One of my colleagues recently
posted that the Bible is simply a human word. The phrase came from author and
frequent speaker at United Methodist events, Marcus Borg. I want to be quite careful here, for many of my colleagues would agree with this assessment. Most UM pastors, including this one, recognize the human dimension of the Bible. The books, letters, wisdom, and
poetry of the Bible occur in historical contexts and written by people. Yet,
the Bible has always had a special role in the church. The “authority” of the
Bible does not mean the Bible is "perfect." It simply means that the pastor and church have a responsibility to lay
their lives alongside what we read in the Bible and allow the Bible to check
their views of God, self, and others. They recognize that their way is
not always best, and in fact, that they often get God and discipleship wrong,
if left to their devices. To accept this special role for the Bible is to have
a degree of humility concerning your life. Whatever guidance you need as to who
God is and who you are to be does not simply well up from inside you. In fact,
you admit that the guidance you most need comes from outside you. The reason is
that you recognize in the Bible a special working of God in Israel and in Jesus
Christ. Such witnesses to what God is doing in history and in human lives
become that “check,” that external reference that gets you out of yourself and
directs you to God.
Consequently, when I read one of my
colleagues (and assuming that many others agree) concluding that the Bible is simply a human word, I find myself in
different terrain. Some of this feeling arises from personal experience. The beginning of my journey involves a testimony that as a mid-teen I started studying the Bible, beginning with Romans. The Bible has been my companion ever since. Thus, it feels like the person is saying that the Bible is more
like an opinion piece in the newspaper, or insight from poetry, or maybe
providing debatable philosophical points. Regardless, if I understand
correctly, it means the Bible is not a reliable witness to what God wants in
the world. The pastor and the church of today would then have much freedom to
pursue their own understanding of what God wants. Quite likely, pastor and
church today may go directly against the Bible, having no check or reference
outside themselves to correct them.
In preparing for a sermon that
involved Matthew 5:17-20, I found some interesting comments from two theologians,
Karl Barth and Wolfhart Pannenberg, which I thought I would share. While they
differ on many points, they are quite close in how they read this passage. Matthew
records sayings that have the theme of Jesus as the fulfillment of the Law.
Most scholars today think of these verses as reflecting a controversy in the
early Christian community over whether the Law was still binding on Christians.
The relationship of Jesus to the Mosaic Law is in debate here. I will point out
the passages unique to Matthew and the passages that Matthew shares with Luke.
Jesus begins (from Matthew) by
saying that he has not come to abolish the law or the prophets, but to fulfill
them. Barth[1]
takes the occasion of this verse to reflect upon the notion that the early
church accepted the canon of the Synagogue. For the early Christians, it was
the New Testament that was added, enlarging a canon already given, extending it
as a new action of God. He notes that the early church did not try to adopt the
sacred writings of other religions as such a “preface,” an approach that would
have made the missionary task much easier. Yet, it is not just a preface or
introduction to the New. It is Scripture. He[2]
notes that what Jesus has in mind was not the piety of other religions, but
that of the Israelite religion of revelation. He does not intend to dissolve
that religion. He accepts it. He does not require his disciples to abandon or
replace it.
Then, in a saying from the source
common to Matthew and Luke, Jesus says that he truly tells them, until heaven
and earth pass away, not one letter, an iota or serif, will pass from the law
until all is accomplished. Barth[3]
points out that given the regard this passage shows for the smallest letter of
the Hebrew Bible, “we must be on our guard against trying to say anything
different.” These words belong to revelation and their writing by the Spirit.
Then, in the material unique to
Matthew, Jesus says that whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments,
and teaches others to do the same, will be the least in the kingdom of heaven.
In contrast, whoever does them and teaches them will be great in the kingdom of
heaven. The point seems to be that Jesus exercises his lordship in such a way
that the Torah remains valid. He tells them that unless their righteousness
exceeds that of scribes and Pharisees, they will never enter the kingdom of
heaven. This notion of “entering,” as Pannenberg[4]
says, contains a future element to the teaching regarding the kingdom. The
decisive element for Matthew is that the love commandment becomes the center of
these intensified individual commandments. Based on the antitheses (you have
heard it said … but I say to you …) in the rest of the chapter, the higher
righteousness of the disciples is not only a quantitative increase of the
fulfilling of the law - measured on the Torah - but also primarily a
qualitative intensification of the life before God - measured on love. The
concept that Jesus fulfills law and prophets completely and perfectly means at
the same time that for Matthew there is no longer any other way of access to
the Bible of Israel than by way of Jesus.
Therefore, this preamble to the antitheses has at the same time the effect
of a reprimand of Israel. Matthew, for
whom the authority of the Bible is fixed through Jesus, can do no other than
measure the scribes and Pharisees by the standard of the higher righteousness
that is set by Jesus. Measured by this
standard, which is not theirs, their righteousness is found as not enough.
Barth,[5]
in substantial with Pannenberg on this point, says that although Jesus accepts
the Law, he does demand that the followers of Jesus should go a new way in its
exercise, a “better righteousness,” than did its greatest champions. Of course,
that better righteousness is following the two great commandments of love
toward God and neighbor.
The challenge that I see here for
the pastor and church today is that we need to exercise great care with Scripture.
I find it one of my great responsibilities, sometimes with fear and trembling,
to stand before people and share the Word of God. The church always wrestles
with what this Word means for today. Pastors do so in a quite personal and
public way.
My concern is that if we conclude that this Word
is simply a human word, then we will be quite free to say something different
from it. We become the judge of the Word. This feels arrogant to me. However,
if pastor and church have a bond with Scripture in a way that it remains our
guide, our check, or our external reference in what we believe and how we live,
we must exercise enough care that we do not say something substantially
different.
On his own blog, Marcus Borg says that the story of the resurrection is just another parable which contains mythic, but not historic, truth. He makes it very clear when he says that it does not matter if the resurrection actually happened, only that we take the intended meaning from the story.
ReplyDeletePaul says that if the resurrection did not happen "we are to be pitied above all men."
I understand that modern biblical scholars want to do away with Paul because he was not an eyewitness, but biblical scholars also yell that Mark, Luke, and John were not eyewitnesses and that Matthew was "probably not" an eyewitness...
in other words, biblical scholars like Marcus Borg and Bart Ehrman are effectively undermining the academics of the faith, and when they finish, those who subscribe to their way of thinking will be left with only one conclusion: Buddhism is as valid as Christianity, in that they are both good philosophies on how one should live one's life.
Paul tells us the entirety of the gospel in a single breath: "Jesus Christ, born of a virgin, died on a cross, raised from the dead." Borg denies at least 1/3rd of the entirety of the gospel... why is he speaking at our schools? He's not a Christian. He claims to be, but I've also read about a guy who claimed to be Napoleon. Should we ask that guy about tactics at Waterloo?
I have met both Borg and Ehrman and have been able to have civil conversations. They clearly want the church to become something other than what it has been and is today, guided by Scripture and by the classical ethical teachings of the church. Thank you for your comment.
DeleteFrom Facebook: Greg Buchner If it's not my guide, then I have no reason to teach and preach. To have the Scriptures be no more than a "human endeavor" is to risk missing what the Spirit is doing in the reading, studying, and proclaiming of its context. After interacting with this "lamp unto our feet" over decades now, I'm continually amazed at how deep, how significant, and how necessary this collection of books, personified by Jesus himself (John 1:1), is alive and well continuing to cut through challenges like Borg's like a two-edged sword slicing through the vagueness of human-made theology.
ReplyDeleteFrom Facebook: Michael Riegler says Thank you, Greg Buchner, I concur with your statements here. I think this is key to many of the great debates of the day, that when we become so enamored of our own views--whether societally or internally developed--that the authority of the Bible must be systematically minimized so that we can get our arguments to where we want them, we have turned our faith in God into a faith in the powers of humanity. To me, tradition, reason and experience are of great importance, but Scripture is still supreme.
ReplyDeleteFrom Facebook: Elke Sharma says I believe the scripture of our Holy Bible is my authoratative guide. I just don't believe that it can be read completely literally. I believe we do have to through the Holy Spirit discern and interpret what God is guiding us to believe today in our lives. I have a problem with people who say one part doesn't need to be followed anymore, but another part does. If we are free to interpret one part as not relevant to us anymore then I think we ought to be free to interpret another part the same way for similar reasons and not have others tell us our discernment is wrong or God isn't really speaking to us or we must be really listening to the devil.
ReplyDeleteFacebook says: Elke Sharma says Making distinctions and saying say food laws in the OT for example are okay not to follow, but laws about slavery or women or sexuality any other issue, have to be followed exactly regardless to how people and cultures have come to understand their relationships to God and one another...that's I have a problem with.
ReplyDeleteFacebook: George Plasterer said Elke, thank you for your comments. I do not have the problem you have, if I am understanding you rightly. For the Christian, some of these matters are settled by Jesus. For example, Jesus makes it clear that the purity laws, which includes foods, are not what really matters, but rather, a clean heart. We find the same in the vision to Peter in Acts and in Paul. Of course, the sacrificial laws find their fulfillment in the death of Jesus. Beyond that, even much of the moral law the New Testament will say finds their fulfillment in love to God and neighbor. If I understand Matthew 5 rightly, Jesus becomes, for the Christian, the lens through which we look upon the Old Testament and have a "better righteousness" than that of scribes and Pharisees. Again, that "better righteousness" is love of God and neighbor. Paul in Romans 12 and 13 says essentially the same thing. Such an understanding relativizes the imprecatory Psalms, for example, and some of the behavior of Israel in the wilderness and as a nation. The People of God become, not a political entity as we find in the Old Testament, but a people within larger cultural and political entities. The New Testament actually becomes the lens through which we read the Old Testament. What is important here is that we do not abrogate the Old Testament by doing so, but believe that it finds its completion and fulfillment in the New Testament.
ReplyDeleteFacebook: Greg Buchner said I would also... add / agree / maybe disagree ...that the reasons behind the Old Testament Law for God's people are still true today. That's why Jesus comes to the "fulfill" the law not destroy it; bringing love to the law not denying it. For me, the Old Testament (Law/Prophets/History/Worship/Wisdom) is a reminder that we need to be in relationship to Someone greater than ourselves...and the only way, it seems, that we can accomplish that (since throughout history humanity has failed at it since the Garden of Eden) is through Messiah, the Christ and the inspired Word that is our New Testament. In my understanding, nothing needs to be "explained away" but like everything in our limited language, it needs context.
ReplyDeleteFacebook Elke Sharma says I've heard or read both of these approaches/understandings before and I don't disagree with any of the major tenets as you just explained them. I guess what I disagree with ultimately is how these understandings are then applied to some of the current hot spots/issues of contention in the UMC.
ReplyDeleteFacebook Elke Sharma says I have been thinking all day how exactly to put this...I think different people are discerning and understanding different things through their NT lense through to the OT and the biblical laws. And those different things do not appear compatible to each other to those discussing the issues. I think much of the time the lense is the same, but our own vision and understanding of what we see through it is different.
ReplyDeleteFacebook George Plasterer said Elke, thank you for the care with which you express yourself. For me, the guide of our use of the Old Testament is present in the New Testament, if we are willing to let it speak and not just serve a desired outcome to which we have come for other reasons. I am sure some people are simply discerning prayerfully and in a different way. I hope you understand that I think on some hot button issues, the desired outcome is so strong that it leads to some twisting. That is where we need some humility and courage. Maybe part of the courage is to admit that one disagrees with Scripture?
ReplyDeleteFrom Facebook Morgan Guyton says Many interpretive disagreements have to do with whether one is looking for the underlying logic of scripture or just reading casuistically on the surface. There are three important analogies to be made in the New Testament with issues in our day that people with a "high" view of scripture tend to dismiss and bracket as irrelevant: Jesus' sabbath healing, Gentile non-circumcision, and sacrificial meat. If we pay attention to what is being taught by how these three issues are handled, it will say a lot about how we are supposed to proceed.
ReplyDeleteFacebook, I responded: Morgan, you are quite right that a casuistic reading of Scripture ought to have no interest to Christians today. It is quite clear that neither Jesus nor Paul had such an approach. I think something like discerning a trajectory of the biblical material is the direction I would go with "the underlying logic of scripture." Thus, to use a different example, the antitheses we find in Matthew 5 suggest that what Jesus says elsewhere of the supremacy of love toward God and love of neighbor are a kind of lens through which we read the Old Testament and is the way in which Christ fulfills the Old Testament. You are quite right that people who right of a "high" view of Scripture often are thinking of their ideas as superior, ignoring Scripture that might contradict their views.
ReplyDelete