The Servant-hood of God
We look at those around us, and we marvel at the rare occasion of celebrities or political figures rolling up their sleeves to work alongside the “common man.” Recently, a church I know of did a service project at 25 sites in the St. Louis area involving 450 volunteers. A friend of mine remarked at how strange it was to see “the wealthiest guy [he knows] on his knees, scrubbing toilets in a community park.” Their service takes on special significance because they set aside their status and power; they go “above and beyond” what they are called to do. Yet most cases that we see splayed across the news involve people with ulterior motives. I’m sure that Barack Obama and John McCain are great guys, but they’re not flipping pancakes at Joe’s Diner to help them cook breakfast, but to gain attention and identify with voters who can serve their interests.
Conversely, to say that Jesus went willingly and gladly to the cross for God’s people merely or primarily as an example totally misses the point. God set aside His divinity, His status and power, to be a servant for humanity, but His service actually accomplished something. Indeed, it accomplished everything.
And when I think that God, His Son not sparing,
Sent Him to die, I scarce can take it in,
That on the cross, my burden gladly bearing,
He bled and died to take away my sin.
(How Great Thou Art by Carl Gustav Boberg, 1885)
Out of pure Love, the Creator of all things set aside the very power He used to create us, to become the very worst of us. Not to serve as an example of brotherly love, although that is absolutely an implication, but to absorb His own justice on our behalf. It’s not fair. Thank God!
Christ is an example to us all, but His love and sacrifice is so much more than that. The loving servant-hood of God is so great that He became the lowest of the low so that all may be lifted high. This service is not a moral lesson; it is the single most important event in all of history. It split time in two! Every human purpose, thought, emotion, and deed climaxes in the beautiful devastation of the cross, and humanity’s very existence since then lives in its shadow.
The cross is not merely a moral example, forgiveness of sins, reconciled relationship with God, cleansing from sin, or the proof-promise of future glory…. It is all of those and more, wrapped up into one single sovereign act of love at the very crux and pinnacle of human history, changing everything forever and revealing the divine purpose in everything that had transpired up to that point. But then add that God Himself became one of us, entering into the mess we’ve made of everything good He created, the only truly innocent person in the history of mankind, to take on the punishment of every wrong, every injustice, and every misdeed ever committed and yet to be… and you have a Truth of such beauty, magnificence, and glory that words can hardly describe. And for no other reason than because God is both infinite love and infinitely just.
To the cross I look, to the cross I cling
Of it’s suffering I do drink, of it’s work I do sing
For on it my Savior, both bruised and crushed
Showed that God is love and God is just.
What a priceless gift, undeserved life
That I’ve been given through Christ crucified
You’ve called me out of death, you’ve called me into life
And I was under Your wrath,
Now through the cross I’m reconciled.
(Sweetly Broken by Jeremy Riddle, 2000)
Brad,
I’m really glad you wrote this post and just this whole idea has been in my thoughts lately about giving and being generous. I thought about it mainly in the context of tip-percentage at the restaurant… sometimes people give just cause they can! Who knows? In anycase, Jesus gave us His life and His righteousness because He is Life and He is righteousness and… sigh. He is exalted and praised, and to Him be the glory!
Also to go back to your last post about masculinity and servanthood, I have been observing some of the men around me and just watching how life-giving it is to others when they give it their all and go all out and care for others around them! Some examples are the bussers at work just meeting servers and carrying their load for them, and boxing things and going out of their way to assist the server in whatever way possible. Also, guys on dates with girls… and when the guy opens the CAR door… that’s above and beyond. That’s like total princess treatment. hahah. And we love it!
This is why you people confuse me so much! Your holy scriptures, your doctrines, and your leaders all have conflicting things to say not only about one another, but about themselves! And things are always so grey. “Love one another.” WHAT DOES IT MEAN?!?!?!?!?!
In seriousness, I think that is part of what makes a religion last a long time: it is open to many interpretations and can evolve w/ time and people.
It’s interesting to think historically about Christianity (new testament and on) as a religious philosophy, and how people must have responded to its teachings.
“You are born with original sin, and then you do bad stuff in your life, but God forgets all that if you just ask to be forgiven and believe in what His son taught.”
“What about the sacrifices?”
“No, we don’t do that.”
“So, God just forgives you?”
“Yeah.”
“He doesn’t kill your crops or flood your village?”
“No. He just wants us to live in His love.”
I would be suspect. I AM suspect.
I know service has always been a part of the Christian ideal, but it really seems to have spiked in the past two years. To what is that due? Or am I imagining things?
Kyle, I think media of it has spiked… While this 25 site group might be new, places like the Women’s shelter in town have been faithfully working for 20 years (out of a small church called Grace and Peace).
Brad, pretty all-encompassing (ly) for a seminarian blog isn’t it?
Kyle, I am glad I am not the only suspect out there. I think the greatest thing Christianity has are its adherents, and the most troubling thing is its adherents. And, I suspect it has always and will always be this way!
Is that a real dialogue you had with someone? Seems kind of simple for a summary of the OT and the issue of suffering, etc.
Hahaha… Kyle, you are definitely not imagining things.
In the last few years there has been an increase, particularly in the younger generations, because many are tired of Christians being known for “talking the talk” without “walking the walk.” So many talk about “loving your neighbor,” but few leave the cheer-leading sidelines to grunt it out on the field. That said, there are many exceptions (as Matt pointed out) that don’t get the “press” for their efforts.
Could you clarify a little bit about conflicting messages?
“I would be suspect. I AM suspect.”
Dude. That is a very… simplistic understanding, and if someone actually phrased it as such, then I wouldn’t blame you at all.
“Brad, pretty all-encompassing (ly) for a seminarian blog isn’t it? ”
Meh… I guess so. What do you mean, though?
I like this.
To fall in love with the face of Christ might be to fathom the anonymity, the secret, the veiled promise of humility sung by His servitude. I fall in love with God because of this secrecy, that He spoke in parables for the willing to come, to follow after Him. To think that Jesus squelched the rumors, the talk and hype, for a truer hope, a personal invitation to the Beloved…this moves me. Thanks for bringing this to me today, Brad.
in freedom,
chris
Brad
Tell me where is the sacrifice, when you are resurrected 3 days later? In the grand scheme of things(eternity), 3 days is a mere pittance.
I hear you, Matt, but I really do think there has been an increase. Maybe it is more like the past 10 years, not the past 5. I think it has something to do with globalization.
I’m wondering if there is a book out there that discusses the Bible as an account from many different conflicting perspectives rather than one synchronized, unified work. I’m thinking about something that takes the perspective of: “So and so said this, but so and so said that. It is my opinion that person 1 is not being honest, and you can see this because of the way he acted earlier in blaahblahblah.” Does that make sense? Can anyone recommend a book like this to me?
John,
“Tell me where is the sacrifice, when you are resurrected 3 days later? In the grand scheme of things(eternity), 3 days is a mere pittance.”
Excellent question. This is a question that is often severely neglected in answering accurately. The physical pain and suffering Christ experienced is obvious, but as you say, rationally somewhat limited because Jesus anticipated His resurrection. It’s easy, but incomplete.
Jesus was with the Father from the beginning (John 1:1-3). They were in absolute perfect relationship and intimacy. Sin is rebellion from God, and the effects of sin are separation from that relationship and intimacy. For Jesus’ sacrifice to be substitutionary for humanity, He had to experience the separation (effects of sin) for all humanity.
Think about a significant other or family member you love dearly. Remember the pain of separation (either temporary or permenant)? Now magnify that infinitely. Jesus’ sacrifice was definitely physically painful, but the real sacrifice was experiencing the relational pain of separation from the Father (Mt. 27:46 and Mk. 15:34). Does that make a little more sense?
Kyle,
I could probably recommend a book for you, but I need to ask a couple questions to make sure I recommend something that you are actually wanting
“I’m wondering if there is a book out there that discusses the Bible as an account from many different conflicting perspectives rather than one synchronized, unified work.”
Do you mean where the commentators analyze the Bible as though it is a conflicting compilation of books from different authors, or where the commentators disagree with each other about the meaning of the unified nature of the books of the Bible, or some combination thereof?
““So and so said this, but so and so said that. It is my opinion that person 1 is not being honest, and you can see this because of the way he acted earlier in blaahblahblah.””
Is this referring to a commentator or a character in a biblical narrative?
That would help me out in directing you where you want to go.
Brad
I understand what you are trying to say in regards to the enormity of the pain Jesus experiences. What I am trying to point out is that even though it was extreme, it was also very temporary. I could point out many people who suffer an entire life of extreme abuse that in my mind would be very comparable. Now would that make them “Christ like”?
Something where the commentators analyze it as a conflicting compilation of books.
And in that second bit, I am referring to a commentator noting the conflicting ideas or philosophies in the Bible.
John,
I would say that, compared to eternity, both 3 days and a lifetime of suffering are pretty temporary and minute. I don’t mean to take away from the EXTREME pain that many in this world experience, but compared to eternity both truly are the blink of an eye. It is kinda like two people of equal height standing next to each other, but the person standing on a single sheet of paper claims to be taller.
Does suffering make people “Christ-like? I think it has the ability to do so, but not all suffering makes us Christ-like. For example, a criminal who suffers in prison may not ever be Christ-like, but it may also cause him or her to recognize their need for God.
Brad
This is where we may part ways, but I think that it is in our pain that we find God, or more precisely he makes himself known to us. And its not of our doing, after all he is the creator of all, and that includes our pain. Now here is the neat part, I think that was intentional, because I know it is a rare person who actually prays for guidance when everything is going well. Now as far as Jesus and his so called sacrifice. A sacrifice means you are giving something up, if Jesus were truly God, then there was no chance of actual loss, so there was no actual sacrifice. He could not actually die as God is of spirit and his pain was very temporary, so again why is such a big deal made of it?
Kyle,
Gotcha. There are commentators who treat the Bible this way, but I am curious why you want to find commentators with specifically this outlook on the Bible. What is at stake for you in reading them?
John,
“He could not actually die as God is of spirit and his pain was very temporary, so again why is such a big deal made of it?”
John 1:14 says that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. So God the Father is Spirit but God as Jesus most certainly is flesh. He grew in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52), he suffered when resisting temptation (Heb 2:18) and when His time came, he suffered death for us all (Heb 2:9).
Such a big deal is made of Jesus’ sacrifice because it is a big deal. It does everything you say that it cant, and there-in lies the miracle.
Kyle
Youre basing your premise on only one book. Now is that very scholarly? Now you do realize Jesus was not god?
John 14:28
“for the Father is greater than I.”
Mike, it just interests me.
John, I don’t know what you are talking about or what that comment is referencing. I’m mostly just talking about the King James Bible here.
John,
It was me that posted in response to you, but in the message I also responded to Kyle.
“Youre basing your premise on only one book.”
Am I? I am of the opinion that the entire corpus of scripture testifies to the divinity of Jesus. What made you think I was only relying on one source? We have an article in our resources page that deals with the implicit divinity claims of Jesus throughout the gospels (not even including the explicit ones), and that doesnt even address the plethora of divinity claims found in the epistles.
“John 14:28 for the Father is greater than I.”
My favorite explanation in detail (and context) is Philippians 2:5-11. Truth is you dont have to leave John 14 to see this played out in Jesus own description of himself (assuming you keep everything in context).
Lol…Mike
Too many names so little time. 66 books, made into 1 with a supposed overall theme, would that be correct?
I like the fact this faith has it’s heart - servanthood - which to me seperates a good faith practice from a great one. I think if our faith could keep this idea as central to it’s core purpose then we would find church communities becoming more purposeful…with an added depth of local servitude. It’s something about this faith that see as such a draw - and builds close relationships. There is something about helping others that does that.
For me, the Christ story speaks about someone that was great - but humble. I think being a servant type personage means gathering in the attributes of mercy, grace, humility, compassion, equality, etc. Servanthood means setting aside what and who we are also - for the sake of others and people’s well being. A faith couldn’t ask for a better role model or paradigm.
The enormity of Christ’s pain and suffering is embodied (and in my mind, inconceivable and ultimate) by the horrific beatings, scourgings, and crucifixion. However, it would be narrow to say that this comprises the entirety of His suffering. Ours is the God Who empathizes, Who takes on our burdens and griefs, Who longs for us and cringes at our distance…no? Imagine the grief of knowing that your children were destined to reject you again and again and again…only to swear to return and reject you once again.
For a good book that reexamines the context of each of the Biblical books, see Marcus Borg’s Reading the Bible Again for the First Time. Very readable and there’s a lot packed into each section.
Chris………….As hard as I try I just cant see how its a sacrifice for God. The way my brain works, it just doesnt compute. 3 days…………Eternity……….hmmmm………..no chance of disconnection……..explain the sacrifice?
John,
“He could not actually die as God is of spirit and his pain was very temporary, so again why is such a big deal made of it?”
What you are describing here is an ancient, but recurring heresy: docetism. Jesus did exist in body, and endured every blow, insult, impaling, every excruciating moment of the passion. What else are the Gospels but the testimonies that lead up to (and are theologically oriented about) the sacrifice of Jesus?
The struggle to conceive of the ultimate sacrifice of God demonstrated in the suffering and death of His Son Jesus is, I think, the natural response to something not only counter-intuitive and, as you say, resistant to computing, but altogether baffling, a conspiracy of sorts. It is ours to enter into the Gospel narratives alongside the Jesus Who speaks in beautiful symbols, Who embodies the divine image…it is ours to receive His words and claims to rebuilt the Temple with His body in three days. A mere three days - in this sense, you are right!
But all of this is heart-knowledge. I could never know Jesus through theological construction or the paltry tools of my reasoning. Jesus discovers us, and we must experience His discovering of us to begin to suspect the conspiracy…
I’ll leave the theology to someone better equipped - but I think this much is in order: God is community, elohim, innately relational, interpenetrating…in Jurgen Moltmann’s terminology God is “perichoretic community,” (Greek: dancing around, within, through) eternally in interpenetrating relationship. The sacrifice of Jesus must be understood in the context of the Trinity…as the Son fulfills the will of the Father, the sacrificial murder of His beloved Son, the greatest love of all conquers death. The image of the Father turning His Face away from the Son in forsaking Jesus is a holy mystery - but the poetic truth to me is the message that breaks my heart: simply, impossibly, all of this because God loves, because God redeems, because God cannot give you up, Ephraim.
Chris
“But all of this is heart-knowledge”
I understand what you mean by this. This is the exact reason why I dont see Jesus as God, because if I did, my heart would have to deal with what he told Moses to do in Numbers 31. Im sure you can understand that from a “heart perspective”.
John,
I can understand that. The conquests of the Hebrew Scriptures have been the most difficult readings for me to grasp. But reading the text of Scripture as one unifying whole has been a noble intention with undesirable consequences for many people. I would challenge you to consider the context of the Book of Numbers before merging the Gospels with Numbers in sequence…
The revolution considered central by the Hebrew Scriptures is the total allegiance to YHWH, and thus all impostors were dealt with appropriately. Biblical Hebrew is a violent language because human beings loyal to their God reacted strongly to the notions of false deity, to baal and his lustful, empty promises. In Numbers (here considering chapter 31) the reaction is toward ritual prostitution, erotic play in favor of the hesed, the striving and undeterred grace and love of God the Redeemer. It is a small wonder that those who represent such vanity were uprooted from the vineyard of the Lord.
Of course the question that lingers for me (and, I would imagine, you) is how a loving God could be so ruthless. To me the most responsible answer is not, as some will suspect, the cop-out it seems to be: the Scriptures are laced with symbols.
Read Barry Bandstra’s book Reading the Old Testament for more on the context and symbolism of the text. I have found that the archaeology and historical surveys done on the ancients correspond to nothing of the sorts of conquests attested to in the Scriptures. Furthermore, if you look at Israel Finkelstein’s work, you will find that the kingdoms of David and Solomon were probably something closer to tribes, their leaders, chieftains. Were these stories, then, full of metaphor and hyperbole? I think the conclusion may be unavoidable.
We can discuss this in much more depth later, but for the time being I find it necessary to consider that the ruthless war, the harem of the Hebrews may in reality symbolically represent the loyalty toward the one true God. This makes a tremendous amount more sense considering the fact that no historical documentation can account for the total annihilation written about in Joshua. Because the wandering Hebrews returned from Egypt to their native Canaan, many of their enemies were not enemies at all - but ancestors, of the same blood. This calls for a peaceful infiltration…
We must ask the question: What does it mean, that the God of the Universe would fight the world just to bring us back to Him? If He truly is the only source of life, then the path of baal is more than an aimless meandering, it is the path of destruction, to suicide.
peaces,
chris
John and Chris,
You know, it is not necessarily necessary (if that makes any sense) to read the scriptures apart from a unified whole.
Numbers 31 by itself is disturbing, but in the context of a unified Pentateuch, we can make a whole lot more sense from it. God tells Abraham in Genesis 15:16 “And they (his descendants, Israel) shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.” Some archaeological evidence (as detailed, I think, in Lee Strobel’s “The Case for Christ”) supports that the Amorites during this time were incredibly savage, participating in infant sacrifice, and “iniquity” of the highest order. It seems that God stayed His hand until they were (apparently) deserving of justice that severe.
We need to also be aware of what we carry into these conversations. Our culture values extreme tolerance and war is a last resort. I’m not saying that it is right or wrong, but we are carrying assumptions of what is absolute “right” that are influenced largely by our culture. Would we agree that military force is appropriate in Darfur? 1940’s Europe? Why not also in ancient Canaan?
“If He truly is the only source of life, then the path of baal is more than an aimless meandering, it is the path of destruction, to suicide.”
A GOOD point, Chris… there was so much more at stake than the survival of a single nation. Also, Mike wrote an EXCELLENT paper on the Balaam narrative in Numbers… It may be a useful and detailed tool in this conversation… Check out the “Resources” page for more info.
“my heart would have to deal with what he told Moses to do in Numbers 31.” (John T)
I would say this critique is not fair to the Jewish faithful who actually follow those teachings in the Torah. Not fair in the sense we need to hear a Jewish voice on the totality of the Torah and not just some single Numbers passage - that’s just isolating a passage to pick on it or make some point…a point that a Jewish rabbi might be able to explain in more depth (for more meaning).
“But reading the text of Scripture as one unifying whole has been a noble intention with undesirable consequences for many people” (Chris)
I think people that claim the bible, by that I mean OT and NT, is a unified whole are practically kidding themselves - on a literary scale.
There are how many different authors? The NT has at least 7 - and within them they don’t always line up - nor should they. These individual books and letters - and the Tanakh - all existed in seperate and small communities as a message for them…not at all like the collection we have today.
The NT, when all the seperate pieces were being written, is comparable to all of us having seperate blogs and approaching the same subject matter. It is bound to be similar in content - but also different in the way it is presented. My blog and this one - have many similarities when talking about current theologies/doctrines - but we do also have differences. I would say this is due to different authors and different cultures (ie: Canada and America or theological/church backgrounds).
From the bible I have to admit it is not a unified whole - but allows many perspectives within it’s pages. Paul can talk about original sin and that idea - yet within certain Jewish rabbinical circles this was not a theology to be found nor elaborated upon. Also, the Trinity as an idea does not appear a single time in the Tanakh - this according to colllective Judaism and rabbinical scholars. Heck, even the resurrection was debated as a stand up theology in Jesus’ day - by the Sadducee’s and Pharisee’s. Unifed whole, yeah - I am not sure this was the intention of the bible.
The bible is a collection of books and writings about the One God - ranging from the Holy Torah/Law to histories to kingdoms to songs and wisdom to prophets calling for national clarity on serving the One. There is quite a variant in the first 39 books in my opinion…are we to velieve we will not find this in the NT also? I think we do - Matthew and John, as gospels, are quite different. Revelations and Acts are quite different. If you think about it the NT is constructed like the OT - from teachings to history to judges/letters to prophets. Intentional, likely…but is it all the same…no.
But that is not a slam about the bible - saying it is not a unified whole with one message throughout - through every book and letter. I think that is a ‘just the way it is’ idea. Like I said, they are dealing with the same content - but vary in dealing with God. Job and early Genesis are not like Judges or the letters - various types of lit. The gospels are similar to the Torah - but they are not like Revelations or Psalms. It’s one big collection of writings - about God - and as humans we pieced them together (they are similar) and grouped them.
That all being said, I do not think Jesus is God either - Messiah yes - God no.
“The NT, when all the seperate pieces were being written, is comparable to all of us having seperate blogs and approaching the same subject matter.”
But the difference is that we are not claiming to be prophets, apostles, or any other inspired author. If the Bible is inspired by God, then could the creator of the universe not work through human means? Is this problem too big for God to work with?
In saying that the Bible has a single unified message, we can totally affirm that each author/book writes about that message from their individually unique perspective within a specifically unique context. 10 people who saw the same accident, will all describe it differently. This does not mean it was a different message/accident.
Society, you mention the different interpretations of scripture (Jewish, Christian, etc.). If the Bible cannot have a unified message based on varied authorship, how can we have any certainty in reading it accurately based on the many varied interpretations? It sounds like a double-edged sword that would have to be applied both ways.
Also, and I do not mean any insult or disrespect, is it possible that this way of viewing scripture is informed by your belief that Jesus is not God (and thus John’s gospel can be discredited) instead of the other way around? It would be difficult, if not impossible to refute the divinity of Jesus if you believed that scripture had a unified message.
Gentlemen
I find it interesting to watch people try to find a way to reconcile certain scriptures. I dont need to be a Jew to see how tribal Yahweh is in the OT writings. It is definately not the God I choose to believe in, now are there moments when I think the earlier writers are divinely ispired, you bet. Just like you or me, God talks to us. If I am to believe that throughout the OT and NT God is telling these people what to do, then I have to see him for either a Schizophrenic or a Sociopath, I choose neither. The bible is a wonderful book of many absolute truths, I think it behooves us to listen to what our Heart says about it, its not the letters and words that will point out God to me, its what we do and become that does it. And I truly believe that in the end, like now, God loves us Unconditionally.
John,
“I find it interesting to watch people try to find a way to reconcile certain scriptures.”
You realize that you are discussing a problem that is consistently and effectively reconciled by Christians all over the world and across time… right? Many excellent commentary writers provide a cultural and holistic analysis of passages (like Numbers 31) that clears up problems and questions that surface from individual study.
Brad
Ok, let me put it this way. I know pain, I also know what its like to dish out pain. When I was in the midst of dishing out pain and suffering I did not have one iota of Love in me. To think that a GOD could go tell us to murder and believe that hes in a Loving mood is just preposterous. But hey if you have found someone to help you reconcile those passages, good on you. As far as being consistently reconciled by Christians all over the world, I think we need look no further than the 30000 different versions of Christianity to see that there definately is an issue.
John,
“When I was in the midst of dishing out pain and suffering I did not have one iota of Love in me.”
Are you a parent, by chance? Pain and suffering can occur on many levels. To say that no pain and suffering can come from love is just too simplistic. An example I often use is that of a child running out to a busy street. A parent may cause him or her harm in yanking on their arm, but it is to prevent death. Love is not necessarily inconsistent with pain.
“To think that a GOD could go tell us to murder and believe that hes in a Loving mood is just preposterous.”
How do you know it is murder? I won’t argue that God ordered their death, but contextually we see that it was justice that was administered, not wrongful or malicious death. And who said God had to enjoy it? A parent probably does not enjoy watching their child get flu shots, but they know that it is necessary for their health and well-being. Is it so much of a stretch that God could have amputated a cancerous part of humanity (the Midianites) for the sake of the rest of humanity?
“…think we need look no further than the 30000 different versions of Christianity to see that there definately is an issue.”
I didn’t say we all agreed on every iota, just that it is a very commonly held belief across the spectrum that the Bible is a unified work. The vast majority of those 30,000 versions/denominations agree to this.
Brad
You put a smile on my face. I would love to debate with you in person over a pint. Im sure it would be so much more entertaining. I am a parent and I know the difference between doing so called painful things to my daughter and step son and vengeance. My guess is you know the difference too. None of us are cancerous in the grand scheme of things, sure we do some pretty shitty things, but remember we ALL do shitty things, so tell me should we all be mercifully killed? The idea that an omnipotent being needs us to kill for him is Ludicrous, Im sure in his/her or its omnipotence and benevolence there could be a better way. The fact is as Tribal people were too freaking Lazy to do the better way. God didnt order up the killings in the Old Testament, the people of that generation did. And by the looks of things today we havnt changed much.
“Heck, even the resurrection was debated as a stand up theology in Jesus’ day - by the Sadducee’s and Pharisee’s.”
Careful, the resurrection of the dead. This makes it sound like Jesus’ resurrection. I think I understand what you mean, but you ought to be careful about this statement because it is pretty shady.
“Revelations and Acts are quite different. If you think about it the NT is constructed like the OT - from teachings to history to judges/letters to prophets. Intentional, likely…but is it all the same…no.”
Revelation, not revelation. There is only one apocalypse, not several. Furthermore the notion that the New Testament was intentionally set up to mirror the Hebrew Bible is new to me…where are you getting this?
revelationz
“If the Bible cannot have a unified message based on varied authorship, how can we have any certainty in reading it accurately based on the many varied interpretations? It sounds like a double-edged sword that would have to be applied both ways.”
Brad, what does this mean? I have no clue what you’re getting at. Is certainty the point?
John T,
Heschel’s commentary on Isaiah came down to this: “A people may be dying and not be aware of it.” My point about suicide earlier stands as one possible interpretation of God’s ruthless decisions in the Hebrew Bible. Paired with this side of divine justice I would again implore everyone to consider that God didn’t purge entire peoples in ancient times.
(just consider)
but consider strongly; it doesn’t take long to do a little comparing and literary analysis — see how many tribes and clans boasted of their military successes, who attributed these to the workings of their god(s)/goddess(es) and greatly exaggerated every detail.
There aren’t chariot wheels on the banks of the Red Sea.
if you’re going to San Francisco,
be sure to wear some flowers in your hair,
chris
“But the difference is that we are not claiming to be prophets, apostles, or any other inspired author. If the Bible is inspired by God, then could the creator of the universe not work through human means? Is this problem too big for God to work with?” (Brad)
But are we not also ‘inspired’ by God? I know I am – in the actual sense this stuff about God ‘inspires’ me to want to live it and speak about it (ie: write a blog). Now we may not be apostles to ‘what have you’s’ – but how can one not claim we are not ‘inspired’ also? Thusly, we write. (are we scripture? – no – but we do elaborate upon it for our day)
As for the claim it is unified and God did this – perhaps – but this is totally assumptive. No single place in the document itself does it say this is so. What we do see are a variety of writings about God and many of them represent new and unique theologies about God. We go from a pre Law ethos in Genesis – to the Moses account and Law – to Canaan – to judges – to kings – to prophets – an then for Christians – to Jesus – to Acts – to letters – to revelations. Within those 66 books and letters (and other writings) we get a variety of theologies but all about the One God. So in some sense it is unified – but in another sense it does not seem one united single theology about God or the community of God. If this was so, Christians and Judaism would be a lot more similar than they currently are.
“If the Bible cannot have a unified message based on varied authorship, how can we have any certainty in reading it accurately based on the many varied interpretations?” (Brad)
The certainty lies in the core message – which is to reveal aspects of faith to us and about the One God. I see everything kind of being centred around the Torah and it’s teachings – and from there we get a variety of new meanings on theology and the community of God. I think there is that sense of unity or tying together of the books.
“is it possible that this way of viewing scripture is informed by your belief that Jesus is not God (and thus John’s gospel can be discredited) instead of the other way around? It would be difficult, if not impossible to refute the divinity of Jesus if you believed that scripture had a unified message.” (Brad)
I think John’s gospel does have value though – I read it like I read the others – I think it has important piece meals for theology also. As for divinity of Jesus – I do look at the whole bible for this united message and it does not exist. But the Messiah thing actually does exist throughout. It’s not that I don’t believe in the Messiah idea – it’s just that the Messiah being God Himself is an addition to the texts that never existed prior to the NT – and even within the NT itself – Jesus being God is quite vague. For me it’s a very simple matter that goes back to the Torah – where God is clearly seen as One God and not a few personalities.
“Careful, the resurrection of the dead. This makes it sound like Jesus’ resurrection. I think I understand what you mean, but you ought to be careful about this statement because it is pretty shady.” (Chris)
True, for clarity I mean the very idea of resurrection – that it can happen or not happen. This was debated (and still is) as to it’s actual validity as a theology from the Tanakh – certain groups were not sure it was valid. Just trying to show some things are not as set in stone as we think – and abounding theologies did arise on core subjects.
“Furthermore the notion that the New Testament was intentionally set up to mirror the Hebrew Bible is new to me…where are you getting this?” (Chris)
Nowhere that I know of – as in quoting from some other written work – it just seems kind of the same in my opinion. The gospels read like the Torah in some regards and John and Matthew do some literary work in the very beginnings of their gospels to show this. John shadows an idea from Genesis 1 in his John 1 chapter and Matthew in his gospel includes genealogies (like Numbers or even Genesis) and then a sermon on the mount (similar to Moses on the Mt Sinai). Even the repetition in the synoptic gospels could be like some of the repetition within the Torah (stories being repreated)…in essence…I actually think Matthew was set up to be like a type of Deuteronomy to Mark’s shorter gospel.
One could say the gospels are the Christian Torah. Acts could read like the history books of Joshua or Chronicles. The letters seems to reflect an aspect of prophethood – calling the community back to God – like the major and minor prophets. Revelation is also similar to Ezekiel and Daniel – and other prophet books. There are similarities in their set-up except in this case Revelation acts as a ‘book-end’. Is it not possible the early church fathers in their construction of a united body of work would reference the Tanakh’s set-up? This is by no means a fact – just an observation.
But I will note this – for clarity purposes – the gospels and letters prior to ever being formed into some unified bible (like we have today) – were all in separate communities. Paul’s letters did not exist beside each other in some neat, unified totality of work – they were written over years to various communities. Same for the gospels. The gospels can contain contradictions because they were not written in collusion of accounts – they were written as someone saw fit to explain it in some community (separate from the other gospel accounts in other communities).
None of these works necessarily were written as companions to one another (maybe expect for Paul’s whole works) – and they are all based on the Tanakh scriptures – which people also did not have in their hands (was in the temple or synagogue) – people didn’t necessarily own personal copies of that (namely Gentiles). So we have a bunch of works that exist separate from one another in separate places by a variety of authors…do they have to be united and non-contradictory?
To say Peter, James, John, Paul, Matthew, Luke, or Mark would all be consistent is asking for some literary miracle. Now they are very close in content (agreed) but they also contain difference all over the place. Luke and Matthew could not decide which was right ‘blessed are the poor’ or ‘blessed are the poor in spirit’ – probably because neither saw the others work when written. Paul rarely quotes anything from any gospel – except for certain lines we find in Luke – like the communion passage we see in Paul’s 1 Corinthians letter – matches Luke’s word for word in one spot. This would make sense – Luke traveled with Paul according to his own letters.
But the gospel of Matthew is quite different in content as compared with Paul or John’s gospel. John’s gospel doesn’t read anything like the previous 3 synoptic gospels – it uses the term Jews like 60+ times – while the synoptic works use it a total of 15 times – and usually in reference to this term ‘the king of the Jews’ (a Roman term). But John is so liberal with the term it begs the obvious question – is this person even Jewish?
Paul, on the other hand, plays the Law down for the sake of the Gentile listeners (similar to what I see John doing in his gospel) – and maybe rightfully so. However, Matthew makes no such concession for the Law. Matthew 5:17-20 is quite clear on that. That is a huge difference from community to community. To be honest, if I had to determine who the actual audiences were – I would think Matthew was written for a Jewish contingent while John and Paul don’t address these groups per se.
It becomes no wonder, in my opinion, why there is a problem in Jerusalem with Peter, James, and John and Paul – that seems never ending in Paul’s letters. Paul seems to have some distaste for the Law and one could wonder when Paul talks about ‘another gospel’ if he is referring to their Jewish brand of the faith (this seems to shine through in his letters a lot)? Top that off, Paul likely never read any of the original works of that first Acts community (ie: Matthew) – he was a later addition – and if he did I have to wonder if he respected it?
Paul does not quote Peter, John, or James – and the one time he does bring them up it’s in regards to them supporting him (Gal 2). Paul is always about himself and what happened to him to make him authoritative (in the Gentiles eyes). I think there was an uneasy tension between Paul and the big 3 in Jerusalem – and this should be reflected in the scriptures. I think it does exist in subtleties – namely in Paul’s language about the law – no one else actually speaks that harsh about the law. It’s inevitable that varying theologies would be found in the NT even.
huge discussion here! not unlike the one we had on Substitutionary Atonement (http://seminarianblog.com/2008/04/substitutionary-atonement/)
and Jesus Christ (http://seminarianblog.com/2008/04/jesus-christ/)
we’re still divided here. no surprise. but here’s a quote that i’ll throw in just cause: God is not your cosmic bellhop.
God might take on a servant role, but that doesn’t mean God will stay there.
To be honest Luke, for as much as I defend the claim Jesus not divine, I actually care very little about the question per se…to me that is not a very important theological point.
What really gets my grill, and I just posted on this, is the Jewishness of Jesus and the way our faith resembles nothing of that person. That actually means more to me than a divinity claim on Jesus - this un-cultured Jesus…since for me - this can effect interpretation of the gospels.
Societyvs
Does it really matter if or how Jewish Jesus was. I think you have pointed this out in the past, but is not the essence of the writings and how we live them out the most important thing. For all I care Jesus could be a monkey, but if that monkey could express as eloquently some truths about life and how we should live it, I’d probably praise it too.
John T.
“Does it really matter if or how Jewish Jesus was?” (John)
You are right the key points are what is taught - that we need to live them and see what they bring forth in our lives (I agree - this is main focus and always should be).
However, how can one learn with a ‘teacher’ (ie: rabbi and teacher are the same word - also in John 20:16)? That term appears 49 times in the gospels (all 4) and rabbi and few times also - making this over 50 times the term is used. This is a Jewish idea concerning mentorship or discipleship - or teaching. Jesus references the idea a few times:
Luke 6:40 “A pupil is not above his teacher; but everyone, after he has been fully trained, will be like his teacher”
Matt 10:25 “It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher”
Why do I even bother bringing this up? Who here even has a clue about the rabbinical process and the talmidim - the student? It seems clear to me, and I could be just reading things too easily here, but Jesus is a rabbi - the disciples are students - and they are to be like their teacher. So?
Well current Christianity almost says we cannot be like Jesus - we are not perfect and all that jazz. Unbelievably, all that aside, it never stopped Jesus from saying those above comments. And this is consistent with being a talmidim/student.
“A few (very few) of the most outstanding Beth Midrash students sought permission to study with a famous rabbi often leaving home to travel with him for a lengthy period of time. These students were called talmidim (talmid, s.) in Hebrew, which is translated disciple. There is much more to a talmid than what we call student. A student wants to know what the teacher knows for the grade, to complete the class or the degree or even out of respect for the teacher. A talmid wants to like the teacher, that is to become what the teacher is. That meant that students were passionately devoted to their rabbi and noted everything he did or said. This meant the rabbi?talmid relationship was a very intense and personal system of education. As the rabbi lived and taught his understanding of the Scripture his students (talmidim) listened and watched and imitated so as to become like him. Eventually they would become teachers passing on a lifestyle to their talmidim.”
http://www.followtherabbi.com/Brix?pageID=2753
I think knowing some of this Jewish background stuff changes interpretation of certain doctrines and ideas in the current church structure.
“However, how can one learn with a ‘teacher’” - should ve ‘how can one learn without a teacher?’