The Bible and Our Expectations

[Scott]

I remember moving to Belgium. It was hard. For the longest time I denied having any kind of culture shock. I was ok, for I had previously lived in Britain for 3 years, my wife was British, I had travelled to Central America, southern Africa, and a few other places in the world. I was cultured.

 

But after almost 4 years in Belgium, looking back over our time here, I can only describe what I went through, might still be going through, as culture shock. Belgium is within the western world, so it is not as different from America as say Zambia or India or Fiji. But it is quite different - linguistically, politically, socially and more.

 

And I can still get frustrated at some of the perspectives within a Belgian context, one particular area being that of customer service, or the lack of it.

 

But I remember a very good friend, an American pastor friend who had been in Belgium for some 20+ years, challenging me to change my expectations. You see, I had brought a whole load of American expectations into a non-American society. Why would I expect Belgium to function anything like America? It was time I change, not Belgium.

 

And this is what I think we do with the Bible on so many levels.

 

As evangelicals, a grouping of Christians who believe in the God-breathed, authoritative and reliable nature of Scripture, we approach Scripture with a lot of expectations, ones that I am not very sure would fall within the ancient paradigm-framework of those who actually wrote Scripture.

 

We argue that one of the greatest hermeneutical principles for understanding Scripture is that of the grammatical-historical hermeneutic. This means that we will better understand God's revelation in Scripture if we ground that understanding in the grammar and history of the time, culture and paradigm within which it was written. Genesis or 1 Kings or Matthew or 1 Corinthians was not written in a 21st century, post-Englightenment, modern or post-modern perspective. It was written within an ancient near eastern (Old Testament) or first century Jewish (New Testament) paradigm. And those eras carry their own set of expectations, which are quite different from a 21st century, modern society.

 

And so, when someone like myself considers that the early chapters of Genesis might not be 100% literal factual history, but rather a storied account, I am not becoming loosey-goosey in my doctrine of Scripture, denying anything about the nature of Scripture. I am rather asking how would the text come forth so long ago in a time and culture so different from mine.

 

Oh I believe the storied account of the Bible is based within history. But I am convinced it might not always be telling straightforward history. As Kenton Sparks notes about the Pentateuch, the first 5 books of the Bible, which includes Genesis:

 

In light of this comparative information [with other ancient near eastern literature], the most natural explanation for the content of the Pentateuch is that it is not a book of history so much as an anthology, in which its author (or authors) attempted to bring together Israel’s ancient traditions, laws, and rituals into a single compendium or library of texts. Viewing the Pentateuch as an anthology helps us understand why it contains two or more versions of so many stories, and also why it contains so many types of genres. Its author (or compiler) was clearly more interested in preserving Israel’s diverse traditions than in providing some kind of coherent book of history. (God’s Word in Human Words, p219)

 

Or as a colleague of mine once helpfully defined biblical history:

 

It is a theological re-telling of history in the form of a narrative with the purpose of speaking into the present.

 

I believe we will get in all sorts of 'trouble' if we demand that the 'historical' sections of the Scripture must give us 100% complete and factual history. What will happen is that, if something is presented contrary to such an expectation, whether from biblical scholarship or science, then we end up blindly turning our noses up at such findings. 'They can't be true. God's word is inerrantly true. Scholarship and science are forever changing and err in so many ways.' we claim.

 

Again, I'm not interested in denying the truth, reliability, authority or divinely given nature of Scripture (though I'm not a fan of the more conservative perspectives on inerrancy). But I am open to changing my own hermeneutical approaches of understanding Scripture in light of archaeological or scientific findings. Of course, I don't desire to do such on a whim. Still, I will consider such if reasonable findings are presented. My hermeneutics and expectations are not unshakable. So, at times, God has to come with some shaking (i.e. Heb 12:26-29).

 

Then does this mean Scripture does not speak authoritatively about history (or science)?

 

Again, I would answer it this way: Scripture speaks authoritatively, reliably, and truthfully as the inspired revelation of God, but this comes down to considering such questions as these - a) what is the intent of Scripture, b) what are the varying genres of Scripture, c) how does God incarnationally speak into an ancient culture thousands of years ago, d) would Scripture be written from a post-Enlightenment, modern perspective?

 

Scripture, as given to us, does not always, nor maybe even normatively, give us complete and straightforward history (or science). That was never its intent. Rather it gives us a theological telling of the history into which it speaks. Or to say another way, Scripture's voice communicates authoritatively into history, but it does so as God speaks and acts in revealing his redemptive plan for humanity. It tells its history-narrative with a theological intent.

 

Genesis was not ever intended as straight up history. Even if one holds that creation came forth in six 24-hour periods and that Adam and Eve must be literal figures, there is still a theological telling of the narrative in Genesis. Even if one holds that there are no tensions within the 4 Gospels of the New Testament, they are still given as a theological narrative. It's not simply history.

 

And this is ok. This does not mean that Scripture becomes unreliable because Genesis 1-3 might not be straightforward factual history, but rather communicating God's revelation within a storied account of the beginnings of his people and humanity. It doesn't mean that Scripture is unreliable because the varying Gospel writers had Jesus dying on a different day. Oh, it does if we bring those faulty expectations to what Scripture must do. But if we allow Scripture to be what Scripture actually is, if we allow the Scripture writers to speak from their own ancient paradigm, then we allow Scripture to bring its own expectations to the table. And we still receive it as the God-breathed, authoritative and reliable text that it is as God's revelation of himself and his redemptive plan for all peoples.

 

This is the Bible. This is the incarnational Scripture text that God has given us through his people, his ancient people. This is the God-breathed text that is still very much useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. I love it. You should too.

[Rey Reynoso]

An actual Incarnational Model of Scripture (one, two, three, four, five, six, seven).

[Scott]

Rey -

 

I'm browsing the first article and already see complications.

 

The doctrine of the incarnation, in history, says that Jesus was—and still is—fully perfect man and fully perfect God. 

 

Now, I believe it is ok to nuance definitions. It might be necessary. And such you did by adding the word perfect, to make your definition, well, perfect. But I've never typically seen any definition of the hypostatic union utilising that lovely word like you have. But I'm not as widely read as you. So I might have missed someone.

 

I believe we easily use categories in ways that were not intended with the ancients - errant or inerrant, perfect or imperfect, etc. Adam was 'perfect', as presented in Scripture, but that didn't mean he held perfect knowledge on all matters. Ask Adam what π was all about. His perfection was with regards to sin and him being the image bearer God originally designed him to be.

 

So let's think about the second Adam, Jesus. He was 'perfect' no doubt. But did that work itself out in the incarnation with perfect knowledge on all matters? Again, ask Jesus about π. Or I can quote some Scripture where Jesus did not have all knowledge and we are told that he had to grow in wisdom. Was Jesus walking around with downloadable information on all matters? Well, I do believe some argue he did.

 

Oh, he's still absolutely perfect, in the sinless state that he was, and still remains. Scripture is also clear on that point. But Jesus, veiled in flesh, did not come in all his God-ness. I suppose we might philosophize on how they might have all imploded if such a reality had happened. But he was still the spotless One.

 

And here we have Scripture, coming to us in the flesh, without all its God-ness on. Just like The incarnation one. And just as the Son sufficiently revealed the Father, so Scripture sufficiently reveals our God and his revelation. Always has. Always will.

 

Incarnation calls for Jesus to become, well like the writer to the Hebrews said, just like his brothers. Veiling, laying aside, not grasping at, all that biblical terminology. And Scripture comes to us just as incarnational, within its context, not ours, speaking like a true text from ancient writers, not as abstract theological golden plated bliss that shines so brightly it burns the retina. It comes true and sufficient in its intent and purpose. But it comes just as the living word did, in the flesh, incarnational, within a context. Imagine stripping Jesus of his maleness, Jewishness, first century-ness, etc? And the incarnational word might shine just as beautiful as we taste and see of our good God in Christ.

 

Oh I know, I'm wrong. I'm not really addressing anything you say. But I guess I thought I might attempt it than leaving links to articles and books. Hey, maybe Marv and I can interact together with your series just as we did with CMP's on being charismatic.

[Rey Reynoso]

Fine: Fully Imperfect God and Fully Imperfect Man.

The Word "Perfect" is being used to underscore Fully. I've heard people say Fully 100% God but percentages don't make sense since it's not about a mixture of chemicals but about the completeness of the nature.

And all I did was essentially what you do but with less words all around it.

[Scott]

No one is arguing for imperfection.

 

I believe you are approaching the incarnation, of the Word or the word, with wrong categorical terminology.

 

How are we going to utilise perfection? Did Jesus have perfect knowledge on all topics, or did he perfectly accomplish all the Father had given him and remain perfectly sinless? Or did Jesus carry around perfect, 100% complete knowledge in his incarnation? Does Scripture and its writers contain perfect knowledge on all topics, or does it perfectly accomplish all the Father has given it for and remain perfectly faithful to its intent? Or does Scripture and its writers carry around perfect, 100% complete knowledge on all topics? Are they writing a perfect caption of history, or are they accomplishing the Father's intent in their theological telling of history?

 

We have to watch our categorical approaches in terminology.

[Rey Reynoso]

NO!! [Someone] has ruined us all from having decent discussion!! I can evade any discussion by throwing out fallacious terminology ad absurdum. It's all red herrings, straw men, ad hominem, over generalisations, {categorical approaches in terminology}, etc!! It's never worth considering because of these fallacies!

[Daniel]

Personally, Scott, your blog lived up to my expectations.  I think you are spot on.  We can't understand the historical narrative of some historical book written in one historical context about another historical context and suggest that we limit ourselves to the study of the text.  Proper understanding of the text REQUIRES that we bring in outside information.  Language requires an understanding based on the context of the reader's point of view.  But if you challenge their point of view and suggest that the point of view of the author or the expectations of the original audience would be different, you are accused of denying inerrancy or some other straw man.  When someone that doesn't share the same language, the same culture, the same continent, the same expectations, the same worldview, the same desires, the same needs, and so forth with the ancients tells me dogmatically what the text "clearly says" and "clearly means", it speaks more to hubris than humility.  IMHO anyway.  

[Jason]

Wow! Daniel, that was nothing more than an ad hominem. Are you getting on one of these kicks again that will lead to us having a huge discussion that leads nowhere but to bad feelings?
You just insinuated that those of us who hold to inerrancy don't believe in, or study, backgrounds and are arrogant.
Sir pot, this is the kettle you are calling black; but you need to ask yourself what color you are.
Somehow or another we're guilty of straw men and being un-irenic, but you are not when you say the things you just said? This is far too much, and I think you are a better person than to do what you just did.

[Jason]

Daniel,
I think that comment of mine had too much of an edge. I'd rather let it stand than to re-type it.
I also think that you didn't truly mean to come across as you did. If you tell me you were speaking in hyperbolic terms, I guess I'll say that I'll work harder on discerning authorial intent :-)

[Daniel]

I don't think you have the same understanding of "ad hominem" that I do.  I'm not saying that X person is wrong because they are a proud person.  I'm saying that anyone that believes that they have it all figured out all these languages/cultures/centuries later is leaning more towards the idea that they are an expert than they are leaning towards "I could be wrong".  Do you disagree with that statement?

[JFDU]

Scott I have so many questions and don’t even know where to start. I avoid jumping in these discussions to avoid humiliation more than anything as I’m not as well versed as you fellas (just a selfish self-preservation thing!), but I am ‘bursting at the seams’ to ask a few things.

 

I can’t decide from your post where you are on Genesis:

 

…someone like myself considers that the early chapters of Genesis might not be 100% literal factual history, but rather a storied account…

 

I’d like to pin you down if I can for some straight answers (indulge me some linear questioning if you will).

 

• By “a storied account” you mean an analogy/metaphor like The Shack?
• That means that Adam/Eve may be figurative and not real people?
• Therefore every mention of Adam and Eve in the NT is seemingly (disguised?) literal/factual to unsuspecting readers (i.e. “For Adam was formed first, then Eve” 1 Tim 2:13) when in fact Paul expects his readers, as a fait accompli to their understanding (micro pun intended) that these names may not belong to real people?
• IF the genre is indeed non-factual historical narrative, then we have utter confusion when we read the genealogical litany of names in Luke 3 that ends with “Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God”. HUGE problems for someone like me here. If Adam is not literal on the list of names, what about all the other names on the list? Or, put another way, how can the list be read as a literal, chronological, historical, factual account of real people who lived in real places (and some of whose existence has been historically verified) only to switch genres from literal to figurative on the 2^nd half of the 38^th verse?
• If the talking serpent is figurative, then we should discount Balaam’s talking donkey too, except the whole “story” of Balaam reads like a journalist’s article. Again I approach the text in “good faith” thinking it’s a literal, historical account of something only to be ambushed by the possibility of a figurative or “storied account”. How do you deal with all this?
• Why are grammar and history downplayed as effective means of interpretation when by their very nature they can be means-tested objectively rather than the subjectivity of speculation?
• Are you saying that in your view, the ancient Hebrews who heard the Pentateuch read for the first time, as well as the early Christians in Jerusalem intuitively understood that these may have not have been literal accounts of events?
• More importantly Scott, do you actually teach your congregation that A&E may not be real/literal figures?

 

It should be obvious where I’m going with this. It’s fine to question Genesis (or other texts) if one wishes to deepen their understanding, but in doing so it seems to raise so many other questions that need answering. In an attempt to solve one problem it creates others.

 

As a “layman” (and by that I mean someone with no theological training, so I’m “layman 007, licensed to be wrong” ha!), it makes me extremely nervous to shift from a “literal” Genesis account because it rests at the foundation of the redemption plan. If A&E and the first few chapters are NOT literal, then I don’t know how to process the fall without which the atonement doesn’t make any sense. And NO I’m NOT saying you imply the fall didn’t happen, but if I start doubting the historical literacy of the early chapters of the Bible, then I’m left with a dubious fall which unfortunately I encounter only 3 chapters down the road.

 

My last question (!) Scott et al is: WHY would God choose to use non-literal story telling in such pivotal junctions of the biblical narrative?

 

John