"The holy-inspired, inerrant word of God." When most preachers proclaim this, they have no idea why they're saying what they're saying. In fact, I have heard this phrase misused, misexplained, and misapplied so many times over the years that I'm sick of hearing it. What does it mean anyway? What does it mean to say that the Bible is inerrant when the God of the OT is pictured as a blood-thirsty, genocidal maniac, and Jesus says: "turn the other cheek; if someone takes your cloak, give him your other possessions." What gives? Is the God of the OT really the same as the God of the NT? Were the church fathers correct when they included the Torah and the Tanech as part of the Bible?
Without the benefit of Jesus, most persons interpreted their relationship with God to be based upon what they brought to the equation, to be based upon living "good" lives. There were a few that realized that our relationship to God is grace-based, not works-based. Typically, they were so few that they were called the "remnant." (Even today, with the benefit of Jesus, most of us interpret our relationship with God in this way. In fact, Scofield compares the true, invisible church to the "remnant." For that matter, for many more years than not, the visible church has placed its emphasis on the works of man, rather than the grace of God.) The Jews also believed that, if God was on their side, then He would destroy their enemies. These two profound misunderstandings were dispatched by Jesus.
Jesus told us that, if we were going to get to God based upon our works (as the Pharisees were trying to do), then we must be perfect, letting us know that we can never get to God through our own efforts. Our response is to give up, fall on our knees, say "Uncle," and then simply receive the love of God. This is referred to as grace--God's disposition towards man is to always be gracious. Jesus also let us know that God wasn't about killing our enemies. Jesus told us to "love our enemies." That is completely antithetical to what the Jews believed. As I mentioned in a prior blog, it is the fact that Jesus broke with the teachings of Moses that resulted in Him being placed on The Cross.
So, were the Jews errant when they wrote the books of the OT? Were the books of the OT "holy-inspired" or not? Given that Jesus referred time and time again to the books of the OT, we must give careful attention to the OT. If we do, we see that the Jews got it, but didn't get it entirely. They got it to the degree that God wanted them to get it. It is Jesus' life and teachings, juxtaposed against the legalism of the religion into which He was born, that gives Christianity its remarkable vitality and insight into the nature of man and the love of God.
First, God told Abraham to be perfect. So, the standard was the same. However, it appears that most Jews interpreted the Ten Commandments as legalistic requirements that could be fulfilled, rather than a mirror to reveal our imperfections and turn us to God's grace. Yet, the stories of the OT are filled with stories of broken people being loved and rescued by God--Abraham (tried to give Sarah to the Pharaoh for sex; seriously considered sacrificing his son, only to be stopped at the last minute by God); David (adulterer and murderer); Sampson (and Delilah); and it goes on and on. It appears to have been God's plan for the Jews to be legalistic so that Jesus' advent and teachings (that He came to satisfy the Law) would be that much more radical, that much more glorifying to God, and that much more life-changing for us. The same is true of the visible church today--it's legalism (and corresponding hypocrisy) is a foil for true Christianity--which is comprised of sinners living solely by the grace of God. In other words, if Jesus had simply been a foil for an immoral religion, His teachings would have lacked profundity. Instead, Jesus was a foil for a religion based upon morality. He was, and is, the most radical person to have ever lived. His love, for the sinners and outcasts, is the most radical love ever expressed. His love for man is the same love that we see reflected in the OT.
Second, the Jews lived in a violent age. It was natural for them to view success in battle as a blessing from God. Sometimes, as a people, we have no choice but to fight. In our age, World War II was such a situation. If you view the events of World War II, and the miraculous resolution of the European Theater and the Asian Theater, it sure appears that a divine hand was at work for good in the world. So, maybe the Jews weren't mistaken that God was fighting their battles. Interpreted in this light, Jesus is teaching that, deep down, we are really no different from our enemies. So, we should be loathe to institute violence. We may need to respond to violence in a violent fashion, but the violent response should be our last recourse, not our first.
So, maybe now, I can quit wincing when I hear the phrase--the "holy-inspired, inerrant word of God." Maybe I can exult in this phrase--I sure have come to exult in the stories (and the metanarrative) of the Bible.
No comments:
Post a Comment