Title AKA – inadequate answers.
A flat cannon?
I think it is fairly obvious that we are not asked to place all texts at an equal level. This is why to force a pre-determined doctrine of Scripture on the text will eventually lead to issues. Of course there is always the fall-back position of ‘as originally given’… but we do not have the original manuscripts from (say) Moses (or rather the ‘editors’) hands. If we hold to truth is told in the narrative to which we seek to live out under the inspiration of the Spirit in community we do not need to revert to superimposed doctrines that heavily depend on the in- words such as inerrant or infallible.
Those who insisted on being involved in the slave trade had the Bible to defend them, but from where we are today they did not have the trajectory of liberation on their side. The narrative / trajectory gave an greater authority to certain texts over others.
There is an intra-canonical debate
Not all Scripture is in agreement with all other texts. Take three wisdom books. Proverbs give us nice statements and there are any number of texts to choose from should one wish to embrace a ‘blab it and grab it’ theology. But put alongside it Job and the blabbing does not fit too easily. The righteous do suffer. Then jump along to Ecclesiastes and – with few exceptions – we have a somewhat pessimistic presentation: all is vanity and the most fortunate human is a dead one! Agreement – no. But the scene is set with the implicit invitation to enter the debate. The value of Scripture is not simply seeking to understand what does it mean, but how do I read it? What does it mean to me is key. The ‘final exam’ will not be on my biblical knowledge but somehow will relate to the measure to which I embodied what I understood. ‘All Scripture… is useful’; it is to be used / lived out.
Law – a direction (for Israel) not a terminus
There are laws in other ancient cultures that have similarities to the ones we read in our Scriptures. But virtually at every point of comparison the Torah moves the instruction further in a positive (humanitarian) direction. The slavery laws are one example; the ‘lex telionis’ (an eye for an eye…) is another example, limiting the level of response. But a) they are laws given to Israel and as such are as much a constitution for societal government as they are for their worship and b) they point in a direction but they do not arrive. The destination is Jesus, and the summary of the termination is ‘love’ which the New Testament makes clear includes love for the ‘enemy’.
Those aspects above help me enormously for they underline that it is a ‘Jesus lens’ through which we must read all Scripture, as for those who see Jesus as the express image of the invisible God he is the embodiment of the instructions of God. He is the true human one.
And then…
Archaeology is an ongoing activity.If something new is uncovered then at times previous readings of history have to be revised. At the current time not all archaeology accords with what we read in Scripture. Jericho had walls – just not at the time of the Conquest by Joshua; there was an Exodus, just probably not completely as we read. So…?
We should try and avoid putting on Scripture what we consider are the correct criteria, particularly regarding history that is written. We have a phrase that ‘history is written by the victor’ and ancient history was often written with a ‘bias’ (our perspective) to explain how things are as they are currently or to give a defence of who they were as a people. The level of genocide recorded is almost certainly exaggerated and (maybe I am now going to be controversial but it is hard to see it any other way) the words that we read that says ‘God spoke’ are at times more words put in the mouth of God than those that came from God’s mouth. God is misrepresented at times, and inadequately at others. But fully (and only) represented in Jesus, to which the Scriptures keep stretching to witness to.
Coming to the ancient literature (the Bible) we can see even within the same book (by our criteria) that there are contradictions. Did they conquer the whole land? Early in the book of Joshua clearly they had:
So Joshua defeated the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes and all their kings; he left no one remaining but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel had commanded… So Joshua took the whole land (Jos. 10:40; 11:23).
But a few chapters later we read,
Now Joshua was old and advanced in years, and the Lord said to him, “You are old and advanced in years, and very much of the land still remains to be possessed (Jos. 13:1).
Not easy to reconcile those two statements, and it would not have escaped ancient scribes (had we pointed it out) that those statements are not easily reconcilable. Uncomfortable as it is we have to sit with it that we don’t always have history as we think of it, with dates and figures.
Story telling, recounting the past, is so part of ancient culture and it does not simply follow our norms and expectations.
We are invited to read and enter into the story without being under pressure to justify nor to agree with what we read. We run with the narrative for the Scriptures point to Jesus. The cross does not change God (anger to mercy) but reveals God. Yes, I do challenge that God said ‘wipe them out’, and certainly don’t sing songs with arms raised about bashing the brains out of young children of those I have decided are my enemy (and in modern warfare that is fast becoming an ever increasing reality).
These are inadequate answers and could be challenged, corrected, improved or replaced. Whatever solutions we come up with, if we read Scripture through a Jesus-lens we will come across some tough texts but will not come under them and come out the other side as ‘I can’t believe in God’. We have to read Scripture – even those tough places in a way so that they are useful. And useful for me is to be shaped by the God who is revealed in Jesus. The goal of Scripture is not Scriptural knowledge or even understanding, but knowledge of God by the Spirit through Jesus.
A final little note. The biggest issue for the Christian faith is that of suffering. It is compounded by a pre-set of beliefs that come without adequate explanation. God is all-powerful and all-loving: there the issue is increased. A mystery – yes. But I question whether we have a presentation of God as ‘able to do anything that he (and it is a male God at this point) chooses’. Not in this world. Suffering within creation is down to us and the work of liberation is down to us who follow the Lamb. We do need to revise what is meant by ‘sovereignty’ and ‘omnipotence’.
Suffering for the Christian faith is a challenge. For the non-theistic evolutionist the big issue is that of the incredible balance and combination of factors (close to infinite) that have to come together for life to exist. The probability? Add to that all of this came from nothing (something from nothing) and the statistical probability is staggering.
For both Christian and atheist a further challenge. Both love to speak of ‘time began’ – that I consider is an oxymoron!
For the Christian we might come up with better answers than I have, but they will still remain inadequate. Thank God that even in the midst of a lack of understanding we have a God who entered into the pain and suffering of the world – not for God’s sake but for ours… but to express that the Creator God is the redeemer God.
Jesus went beyond the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament. Consider for a moment, the animals were not sacrificed on the altar, but were killed humanely outside. They did not ‘suffer’ as they had to be presented without blemish. The Old Testament points forward… but we have to journey forward. Yes there are Scriptures that ‘fall short’ of a Jesus expression.
I hope I have provoked. I have so much more to read, for,
All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the person of God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.