The Bible isn't Easy

As I have mentioned earlier, our Bible Study class spent some time reading Adam Hamilton's book, Making Sense of the Bible. I recommend it to you, and when I have the time, I'll write a review of it for the Blog.

Christianity isn't easy, and reading and living the Bible isn't simple. A statement like, "The Bible says it, and that's all there is to it," is difficult to agree with, right from the moment it is said.  Those who make that statement don't live it.

I don't mean that we fall short of what God, through the Bible, tells us to do.  Of course we do.  We don't feed the hungry or care for the homeless or love our enemies.  We try, and we have some success (thanks be to God), but we still fall short, but that's not what I mean.

Hamilton makes the point that even the apostles recognized that parts of the Bible applied only to those to whom it was written, or needed to be reinterpreted, or didn't express God's will for humanity.  Remember the debate in the book of Acts and throughout Paul's letters about circumcision and the necessity of new Christians following the laws laid out in the Hebrew Bible.

My sons weren't circumcised as a sign of the covenant with God, as the Hebrew Bible commands.  My sons were circumcised because it was the accepted and traditional practice.  We must be careful in our Bible interpretation to separate "what we have always believed" from "what is God's will for how we live our lives." I pray that our interpretation of Scripture involves more than a blind acceptance of previous beliefs and is grounded in the hard work of discernment of God's will.

The Bible isn't easy; don't pretend that it is .

Forth Telling

Adam Hamilton, in his book Making Sense of the Bible (chapter 7), says:

When Matthew quotes an Old Testament passage and concludes, "This was to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet," it is helpful to know that the Greek word translated as "fulfill" can also mean "complete."

One of the potential pitfalls of reading books like Isaiah is that we forget that the words were written to a particular audience in a particular circumstance.  We will read them - especially if we are reading just a couple of verses lifted out of context - and we hear only a prophecy predicting the coming of Christ.

I think prophecy is most correctly seen as forth-telling.  The prophets are so close to God and so able to discern God's word, that their prophecies tell forth the truth of God.  For instance, think about the older brother in a family, who has so much experience with the parenting style of the Mom and Dad, as well as experience in life, that he can tell his younger siblings the most likely outcomes of their actions and how their parents will react.  Add to that the image of the family's mom standing close by, whispering to the older brother.  Forth-telling of truth.

Much of what Isaiah spoke was fulfilled nearer the time in which he lived.  These weren't prophesies waiting for Jesus.  But add to that idea that fulfill can also mean complete.  Hamilton says, "Jesus offered a completion, or a climactic redefinition, of what these ancient words meant because Jesus is the climax of God's saving work in the world."

That isn't to say that a beautiful passage like Is 53:5 doesn't speak to us about the coming of Christ:

"But he was pierced for our trasngressions, he was crushed for our iniquities: the punishment that brought us peace wwas on him, and by his wounds we are heaed." doesn't speak of Jesus.  I just mean that it doesn't only speak of Jesus.  

When the big brother speaks of what Mom and Dad will do in a particular situation, doesn't that wisdom have some application in not only the present but also the future?  Could it be that the prophets were so close to God, and had such a communion with God, that their words had present meaning but also future meaning?  Couldn't their words tell truth in the time in which they were speaking but also in the time to come? And wouldn't our understanding of what they were saying be enhanced if we understood all of that?

Who you talkin' to?

Were you surprised yesterday when I quoted Adam Hamilton:  "The question Revelation raises is, will you worship God or will you give primary allegiance to the state?"

I wonder sometimes if we get so caught up in the "puzzle" that is Revelation and in the futuristic interpretation that some people are prone to adopt in our media that we fail to really read the book for what it says and means.  We forget how important it is to know to whom the letter is being written and in what circumstances the original reader found himself. Why would we ever try to understand a letter without knowing to whom it was written?

Once you know that - once you know why Paul was brusque when he wrote the Galatians or why his letter to the church at Philippi was so full of joy or even why John wrote what he did to the seven churches mentioned in Revelation - then the content of the letter makes much more sense.

God certainly speaks to us through these letters, but the author was not writing to us.  To ignore that fact short changes the interpretation of what was written and leads to dangerous and harmful mistakes.

God and Country

As you read this post, don't misunderstand me.  I love our country; I am beyond grateful for the freedom and rights that are assured by the United States.  And yet I wonder sometimes....

In his book, Making Sense of the Bible, Adam Hamilton discusses how we might interpret the Book of Revelation.  This fascinating, beautiful and perplexing scripture was written during a time when the Roman Caesar was worshiped as a god. Hamilton says:

In every age, there is a temptation for the state to deify itself.  And every nation has values and practices that are contrary to those of the kingdom of God.  The state at times seeks to be worshipped and served (it seldom uses these words, but it demands the allegiance of the heart).  And God's people may be tempted to give in and compromise and to accept the state's values.  The question Revelation raises is, will you worship God or will you give your primary allegiance to the state?

I get a little uncomfortable when we sing patriotic songs in worship or when we assume that God blesses the United States more than any other country, as if God has chosen sides.  I have heard of churches torn apart by the question of having a US flag in the church's sanctuary.  Some people's words about God and country make me think that Country is the god they worship.

I think we need to be careful that we worship only God.

Combining?

Our Bible study class is working its way through Adam Hamilton's book, Making Sense of the Bible.  He tells of a second century man named Tatian who created a document called Diatessaron ("made of four") "in which he combined the four Gospels, removing redundant material, fitting the conflicting material together and creating one continuous story from Jesus' birth to his ascension."

Isn't that interesting?  It is a terrible thing to do to the Gospels, but I wonder if we don't do it too.  Think of our nativity scenes, with the wise men standing next to the shepherds.  Think of what we've done to the gospel stories of the women who anoint Jesus with tears or oil - we combine them and make her Mary.  Think of the resurrection portrayal, and how we mix up what each Gospel tells us into one story - or at least we forget that they tell different stories.

The Gospel didn't need Tatian's help to be a coherent, truthful story.  There is much to be learned by what one author included or emphasized.  We learn more from four different account than we would from one mooshed up one.  The differences in the accounts are important, and they tell us important truths and make important points.

Christianity isn't easy, but it is rich and deep and wonderful.