Several months ago, Cliff Martin over at Outside The Box (a blog that I used to read regularly) posted his list of Understandings I’m Seeking – A list of difficult issues he was interested in understanding better. Ever since, I’ve kept a mental list of my own, to which I add as new issues become important to me, and subtract as I gain understanding on some issues.
Lately, my “Understandings I’m Seeking” list has become stagnant. The same issues have been at the top of the list for quite a while, which means that they have remained important to me, while simultaneously proving difficult to understand, at least for me. It is for this reason I think it is time for my own “Understandings I’m Seeking” post.
Understandings I’m Seeking
1. The relationship between the teachings of Jesus and the Apostle Paul
I'm seeking to understand how the teachings of Jesus are related to those of the Apostle Paul. In particular, I want to understand why Jesus' teachings are so different from those of Paul, especially when it comes to the requirements for salvation.
In my own Baptist tradition, the words of Jesus are constantly twisted to fit into a Paul-shaped mold, and to me, that just seems wrong. I hope one might be able to assume that God-incarnate would be able to get it right! But instead I constantly hear (in reference to Jesus' words) "Well.... You have to read that in light of ..." - And then some passage from Romans or Hebrews.
I understand the desire to harmonize the Scriptures, and the belief that inspired Scripture must fit together. But if God really did become man, and that man is Jesus Christ, than something is wrong. I am seeking to understand what that is.
2. The second coming of Jesus and the New Testament expectation that it was immanent
I’m seeking to better understand why the first Christians (and especially Jesus Himself) expected Jesus’ second coming to happen soon, as recorded in passages like Matt. 10:23, Matt. 16:27-28, Luke 21:5-36 1 Thess 4:14-15, Rev. 1:1, and many, many others. This expectation is typically explained away by claiming that Jesus, when He said "this generation will not pass away" before He returns, did not mean "generation" but instead meant the nation of Israel or even the generation that is alive when Jesus returns. (How convenient!)
I’m continually flabbergasted that the same people who insist on using the “plain reading” of Genesis 1-2 will put forth such flimsy explanations for the very plain statements of the expectation of the imminent return of Jesus. Once again, if God did become man, and that man is Jesus Christ, can't we expect Him to know what He was talking about?
I've done a significant amount of reading about the eschatological belief called preterism, which claims that all of Jesus' end-times prophecies were fulfilled within the timeframe he predicted, specifically in 70AD during the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army. This is not the place for a discussion on eschatology, but I should say that neither futurism nor preterism have provided satisfactory explanations for Biblical end-times prophesy.
I am seeking to understand what Jesus really meant by his end-times prophecies, and how this fits in with the rest of Biblical teaching. I especially am seeking to understand the implications of a successful eschatology on they way I view the world: Is the world coming to an end, or is it getting better and better? Is Jesus coming back, and will that be soon?
3. The dogma of Biblical inspiration and (secondarily) inerrancy
I’m seeking to understand why some Christians believe in the doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration. (The equal inspiration of every word of scripture) Christians always give passages like 2 Peter 1:20-21 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as proof that the Bible (every single word of it) is equally inspired by God. Why don't these Christians notice the blatant circularity of this claim? A text within the New Testament that refers to "scripture" cannot be referring to the New Testament. At best, these proof texts can only refer to the Hebrew Scriptures (The Old Testament), and any texts considered “scripture” at the time the proof-text was written, if any.
I am seeking to understand the reality of Biblical inspiration as opposed to the dogma of Biblical inspiration. I believe that the Bible is inspired, and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, but I am unconvinced by any argument for verbal, plenary inspiration that takes the form: "The Bible is inspired because it says it is inspired." I realize that any "proof" of inspiration that refuses to grant authority to any source other than the Bible will always be circular. I just wish that this fact were not constantly ignored.
Of secondary importance is my desire to understand why some Christians believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. This is only of secondary importance because I have come to a settled belief that this position is entirely indefensible. Still, I am seeking to understand the implications of this apparent fact; On how it affects the way I should read the Bible, and how it affects the task of biblical interpretation.
4. The relationship between the Old and New Testaments
This issue has troubled me from the time I was a little kid: I am seeking to understand why God is portrayed so differently in the Old and New Testaments. The God of the Old Testament commands his people to kill rebellious teenagers, beat their slaves to within an inch of their death, to destroy entire cities, killing all men, women, children and babies, (including nursing babies and "ripping open" pregnant women) and actively participates in these slayings by chucking hailstones from heaven. In contrast, the God of the New Testament commands us to be peaceful, merciful, to love our enemies, turn the other cheek, return blessing for evil, and to live at peace with everyone. Are we talking about the same God here?
I understand that all people are sinners and deserve death. God can choose to do whatever he wants. This is not the issue. I am seeking to understand why God's message to His people, His communication to them about what is important, and His overal approach to justice is so startlingly different between the Old and New Testaments.
This issue is a little different: It involves two seemingly seperate issues on which I have come to a general understanding (or acceptance), but my thinking on these two issues is incompatible.
It is evident to me that God (in many occasions, if not all) chooses those with whom he is going to form a relationship: God chose Adam, not vice-versa. God chose Noah, not vice-versa. God chose Abraham, not vice-versa. God chose Moses, not vice-versa. God chose the 12 disciples, not vice-versa. You get the point. And it's hard to deny the reality of election with Bible passages like Mark 13:20, Romans 8:29-30, Romans 9:14-24, and on and on... The entire Bible shows God constantly choosing us, not the other way around.
Now, this doesn't mean we don't have a choice in whether to love God. A man can choose to romantically pursue a particular woman, but she will still have a choice of whether to reciprocate. Excuse the imperfect analogy, but this may be the situation between God and us. And God's power to woo surely surpasses even that of Giacoma Cassanova. Still, it is obvious to me that in some way, my relationship with God is more dependent on He than on me.
The second issue involves theodicy; the problem of existence of evil in the world, and the general lack of evidence for God's existence. I've written about this before: To me it seems the best explanation for this is that God created us to love, and love cannot be forced. Ironically, pastor-turned-atheist Dan Barker says it best:
It is a counterfeit love that is contingent upon authority, punishment, or reward. True love is respect and admiration, compassion and kindness, freely given by a healthy, unafraid human being. [source]
I agree with Dan, and this is why God doesn't loudly proclaim His existence, doesn't do much to fix our broken world, and doesn't prove to us that He exists; He wants to give us a chance to love Him, and to do that He must give us the freedom to choose.
The problem lies in the integration of the two issues above. If God chooses those with whom He has a relationship, then why is there evil in the world? Why is there a need? (And please, don't say "The Fall" - The fall came as a result of God giving Man a choice) Conversely, if God values our free will enough to accept all the things that go along with it (i.e. evil, suffering) then does he really choose his "elect"? In order to answer theses two questions, I must talk out of both sides of my mouth, and that really bothers me. The answer may be as simple as my Cassanova example (above) but that has so far been unsatisfying.
So there's my list. If you can help on any of the above, by all means, email me. Or better yet, leave a comment on this post and let everyone benefit. I have fantasies of someday writing a single post on each of the above, but I know better than to commit. I'll just take it one post at a time.
5 comments:
I am with you and I think that you know how I deal with some of the issues that you bring up.
1. I don't believe that Paul is an Apostle or inspired. Where most of the NT writers don't make a claim of any special inspiration, Paul does(exception John of Revelation)and claims Apostleship where none is given. So for me I think the relationship between Paul and Jesus is little to none, though Paul maybe a smart guy and give us some insight into things. I don't think we should base any beliefs or doctrine on Paul's writing alone, and nothing should be interpreted in "light" of Paul. All interpretation should come from the Torah, then Prophets, histories, poetry, gospels, letters.
2. I agree the immanent expectation is not something that I am sure about. I think that some of expectation is to 70AD, but there are problems that come with that, as you said.
3. As you can figure, I don't put much in verbal, plenary inspiration and inerrancy goes with that. Inerrancy is a hard claim to make and have not been convinced to believe it.
4. The relationship between the OT and NT is something that needs to be taken into the context of what Israel is to be, a "Holy Nation" separated apart from the world, and the NT is Israel still in somewhat a state of exile, and changes what Israel is to do living in another nation. I do have to say that the command is not for people to beat their slaves, but to limit the owner of a slave, and a couple verses later beating a slave in such a way would be cause for freeing the slave.
5. Your last one is the hardest to deal with and there are a lot of issues that go into trying to figure it out. Election I think has as much to do with God's omniscience as his sovereignty.
Paul as he is currently constituted is not the only problem. There's also John. John is totally different from the synoptics. Why? And why does Jesus always call Mary "woman" even though the narrator claims in John she is his mother? Why is Jesus in John the bread that came down from heaven and the bread is his flesh--does it mean he came down from heaven already having his flesh? Who is the ruler of the world? The devil or the OT god? Why does Jesus refer to the law as "your law" speaking to the Jews and "their law" speaking of the Jews. If he is the giver of the law, why not "my law"? By that he could have solidified his claims to being God or the Son of God if he claimed to be the same god as that which gave the law. But did he? Is "nothing was created without him" even original to John? It doesn't seem to fit with the rest. He has an antagonism to the world "I have overcome the world" but didn't he make the thing? "You are not of the world as I am not of the world" "your are from below I am from above" "the world will hate you as it hated me" "the world loves its own" and in the epistles of John "all that is in the world is not of the Father but of the world"--what??? Didn't the Father create the world??? John is a Dualist. He believes in two gods, the Ruler of the World, and the Father. So also Paul, the god of this world, and God. The passages which suggest either John or Paul taught Jesus created the world are additions, for in reality they taught he defeated the god of the world or god who created the world. Who pays a redeemption or purchase price to himself? If Jesus' death was to purchase us from bondage to sin, thwn it was payed not to the Father for the Father is not sin. It must have been payed to the master of sin, the ruler of the world who controls the political powers that are tyrants.
Predestination is just an 'orthodox' rationalization to explain how one God could damn some and save others. If the God who does the saving is not the same god who does the damning then predestination is nonsensical. Predestination just explains how one God could run an unfair lottery. It has no meaning in the original dualistic system and Romans 9 clearly could not have been part of the original epistle to the Romans since it is based on acceptance of the OT while Markion (the real 'Paul') did not accept the OT. How could you argue that God controls everyone's actions because God hardened Pharaoah's heart, if you don't believe the OT? How could you argue that your God will save some and damn some based on nothing but a coin toss just like the OT god hated Esau and loved Jacob for no good reason, when you preach that your God is not the OT God but a Better God who came to defeat this arbitrary and untrustworthy being?
As to the word 'generation' in Greek it is genea and its primary meaning really is a gentic stock, tribe, nation. In Luke it is clear that what Jesus means is that although the Jewish lands will be destroyed in 70 AD, the nation itself will continue to the end of the world. Matthew and Mark have a confused presentation of Jesus' teahcings on the end of Jerusalem and end of the world. Luke is clear. The question is, who is right? Is Luke's clarity artificial or is Matthew and Mark's ambiguity artificial? Did Luke change to clarify or did they change to confuse? I say Luke is right on this one.
As for the notion that "everyone is sinful and deserves death" and "god can do whatever he wants" where did you get that? From the Catholic interpolations in "Paul's" epistles! Not from Jesus! Jesus says there are righteous men who need no repentance. In fact, the angels rejoice over one sinner that repents than over the 99 righteous men who need no repentance. Jesus intended to build a 'church' that was overwhelmingly full of people who are so righteous they need no repentance and to where the person needing repentance is like 1 to 99! Is this what Protestantism or any other established 'church' teaches today?
Post a Comment