From: Robert Schneider (rjschn39@bellsouth.net)
Date: Tue Sep 17 2002 - 11:47:16 EDT
Ian in his note below interprets Jesus in Matt. 5:17, 18 as referring to the
"inerrancy" of the scriptures or the law. I think rather that Jesus was
referring to "fulfillment" rather than "inerrancy." He also writes that
"Christ re-affirmed OT stories (Jonah in Mt. 12:38-40)" and adds "Were
Christ's references to Jonah and the flood simply his misunderstanding of
the scriptures? Did He really believe that Jonah was swallowed by a big
fish?" Reading this passage from Matthew I see no reason to conclude
necessarily that Christ thought that the story of Jonah was a historical
fact. One could make a good case that Christ, being a teller of parables
himself, recognized that the story of Jonah is an extended parable, for the
lesson which Christ draws from the story of Jonah is the lesson of that
parable: repentance. That is one "sign of Jonah" Christ clearly refers to.
Another is his using the allusion of Jonah in the fish three days and nights
as an allegory for his forthcoming death and resurrection; the former sign
is wrapped around the latter.
Jesus' reference to the flood in Matt. 24:37-39 needs to be seen as part
of a longer pericope including 36-44. Jesus is using the story of Noah to
illustrate his point that no one knows when the son of Man will come. He
was not making a scientific statement about whether the flood was global or
local, or whether it was historically true or theologically true or both.
One should not assume that Jesus' views about the flood story matched one's
own.
Regarding Christ's references to David in Matt. 12, 3-4, I hope I
haven't overlooked anything, but I have read no posting recently that has
denied the historicity of David. In fact, I see no reason not question the
historicity of the story that Christ refers to, even if there are other
episodes in the David story that combine history with motifs common to
folklore. One again, Jesus was using this story of David and the shewbread
as an illustration of the point he was making that the Son of Man is lord of
the sabbath; he was not arguing with the Pharisees about the historicity of
David.
Let me add that the doctrine of the Incarnation fully affirms Christ's
humanity in Jesus, that, as the author of Hebrews put it, he was in every
respect like us, save without sin. If Jesus was "in every respect like us,"
he had the same kind of knowledge, with its limitations, as his fellow Jews;
and as we do. Why should anyone expect otherwise? As a Baptist minister
friend once said of him, "He didn't know Einstein's theory of relativity
from day one." Jesus was not the omniscient God walking around in a body
(cf. Phil 2:5-11): that Gnostic heresy was the first one condemned by the
Church.
My beef with people who use references like these to claim Jesus on
their side in the debate over literal inerrancy is that they are taking
verses out of context and in doing so mis-taking and mis-reading them. They
should take care not to assume that their own interpretation (or logic) is
God's.
Finally, a few remarks. I have witnessed no one on this list "deride"
any OT story, "or worse." As to the notion that if one does not believe one
thing in the Bible, how can he believe anything in it, or believe what it
has to say about salvation, I do not mean any disrespect to Ian or anyone
else who holds this perspective, but I feel compelled to say that I think
this either/or thinking does a great disservice to the Bible; and I shall
yield to the temptation to say with Jesus, "O ye of little faith."
Bob Schneider
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hassell, Ian C." <hasselli@eucom.mil>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 7:33 AM
Subject: RE: The Flood Hoax
> Jesus (Mt 5:17,18), Paul (2 Tim 3:16,17) and Peter (2 Peter 1:20,21) (and
> there are probably more) all referenced the inerrancy of the "scriptures"
or
> the "law" (they were obviously referring to what we know as the Old
> Testament). Christ on several occasions re-affirmed OT stories (Jonah in
Mt
> 12:38-40, David in Mt 12:3,4 and the flood in Mt. 24:37-39 and Luke
> 17:26-32). Throughout the past 6 months that I've been reading this
> news-post I've seen many pieces of the OT re-explained, negated, derided
or
> worse through claims of those understanding modern science much better
than
> I do. Were Christ's references to Jonah and the flood simply his
> misunderstanding of the scriptures? Did He really believe that Jonah was
> swallowed by a big fish? What are the implications to our acceptance of
the
> OT, and to a larger extent our acceptance of Christ, given these quotes
from
> him? I'm open to debate on the Bible - we are encouraged to "test all
> things" (I Thes 5:21) - but at what point does the Bible's inaccuracy
begin
> to erode our understanding of God? and ultimately the foundation of our
> faith?
>
> If there are errors throughout the Old and New Testaments, how do we know
> the "important" pieces are accurate. How do we know that Jesus said "I am
> THE Way..." and not "I am A Way...". At what point do we lose basis for
our
> faith? This isn't a call to blind faith, rather it's a challenge of
Source
> Authority. Which holds ultimate authority: God's omniscience and
> omnipotence? or the latest interpretations of scientific data?
>
> Why try to measure God by our human standards/logic/reason rather than
seek
> to understand His logic/rationale when the Bible and/or science appear
> confusing and contradicting? Clearly a philosophical debate, but one at
the
> heart of all Biblical interpretation.
>
> Ian Hassell
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 17 2002 - 15:12:18 EDT