surrounding the "eye for an eye" concept exactly forbade corrupt humans from doling out justice as they saw fit, limiting it to equitable justice.) It looks like you're saying that human justice is no longer allowed by the command of Christ and we're supposed to leave all that to God. Again, your words: "Leave it to God, and don't take matters into our own hands." Is that your contention? Is that your practice (whether it's in terms of civil governments or simply personal interactions)? Is that really how you understand the command of Christ and how you live (or at least mean to live)?
Yes that is how I understand it. Maybe you are right. The standard has gone from "eye for an eye" to "turn the other cheek". From "take justice yourself up to the point of equitable justice", to "allow God to bring a more perfect justice."
What do you mean by human justice?
"Human justice".
Like, "You have the right to remain silent" or "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Oh, they take those kinds of rights away from you? Too bad. Courts are human justice. You'll just have to be quiet about it and let give out better justice. Or "There's a man in my house with a gun planning to kill my family and rob us." Human justice would be to prevent him to the point of killing him if necessary, while the logical "turn the other cheek" approach as the standard of Christ, a command to all, would require you just take it and wait for God to provide better justice. (You see, killing an intruder threatening the lives of your family is "eye for an eye" justice.)
Indeed, all transgressions approached by human courts or the like are handled by human justice. His wife cheated on him and he sues for divorce. Nope! That's human justice. Your neighbor steals your car and you call the police. Nope! That's human justice. The mayor subpoenas your sermons to make sure you're not preaching against homosexuality and you protest to the courts. Nope! That's human justice.
God could use governments to exact his justice, and people can utilize these systems. These systems are by no means Christian though. As Christians we are not to seek the power these systems bring. We are to continue to serve and love our enemies, just like the Lord we claim.
The intruder example is always given as a proof to why we can't take the teaching of Jesus seriously, but I submit that if the intruder was your son whom you love, you would do everything in your power to restrain him without killing him. We are to love others in this way.
The real title should have been God v Satan. His tactics are the same... "Hath God Said?"
Ummm ... okay, Josh ... except I'm at a loss again. We can use governments to exact justice (understanding that you hold that governments as human institutions operating on Human Free Will do not succumb to God's Sovereignty, so they could produce justice or they could not, rendering them poor sources of "better justice from God"), and this would be the same (in your view) as turning the other cheek? I am really not understanding at all. Seems completely inconsistent.
And, if I understand you correctly, you must be by definition a pacifist, allowing you to talk your way out of an intruder wishing to harm your family but nothing more (because "turn the other cheek", especially based on the premise that you're waiting on God's better justice, precludes physical violence). So if you can talk them out of it, good. If not, we show love to others by ... well ... dying at the hands of the intruder.
First, governments can be used by God whether they are "good" or not.
Secondly, I am not saying that Christians should use the government as a means to seek justice. Christians are called to a life of radical enemy love, as commanded by their King, Christ. We are to treat our enemies as though they are of infinite value and worthy of our love. This can not look like any human government. This is a Kingdom only God can maintain.
One note on pacifism. It does not mean "passive-ism". It could mean physical restraint, but it does mean pacifists will not return violence for violence, in kind.
You argument that dying at the hand of the intruder is wrong, is a very weak unbiblical one. Dying at the hands of our enemies...sounds familiar...oh yeah! Jesus and nearly all the disciples. They didn't seem to think that retaliation in the name of self defense was right, why should we?
"governments can be used by God whether they are "good" or not"
That wasn't my concern (good or not). You've indicated that God is not Sovereign and His will is routinely frustrated, so it would stand to reason that His will (such as justice) would be routinely frustrated when in the hands of human government.
On pacifism, I know that it references non-violence. However, if violence is the only means to save your family, you would not.
"You argument that dying at the hand of the intruder is wrong, is a very weak unbiblical one."
I'm not sure I understood that (from a purely English standpoint) and I'm quite sure that I made no argument about what was right or wrong in the matter. I'm quite sure that I was feeding back to you what I understood you to say--more like a question ("Is this what you meant?") than an argument. So I can't respond to the accusation that it's "very weak unbiblical". But if I understand you correctly (See? I'm doing it again ... feeding back what I understood you to say to ask, essentially, "Did I get this right?"), you are confirming that you understand Jesus's command to be that believers can never use violence of any sort and, lacking violence, will best express love by dying with their family at the hands of the intruder. (By the way, small correction. "Retaliation" is not the same as "defense". "Retaliation" refers to a response to an attack. "Defense" refers to resisting an attack. Not the same thing.)
(And, by the way, arguing that Jesus didn't defend Himself at His trial is all well and good, but He did command His disciples to carry a sword on another occasion and did use violence in the Temple on a couple of occasions, which puts a crimp in the "absolute pacificism" concept.)
But, all I'm leaving you with here is this. You believe that Jesus nullified God's limitations on justice to "eye for an eye" and replaced it with a "no obtaining of justice at all" kind of pacifism, right?
I'm confused. If God is as hands off in human endeavors as you claim, in what way can He exact justice through human government? That would require power Good had forfeited.
Yes, I would agree that many/all governments routinely work outside of God's will. They are not the Kingdom of God. Because God foreknows every possibility, He has a perfect, good, redemptive response to every action that thwarts his will. What exactly that looks like, I guess we don't always know, but we can be assured it is always good and righteous.
I would agree that dying at the hands of the intruder, while doing everything in your power to restrain and deter in a loving way, is the Christ reflecting most loving response. I guess if defense by your definition is restraint, then I could go along with it. If defense is killing before you are killed, then I would disagree that defense if Biblical.
On the two New Testament examples you have given, both are weak. The disciples carried swords so the could be "counted with the transgressors," and fulfill a prophesy. It was clearly not for use, as Christ rebuked Peter for using his. Secondly, there is record of Christ clearing the temple, but no record of any violence occurring. Was he filled with righteous anger? Sure. Did he flip a few tables and use a whip to clear the temple? Absolutely. Did he attack anyone or hurt anyone? The Bible is silent on this.
Our sensible selves want to read self defense into the Bible, because Jesus couldn't really mean we are to love our enemies even as they are killing us. That is foolishness. Oh yeah, the things of God seem foolish to the world.
David,
You are arguing against a straw man. I never said God is hands off. I said he doesn't coerce, which you (or at least Stan) seem to agree with. I believe in a God that is active and working. In fact the Open View is the only view that requires this.
Explain to me how an author of a book is not hands off after he has published it?
(And, by the way, arguing that Jesus didn't defend Himself at His trial is all well and good, but He did command His disciples to carry a sword on another occasion and did use violence in the Temple on a couple of occasions, which puts a crimp in the "absolute pacificism" concept.)
That's a gross misinterpretation of Luke 22 -- Jesus did not "command" that swords be actually used -- in fact, the end of that passage, it is more correctly translated as "that's enough [of this nonsense]". The context is that the disciples repeatedly did not grasp that Jesus was heading into a cross nailing. Instead, they were gathering weapons in mistaken belief of "fighting/inflicting violence" to advance political messiahship of Jesus (in their Jewish understanding).
And Jesus did not use violence in the temple -- in the Greek, it makes no mention that he inflicted harm on any human being. He did display anger (if you want to call that violent), but it was directed at the temple system.
Oh, and I don't believe Jesus was a pacifist.
He taught and modeled a 3rd way (neither fight nor flight), but nonviolent resistance, answering evil with good, serving yourself up as a sacrifice in needed (and ended his human days as the ultimate sacrifice to end all sacrificial rituals).
And Paul echoes this theme in his letters too.
The arrogance of those who claim that the Holy Spirit has failed for 1800 years to accomplish what He was sent to accomplish until now, in our latter days, we have managed to figure it out and corrected nearly 2000 years of a complete failure of Christianity to understand its own book is astounding. The call to "He's got an MDiv so he's smarter than you" doesn't make it any better.
Really? Seriously? You're proclaiming that 1800 years has been a static conception of Holy Scripture?
First off, there wasn't a "bible" until nearly 400 years after Christ. More early Christians read Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache than the synoptic gospel accounts and John's gospel.
Second, Christians of earlier ages read (and most Christians didn't read it all, not until the Age of the Protestant reformers in 16C) scripture in a different way that people of post-Enlightenment ages. There were levels of scriptural interpretation and the *literal* level was the *lowest* level.
Every ~400-500 years or so have seen radical changes in doctrine and theology including: atonement theories to salvation, baptism, liturgy, new believer rites, etc.. For most of history, the dominant view (again, until post-Enlightenment) was that freedom of thought or freedom of worship was an anathema.
It's simply staggering how little most Christians know about church history, or how sad the arrogance of them thinking they have a monopoly on the true faith.
"I said he doesn't coerce, which you (or at least Stan) seem to agree with."
Actually, I said He doesn't always coerce. I didn't say He never coerces and, in fact, gave a couple of biblical examples where He did. He certainly doesn't coerce sin.
I guess I'll have to just let this go. Both Naum and Josh are convinced that flipping tables, lashing with whips, and throwing people out of the temple is "non-violence". Since, as so often seems to be the case, I have no common language to use here with which both you and I agree, I have no means of expressing things to explain or of understanding your words to understand your position.
And both Josh and Naum are happy with God the Son negating God the Father's Word while I cannot correlate it with Jesus's words in the New Testament, so, again, no means of communicating in either direction. Thanks for playing. I do have to admit that it sounds to me exactly what Danny was saying, a repeat of someone earlier asking, "Did God say ...?" And that was not someone I would choose to agree with.
Oh, and, quickly, Naum, no, I am not saying that there has been 1800 years of a static concept. I am saying that historically orthodoxy has held this view of Scripture. You'd like to tell me they haven't, but it was Paul who said, "All Scriptures were inspired by God ...", so that predates the canonization of the New Testament. Regardless, no one thought, "We are certainly free to reinterpret Scripture as we see fit" as is suggested by Enns et.al. Oh, and disagreeing with your position is not ignorance of church history. And nothing in what you wrote answers the problem. Why did the Holy Spirit fail? No answer. Thanks.
Explain to me how an author of a book is not hands off after he has published it?
See Josh, now I am even more confused. How can God be active and working when He as no means of affecting us? He can only watch and hope that we make the choices He wants us to make. If that is the case, than human government is out of his control, and thus cannot provide true justice from God. Now, sometimes human justice and God's justice can agree, but there's no guarantee, and with how sinful we are, it is probably more often than not not in agreement.
And your book analogy doesn't seem to have any agreement with your Open Theism. The author has written the book. It has a beginning, middle, and end, all of which are in his absolute control. Even the "Choose your own adventure" style books dictated an outcome by certain choices. The characters in the story have no influence or say in the outcome of the story. The author knows all the that's the characters could have made, oh, and knows which ones they did make. He is able to change circumstances, even the decisions of the characters, to enact his desired result. How is this at all in agreement with Open Theism, where God is unable to know what choices are going to be made, or has any say in how the end result happens? In Open Theism, it is the characters writing the book, not the Author. The author is hands off after the book is written because the story is complete, but through the entire process of the story, he is completely hands on. Once the book is published, the author is no longer making changes to the story, and the characters are not doing anything other than what the author wrote them to do.
Post a Comment