Unsettled Christianity

Share with all of your friends

My first answer is no. This is remarkably similar to my second answer, which is something like “sure, why not, but it means little to nothing to say you’ve read Holy Writ from Genesis to Revelation.”

To start, if you read “the bible” as a single book, you are doing a grave injustice to it. First, “the bible” is a disastrous name for it. It is rather the holy writings or some such thing. While we have put it in a box as one book (hence the singular, bible), it is a group of writings written by different people (I would say at least one woman and maybe even a Gentile) over a course of centuries. It has been redacted, edited, copied, and closed. To read Genesis as if it precedes Exodus and so on and so forth is to dismiss the books likely written before it such as Isaiah, or at least some of Isaiah. To then proclaim that you have the mystery of the faith because you have read the bible straight through is to first deny the character of the writings and second, to claim to have read something that simply doesn’t exist.

And of course, there is part two. What does reading Scripture ever do for anyone? I mean, people read Daniel and Revelation, look around, and assume that these two books are speaking directly to our times. The Young Earther reads Genesis and believes that God is nothing more than a Loki-like deity. The husband who seeks control looks at Ephesians 4 and believes it gives him the right to own, in every sense of the word, his wife. John Piper reads Romans and believes he is suddenly God and King. Reading does little, unless it is for pure devotional or a spiritual discipline. To study, however, to study Scripture is to take Scripture at what it said and to see what it says.

Of course, what ever gives you comfort in attempting to gain some measure of spiritual authority over someone else I guess is alright. Right?

Related articles

• Enjoying Genesis: The Bible in Rhyme is Now Available! (enjoyingthebible.wordpress.com)
• Reviewing Raw Revelation: The Bible They Never Tell You About @MarkRoncace (unsettledchristianity.com)
• Let’s Be Honest About Bible Errors (defrostingwindows.wordpress.com)
• Reading Through the Bible: Genesis Questions? (blackanddarknight.wordpress.com)
• The Bible, Homosexuality, and Christianity: Binding, Loosing, and a Conclusion (politicaljesus.com)

Therefore, as soon as all the peoples heard the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, drum, and entire musical ensemble, all the peoples, nations, and languages fell down and worshipped the golden statue that King Nebuchadnezzar had set up. (Daniel 3.7 NRSV)

A friend of mine brought this up the other day.

Say… where was Daniel in all of this? Remember, if Scripture is supposed to be infallible, historically trustworthy, filled with nothing but facts and poetic facts… then we have a problem.

This story plainly states that of all of the Babylonian empire, only three people withstood the King’s command. Where was Daniel?

If you are using Daniel as a patriotic image of Americans, or even in any sort of eschatological sense — STOP IT. You are doing it wrong.

Related articles

• Dare to Be a Daniel – Two Things a Daniel Will Not Do! (jackwoodard.wordpress.com)
• It’s getting hot in here (strive4theprize.wordpress.com)
• King Nebuchadnezzar, the United States and Insanity (hitchhikeamerica.wordpress.com)

Both… sometimes… none… sometimes…

The principle of “scripture interprets scripture” is a logical fallacy. This is the idea of sola scriptura, that all we need is the good book… except, that is not all we have. We have the canon, formulated over centuries. This canon is a two-fold issue. First, the books are sometimes redacted, meaning in such cases as Isaiah and Zechariah, we have a tradition combining various writings under one heading. Second, we have to consider the manuscript. I remember reading somewhere in one of F.F. Bruce’s writings on this issue. If you are Orthodox, then you know full well what I mean. You accept the Byzantine New Testament while the West usually (unless the KJVO crowd) goes with a more critical text. Even the order of the books are issues among the faith communities. Essentially, I mean this: Even the index is by tradition, meaning you do not start with Scripture, but with Tradition.

At times, Scripture does interpret Scripture, but I would maintain in just a few instances. To understand Creation inside of Temple theology, you must start with Deutero-Isaiah and then read Genesis 1, forgetting Genesis 2-3. Job’s creation stories aren’t exactly the same thing and should not find themselves forced into that situation, although Job does comport well with First Isaiah. The Deuteronomistic books do help interpret one another, as do the priestly books. The prophets are okay, but sometimes, not the same thing. I mean, the idea of the Day or the Lord changes from start to finish. And the New Testament… no. It reads and applies the Old Testament (usually the Septuagint) to Christ and the Christian community, but it does not interpret. It interprets Jesus by the Old Testament. Different stuff there.

But, and I know a certain person not yet convinced with this (J.S. – I miss you. Come back from the cabin), Scripture does at times argue with Scripture. Ruth and Jonah battle Ezra-Nehemiah. Deuteronomy battles Leviticus, especially in Paul. Revelation would dispense with the rest of the books. Indeed, the prophets are constantly arguing with the Law.

And of course… Paul, James, and Luther…

Obviously, I’ve missed the conversation between the John Piper and Peter Enns and their respective corners. I’ll wait while you guess what side I fall on.

Done?

It ignore that the entire narrative of Scripture, and the work of Christ, is not a direct question to God, is to get a lot of things wrong. I would say, dare to say even, that if you do not understand this basic concept, then you are apt to take Scripture not seriously, but wrong. Do you think that an entire book about questioning God would be about not questioning God if we didn’t know the answer to the problem (Job)?

Enns writes,

Piper would need to take seriously the conclusion drawn overwhelmingly by archaeologists that the systematic slaughter of the population of Canaan around 1200 BC did not happen. As with many issues surrounding archaeology, there is further discussion to be had, and I am guessing that Piper will not be swayed but what archaeologists say.

That’s fine. That is nothing new. As a matter of fact, most of us, I thought, knew how to read that. When we find evidence in nature against theology, it is not Scripture that is wrong, but theology (that sounds Augustinian, right?). This is why we are able to adopt evolution of some sort and still hold to a “literal” Genesis 1, because what we know from God’s other book tells us that we haven’t been reading this book correctly.

But, someone has taken offence to this:

No matter what the archeologists say, the Bible says that the conquest happened.

Burk goes on to issue a sort of straw-man-ad-hom all in one -

If your view of scripture is deficient, then it’s no surprise that your view of God’s sovereignty might be deficient as well. Enns falls short on both counts.

How is Enns’ view of Scripture deficient? Because he is able to take real world evidence and follow Christian Tradition, then he must not “believe the bible.” I was unaware that such a demand existed. Paul certainly didn’t require one to “believe the bible” to be saved. His focus on the preaching of Christ and believing the preaching about Christ. Paul also goes further and pits Deuteronomy against Leviticus. Would Burk condemn the Apostle Paul? And what of Jesus? Jesus said some things in the Old Testament weren’t of God, but by man. Does Jesus have a deficient view of Scripture?

Burk is also being rather circular – God’s sovereignty for him is required. This means the bible is true. Because God is Sovereign. Because God is Sovereign, the bible is true. He doesn’t define sovereign here, nor “true.” Instead, I suspect that both are euro-centric theological understandings.