Thank you. I appreciate having someone else post who has struggled through this more thoroughly than I.
I think I even saw part of your paper posted somewhere. It was very good.
I am intrigued by your mention of the creative approach of Matthew. I never thought of it that way. Till now, it’s been one of my biggest discouragements–to see how the NT uses the OT unfaithfully (as Enns says, we would get a bad grade if we twisted meanings out of the text like the Second Temple folks did; though he speaks approvingly of it).
It seems to me that it’s an evidence of the NT authors’ lack of honesty; and also, weakly, would imply that they were not confident enough in what they saw (though as Enns says, it was the way of explaining things that was typical of the time; so it was relevant to the NT crowd). My own responsse, as a 21st century Christian, is that I accept the story; don’t rest it on a false leg that gives way when I rest on it. However, can you clarify how you found Matthew helpful?
Why would you take such ambitious appropriations of Old Testament passages as discouraging? I’m pretty sure Enns’ point wasn’t to lambast New Testament authors for getting things wrong, but to show us instead how they were free to wrestle with and co-opt the living scriptures that they had. He (Enns) is asking us why we let that go? Why is it now that we deem ourselves to be the authorities who get to establish once and for all the one and only right way a prophet’s words can be used for all time? That is a particular conceit that scriptural “decoders” today have bestowed on themselves that it all now needs to be nailed down on their own modern terms. In short, they haven’t honored or venerated scriptures (despite their protestations to the contrary). They have honored and venerated themselves and their own traditions and era as the measuring stick for all time.
I may have put a lot of words in Enns’ mouth there, but I’ll venture that he probably wrote, if not that, then something nearly like it.
Well, he sort of did–but I don’t really get the point; frequently we were told (as in McDowell’s Evidence That Demands a Verdict"; inasmuch as his listing of the old papyri was good, this part was a bit concerning) that the burden of proof from prophecies was so great that the chances of all of them coming to fruition in someone other than Jesus, or it not being Jesus they talked about, would be greater than searching all over Texas for a single silver dollar in a pile of them a foot deep–or something like that. To use the figure types in the OT as prophecies is not a true proof, and that somewhat discouraging to find out that Isaiah didn’t really write about Christ–he was writing about someone that they would all recognize as a king, not a son of God; and that the lamb to the slaughter was Israel. It’s frustrating to be asked to accept a story based on inaccurate proof.
Enns said it was OK to do that; and in his most recent book, he said that like Second Temple Judaism, we are always using the Bible as a book that was written for us, but not to us–to adapt it to our own needs.
We have to be careful not to use it disingenuously; I’m concerned that my own tradition, which does typically rely on it as proof, sets us up for disappointment.
I do accept Christ and the resurrection; I don’t think that the vehicles of his announcement were perfect.
Indeed. And if Enns was asking anybody to do that, then I guess I part company with him (or with that particular thought anyway). I’m reading through Isaiah right now, and yes - it is amazing how well much of it fits a Christocentric reading - but not perfectly so. I can’t site the verses right now, but there are some that struck me as not fitting with Christ as we meet him in the gospels - at least not without interpretive gymnastics (which are never in short supply it seems). So these retro-fitted “probability games” are (I suggest) a weak apologetic. They may get somebody to consider things more deeply in an early season of their faith, but that stepping stone is hardly an adequate foundation on which to build a faith, and they had best get transplanted onto a more substantial foundation if they wish to grow … like maybe …Christ? Just sayin.
I’m so sorry–no, Enns was actually much more truthful in his books (The Bible Tells Me So, etc) in showing that it’s based on imagination; he observes that the Second Temple folks used the adaptation that way, but doesn’t say it’s accurate. Rather, McDowell did; and some in my own Baptist tradition have done so, as well. I’m just afraid that my own kids could wind up mistaking things that way and then be disappointed.
I do agree with some previous posts that I think you (and Enns) have written-that the Bible is a place where men wrestle with God. We ask him why things happen; that’s why Ecclesiastes has become one of Enns’ (and my) favorite books (though I recall how much I disliked and wondered at it as a teen) My father told me it was a normal struggle that we go through in learning about the world–how true that turns out to be!
So, Enns was very truthful; I think that he is actually one of those who helps young folks lay down a more firm foundation by allowing the doubt to be dealt with honestly. Thanks.
In the course of my referring back to Isaiah in the last few minutes to see if I could easily lay eyes on a passage or two that were on the edge of memory … I was reminded of this familiar passage from Isaiah 53: " … upon him was the punishment that made us whole, … and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. … By a perversion of justice he was taken away. … Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him with pain."
I wonder what Macdonald’s response was to passages like those? He certainly saw the “perversion of justice” part - but the bald attribution of it all to God was a kind of chutzpah that, since old testament times or since Christ himself, we haven’t seem much exhibited among ourselves today. If I was @Daniel_Fisher, that sure is the kind of stuff I would be throwing in my face (not that you are lacking for material or needing any help in that regard, Daniel). Just being honest that I have my own hangups and unresolved views (and perhaps some scriptural gymnastics) that I seem obliged to do. Better go stretch out.
Enns would say (and if you go to Aish.com, a Hebrew site, they do too) that this was all about Israel’s experience as a suffering servant, and coming to terms with their treatment; and had nothing to do with the Messiah. --so that “he” and “him” was Israel, as I recall (Inspiration and Incarnation, I believe, is the book). You probably know more about that than I; but good discussion!
I’m off to bed; thank you for your insight! I do want to know what George Macdonald would do :).
Well, sure. Okay. I’ll take scholars’ words for that - of course Isaiah (or whomever they want to attribute the book(s) to) would not have known about Jesus in particular. But the fact that his words ended up being prophetic in ways that would have been beyond him at the time is no great problem, is it? I mean - yes. Knowing authorial intent is important, and I think that always a good starting point, but it doesn’t have to be the end-all, be-all of prophetic interpretation, does it? So if New Testament authors make use of it and see Christ there (even if only selectively so) where none before had, I just see that as an encouragement for how scriptures can be re-appropriated beyond what others before us may have been able to do.
Great paper, Marshall. It certainly contrasts with the standard teaching I’ve been exposed to where it was stated that it was OK for Jesus to re-interpret the OT because he was Jesus, but “you’re not Jesus.”
Your use of the image of putting Jesus’ new wine into old wine skins was particularly persuasive.
Dear Marshall,
Thank you for the paper. I mostly quote Matthew so I appreciate the perspective. Specifically the point that Jesus elevated the requirements from just the 10 commandments to the becoming God-like. (Matt 5:48) Few Christians address this point head on and many dismiss it saying that Grace is all that is required. But Matt 5:44-48 is not talking about works, it is talking about what Jesus expects. I am glad this paper points this out also.
Best Wishes, Shawn
Thanks for sharing your paper, Marshall. You bring many treasures out of your house to share!
Here are a couple (among many) quotes from your paper that stood out to me:
It is difficult to say whether Jesus relegates killing on God’s behalf to a past era or repudiates the idea that it was ever God’s intention. Either way, this plotline is set aside in favour of a higher ethic that imitates God.
The above speaks, I think, directly to our back-and-forth on the very topic of this thread.
But if I had to pick out the quintessential heart of the lesson to be gleaned here, the following quote (you quoting Richard B. Hays) was one that really caught my attention:
Longenecker would like to pluck and preserve the flower of apostolic doctrine, but severed from its generative hermeneutical roots that flower will surely wither.
If others don’t see the significance of this here, please go read Marshall’s paper that he shares above. But just a quick explanation for here and now, is that this is a contrast between those who would like to identify [and therefore codify as a fossil for all time] a correct interpretation (i.e. the interpretation that they take to be the original apostolic one) and those who would seek instead to follow apostolically modeled hermeneutic (how they approached and used existing scripture). Or to put this in calculus teacher terms (I can’t resist): Are you more interested in where a function was at some given point (its value) or how it was proceeding (its derivatives)? Not that either side of that would be put away as entirely unimportant - and I don’t think Marshall does that. But I think he compellingly makes the case that those who would neglect the fresh wineskin of that apostolic hermeneutic, will have cut their prized flower off from its roots. And I think the evidenced withering has already been on display.
Thanks again, Marshall - and of course, correct and clarify if I misrepresent anything here.
I think you’re pointing out the challenge when anyone chooses to move beyond studying the Bible to applying the Bible. In the process, inevitably some texts get fronted while others are shuffled farther back. Some become guiding principles while others are culture-bound accommodations.
This also happens if we try to get a picture of God’s nature from the Bible. Often texts like “God is Spirit” form the guiding principle that God doesn’t have a physical body (excepting the incarnation). Then, the pervasive description of God’s body and its various parts are treated as anthropomorphic language rather than actually describing God. Even though the Bible talks about where God’s face is pointed and who it shines upon, what God’s hands and mighty arm are doing, what God’s eyes and ears are perceiving and where God’s feet are resting, all this is considered figurative. To someone who doesn’t agree that “God is Spirit” is a good baseline, it looks like the selection of some Scriptures that resonate with a predetermined view combined with the rejection of others that don’t resonate.
It happens with the Trinity. A few texts that show Father, Son and Spirit define how the rest of the Bible’s God-language is read, even in passages lacking any hint of three-in-oneness. Those who object to the Trinity wonder why Trinitarians don’t reach for greater consistency and dump the Old Testament entirely, since they seem to treat it as whispers and glimmers and third-truths at best.
It happens with hell. Despite the primary images being death, destruction and separation, a text that speaks of unending torment is used to redefine what death, destruction and separation actually mean.
The need to synthesize, if we are going to live by this book rather than just dissect it, doesn’t mean any synthesis is beyond critique. I included the hell example to make that clear, since I don’t think the traditional synthesis respects all of God’s revelation (nor even all of the Bible). Critique is useful, but that’s different than dismissing any need to form an overall conclusion, as if the right view simply drops out of the Bible without any interpretation (or prioritizing) required.
And part of what he “did” was to tell us what he is going to do in the future, no?
I for one do not prefer his words that way. But that is essentially my biggest problem with this entire approach - why should “personal preference” enter into this discussion at all?? It matters not a single bean what either you or I or anyone prefers his words to mean, rather we should be interested entirely, completely, and solely what he meant by them, no?
I grant we should be examining our motives, to make sure as much as possible that our personal preferences are not influencing our interpretation. But I would humbly submit, that it sounds like the danger of “interpretation by personal preference” is squarely on the side of those who would “prefer” to find a Jesus absent of violence, retribution, wrath, or punishment. That would most certainly be my preference also, and so I can honestly say I hold my understanding and interpretation of his words in spite of, and quite fully against, my personal preference.
Personal preference enters in when it comes to personal preference about which interpretive approach to use. There is no way to get around the subjectivity of the fact that you have to choose a best way to get to “solely what he meant,” and lots of personal preferences (or personal beliefs and values, if you would rather call them that than preferences) enter into making that choice.
Absolutely! I think we can presume on the good faith (at least here) of all parties to this discussion that we are all interested in what is really true regardless of how we feel about it. And perhaps this needs repeated stress since it might not always be true in all conversations.
As Christy says above, my/our personal preferences, experiences, conditionings will all unavoidably play into how I / we understand scriptures. But even so, my push back here would still be to think (at least in a believer’s context which we share here) that the more scripturally supportable attributes are that God is merciful, loving, just, and true. So if someone wanted to discard that predominance of biblical teaching to assert a wrathful and vengeful God instead, I would think the scriptural burden to show this departure lies more with them. To be sure, some of Jesus’ words could (by themselves) be enlisted to try building this case. But that is why I also spoke of looking at what he did - because how he lives and lived should give us a good clue to understanding what he taught. And when I do that, the case for the wrathful God just keeps looking worse and worse. His disciples were fairly eager at times to see fire called down from heaven on this or that recalcitrant village. But Jesus rebukes them. And apart from giving the religious elites (and his own disciples) a good verbal dressing down when needed, we just don’t see a picture of a wrathful God. It is telling to me that the only example anybody can ever give of Jesus being “violent” is using a whip to clear out the temple. But most of the time we read of him tenderly ministering to the sinners and outcasts. More along the lines of “…a bruised reed he would not break…” than a raging parent around whom everyone must walk on eggshells lest they set him off. So to me, those are the driving considerations on how we should understand the various proof-texts that are used to paint God in ways that would elevate his wrath as his primary attribute.
Seriously, there is a burden on me to somehow demonstrate that God is portrayed in Scripture as wrathful??? Do I really need to go through the litany of the Bible’s multitudinous descriptions of God’s wrath, vengance, and judgments? The flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Egyptian plagues, snakes, death of Aaron’s sons, The Lord sending poisonous snakes, Fire from the Lord, hell and final judgment, etc., etc.? Or would I need to list the 100s of references to God’s anger, wrath, punishment, and vengeance throughout the Torah, Psalms and all the prophets, and from Christ and other NT writers, and Revelation? I think it is safe to say that any objective observer would say the Bible presents a God who is, among other things, wrathful and vengeful. Someone like Richard Dawkins, who doesn’t find a need to reinvent the God as presented in the Bible, typically has no issue acknowledging and recognizing that the God as presented in the Bible is one who demonstrates wrath and anger.
Perhaps, though, if I understand you rightly, you seem to think that being “merciful, loving, just, and true” is incompatible with being wrathful and vengeful? – you think them mutually exclusive, and therefore we must choose one or the other. Thus, because we find passages that describe God as loving, patient, and merciful, we must reject or explain away or re-interpret the multitudinous passages that describe him as wrathful? This I find terribly problematic:
Firstly, those of us, like me, who “assert a wrathful and vengeful God,” are not “asserting a wrathful and vengeful God instead of one who is merciful, loving, etc.” Nor am I “discarding”any biblical teaching about God’s kindness and mercy and love and tenderness in order to assert him as being wrathful and vengeful. There is no “departure” from the belief that God abounds in lovingkindness, patience, and mercy. I rather embrace both attributes, and frankly, I do so because Scripture does. It portrays God as both loving and wrathful, merciful and vengeful, kind and angry. This is indisputable, self-evident and simply undeniable, no?
Now, if I read you rightly, it seems that you believe these disparate characteristics inherently incompatible, or mutually exclusive - and thus believe that to embrace one entails rejecting the other? Thus if we embrace God as loving, you seem to believe this requires we reject him as being wrathful? You may think this the case, but please don’t project that “either-or,” black & white thinking onto those of us who embrace both these attributes about God’s character - which are affirmed throughout Scripture both OT & NT. Scripture undeniably affirms both, I believe both, and feel no need to choose between them. My affirmation of God’s wrath does not entail a denial of God’s mercy.
Secondly, I’d observe that the idea of seeing God as both loving and wrathful is not some forced interpretation - it isn’t like these two disparate attributes are only found in disparate passages where we could pit one perspective against the other–rather, these two attributes are often uttered in the same breath. “The Lord is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished.” “The hand of our God is for good on all who seek him, and the power of his wrath is against all who forsake him.” “Lord, rebuke me not in your anger, nor discipline me in your wrath. Be gracious to me, O Lord.” “God may turn and relent and turn from his fierce anger, so that we may not perish.” “Through the steadfast love of the Most High he shall not be moved… the Lord will swallow them up in his wrath.” “How long will your wrath burn like fire… where is your steadfast love of old?” “In wrath, remember mercy.” “For God so loved the world…whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already… wheover believes in the son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.”
In short, I deny the “either/or,” thinking that would require we must see God as either loving, or wrathful, but that he cannot be both. I embrace God as vengeful and wrathful as I cannot deny this throughout Scripture both OT&NT, but I do not embrace this “instead” of seeing him as loving - nor does my embrace of this idea does require me to “discard” or “depart” from embracing him as truly and deeply loving, merciful, kind, tender, and patient.
